Harold's Left:

Their arrogance is unnerving. I will make this quick, but does anyone else think it's silly for Bob McDonnell to give his Republican response to the President's State of the Union address in front of 'his' bicameral house in Virginia. Well, if you don't, here's why you should...

Because it is yet another example of the Right's arrogance and disrespect of the Obama presidency. We all talked about this at length this summer, but the vestiges of Republican arrogance have certainly not dissipated. Based on the news you'd believe that Democrats were a party that was on the quick decline with little power. However, we have an unprecedented majority in the House and Senate, and a president who's approval rating has just gone back up over 50%. Granted we may (and probably will) take some hits in November, but let's not get carried away and start giving Republicans everything they want.

I wrote a piece awhile back about how Obama may want to take some attributes of W. Which sounds weird initially but makes some since in the end. When would you ever hear a conservative Republican like Bush try so hard to make a point to "govern from the center". Obama needs to show passion for the progressive ideals that got him elected. Period. However, he needs to stand above the childish and insubordinate moves of the Republican party's response which is meant to simulate a "presidential" environment.

Mr. President. Don't placate the Republicans. Tell America who they really are. A group of obstructionists who don't care about the welfare of the people. A group who will stop progress at all costs. A group who's ideals have always been on the losing side of history. Nail them to the wall Obama and give us a reason to believe again.

Harold's Left:

With the State of the Union address just a few days away, the President has a lot of figuring out to in the aftermath of the the loss of the Massachusetts senate seat formerly held by the late Teddