In case you have not heard by now, Open Left's service provider, Soapblox, is currently in serious trouble. Given that Open Left is the largest website on Soapblox, and that BlogPac has given more money to Soapblox than any other organization (for the past two years, we have paid the hosting fees for almost all of the fifty-state blogs, and also invested money to improve server security), this had me in a near state of panic for a while. Fortunately, the crisis seems to be temporarily receding--for now.
This is a reminder of how much progressive infrastructure is operated on a shoestring. Soapblox was run by a single person as a part-time job even though, collectively, Soapblox websites--including most local blogs, Open Left, Pam's House Blend, Swing State Project, My Left Wing--had more than 100,000 readers a day. As Matt Glazer writes at Burnt Orange Report, another Soapblox dependant site:
Our site, along with nearly 100 others, are run on the SoapBlox platform. That is hundreds of thousands of eyes across the nation who use SoapBlox and never knew it.(...)
Again, Burnt Orange Report and our data seem to be in working order and intact. But if SoapBlox is down and fails to return, nearly 90% of the statewide blog infrastructure must reorganize. Nationally that means state and local sites are no longer able to cover their state legislative sessions or city, state, or statewide races.
In the long run, this outage (temporary or permanent) directly hurts all of us.
Paul developed and maintained SoapBlox for little money and no fame. In fact, SoapBlox is just a part time job for Paul, and like many of us that do this, we are required to have paid full time jobs in order to maintain and run our online projects. Today highlight why this systemic problem must be fixed long term.
While everything is in flux right now, later today BlogPac will start a "Save Soapblox" campaign to make sure that this never happens again, and to generally improving progressive blogosphere infrastructure. I will have more details when they are available, but for right now, BlogPac is on the new Better Democrats 2010 page. I know we are in a recession, but any contribution you can give in this time of crisis will be used to help keep Soapblox operational.
This is our first endorsement of the 2009-2010 election cycle, and the start of our Better Democrats 2010 page--Chris
Look, if you've read my work at all, you know I don't have a lot of good things to say about lots of politicians, and I don't spend my time shilling for anyone simply because they have a D behind their name. So I hope you take that into consideration when you read what I'm about to write:
As the Washington Post reports today, Tom is running in the March 3rd special election primary in Illinois' 5th district to replace Rahm Emanuel - one of the worst influences on Democratic politics in a generation. The idea that a lawmaker as soulless as Emanuel could be replaced with a progressive - any progressive - is an amazing thought. The idea that he could be replaced with one of the greatest living progressives in America is beyond amazing - it should make you contribute whatever you can right now.
As I said to start, I don't use phrases like "one of the greatest living progressives in America" often - if ever. But I mean it when I say it about Tom. I've written two columns about him in the last year (here and here), and if you've read any of his work, you know why I use superlatives to describe him.
Building on the 2006 class that gave Democrats a majority, this freshman class serves to broaden a moderate coalition considered more conservative on social issues, particularly in the House. The Democratic leadership almost certainly will be mindful - as it was in the 2008 election - of the members' individual vulnerabilities, especially since several were elected by extraordinarily narrow margins.
Gary C. Jacobson, an expert on Congress and a professor at the University of California/San Diego, described the cumulative impact of the 2006 and 2008 elections: "I think the effect is to move the Democratic caucus somewhat to the right and if it wants to stay as large as it is now, it has to accommodate these folks.
"You're not going to see any wild, left-wing policymaking," he added. "You're not going to get the Berkeley wish-list out of this crowd."
It has been a consistent refrain here at Open Left that progressives have made substantial gains in the U.S. House, and are now in control of the chamber. However, is the New York Times right, and has the House actually moved to the center rather than the left?
The New York Times is wrong. In the extended entry, I explain why.
Reid stated, "I don't believe in the executive power trumping everything... I believe in our Constitution, three separate but equal branches of government."
"If Obama steps over the bounds, I will tell him. ... I do not work for Barack Obama. I work with him," he said.
Of course, in the same interview Reid says Democrats must be "very, very careful" to avoid overreaching - which implies that Reid's comments about not "stepping over the bounds" is about Obama going too far to the left (signals suggest he has nothing to worry about on that score). So, when you put those two statements together, it may be that Reid is saying that he wants to assert congresional power in stopping Obama from moving left.
All of that said, I agree with the spirit of Reid's comments on executive power and Congress's constitutional responsibilities. We need an active Congress - not a politburo. A vibrant legislative branch is what democracy is all about.
It is has been widely reported that Americans strongly support the job Barack Obama has been doing as President-elect. Honeymoon period. Not surprising except the level of support (exceeding 70 percent in some polls) is very high. My assumption, however, was that the 25-30 percent who don't support him would really dislike him (W loyalists).
According to Rasmussen polling that was the case in the days after the election: 32 percent of those polled strongly disapproved. But that has changed rather dramatically over the last two months:
As you can see, in the most recent poll only 13 percent say they strongly disapprove.What caused this sharp decline? Here are some possibilities:
1. The public likes the job Obama is doing during the transition. The cabinet picks, the press conferences, etc. The "centrist" picks reassure worried Republicans.
2. Some former "haters" have just gotten used to the idea of Obama as President. Some may still disapprove, just not "strongly." Others may be at least tepid supporters at this point.
3. Bandwagon effect. Since so many people seem so happy with him, disapprovers have given up saying they strongly disapprove. I'd be inclined to give this some credence except Ramussen uses robocalls and there's really no peer pressure keeping the respondent from answering honestly.
4 (my favorite). The months of negative attacks on Obama, calling him a terrorist symphathizer or even a secret terrorist leader, the anti-Christ, etc. scared many people into not just opposing Obama but being fearful. Without the constant barage of negative messaging, voters are beginning to see Obama in a different light.
It doesn't seem the Blagojevich story has done much to keep the "strong disapprovers" strongly disapproving. Because no evidence has emerged to refute the widely reported story that Obama would offer Blagojevich nothing but "gratitude" this episode may have helped Obama in many voters' eyes.
I know the term "dittohead" has long been used to describe the unfathomably large number of mindless conservative zombies in America who simply regurgitate what their Orwellian hypnotists in the conservative movement tell them to think. But after this week, I have a new appreciation for the "ditto" in the term. I'm not joking - I've been attacked by the batshit crazy wing of the Republican Party, and I've received scores, maybe even hundreds of emails that are almost word-for-word exactly like this one I got tonight about my latest newspaper column:
Mr Sirota - I read your column "A little fact-checking over FDR and Depression debunks new myths" in my local newspaper this morning. I have a concern with what you describe as "fact-checking." You presented no evidence or arguments...
Some of the new points of view we hear lately concerning the Depression comes from discussions of Amity Shlaes book, "The Forgotten Man." (She's a senior fellow in economic history at the Council of Foreign Relations, by the way, which means she probably knows more about economic history than Paul Krugman or Daniel Gross)...
Have you ever even read anything by America's greatest living economist/thinker/philosopher Thomas Sowell? As Mr Sowell has repeatedly stated, facts matter.
Of course, my column about FDR and the success of the New Deal is chock full of verifiable, easy-to-understand facts and data.
For instance, the column notes that "Excepting 1937-1938, unemployment fell each year of Roosevelt's first two terms (while) the U.S. economy grew at average annual growth rates of 9 percent to 10 percent" - a verifiable, undebatable fact. It notes that the only time the New Deal didn't produce positive economic results was when FDR momentarily backed off the New Deal and balanced the budget - again, a verifiable, undebatable fact. It notes that even conservative icons like Milton Friedman have said that the New Deal's key banking laws like the creation of the FDIC were key to undergirding the U.S. economy - again, not debatable. And, of course, we have the U.S. government's own Census data* telling us that the pre-WWII New Deal period saw the single largest drop in the unemployment rate in American history.
Obviously, the people who read my column read all these facts, and just decided they don't want to accept them. And by the intensity of the reaction to this specific column (not kidding - it has generated the most anger of anything I've written), it's clear the Right is really rallying around the "FDR Sucks!" meme as their way to derail progressives in 2009. So, as the dittohead referenced above does, they cite two "authorities" from the extreme conservative fringe.
Liberal Democrats begin the new session at a high-water mark in the House. Democratic aides say liberals account for more than half of the party's 257 seats and will wield gavels on nearly two-thirds of the 21 full committees.(...)
"It's going to be a progressive Congress. There's no doubt about that. It's been a long time coming,'' said Obey, whose office resembles a shrine to the glory days of progressivism, including a photo of Sen. Robert M. LaFollette of Wisconsin (1906-1925), the hero of progressives.(...)
The Congressional Progressive Caucus, with a projected membership of more than 80 - 75 current members and an expected small batch of freshman recruits - has pushed for a $1 trillion economic recovery package that includes a refundable child tax credit and worker training funds.
The liberals say they can also count on support from some House Democrats who aren't part of the Progressive Caucus.
The article also explains how organizing rules of the U.S. House were changed in order to allow committee chairs to serve more than three terms. This will overwhelmingly benefit progressives, who wield most of the current committee chairs.
Well, it's the New Year and a new political season, so why should we expect anything other than raw, unadulterated presidentialism from the Beltway? That's what this Wall Street Journal story is all about - creating the belief that subservience and worship of the president - ie. presidentialism - is the Responsible and Serious Course of Action for a U.S. Congress that is constitutionally obligated to act as an equal branch of government:
Cross-posted from the Campaign for America's Future
On Christmas Eve, I appeared on Fox News to discuss the upcoming economic recovery package, only to be told that FDR's New Deal "prolonged the Great Depression" (you can watch the clip here). This is the latest consevative talking point - one specifically aimed at stopping President Obama and the new Congress from passing a New Deal-sized package of public spending.
And so after appearing on Fox, I decided to devote my first newspaper column in the New Year to looking into whether conservatives have any shred of evidence to support their claim that the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression. And what do you know, they don't...at all. In fact, as government data shows, the pre-WWII New Deal era from 1933-1940 - even including the much-hyped recession of 1937-38 - saw the single biggest drop in the unemployment rate in American history (skip down to see the graphs and data that conservatives want us to forget).
Help us sustain our work by taking our reader survey. If you've already taken it, just click on the link, and your responses will be added to our results.
Look, if you've read my work at all, you know I don't have a lot of good things to say about lots of politicians, and I don't spend my time shilling for anyone simply because they have a D behind their name. So I hope you take that into consideration when you read what I'm about to write:
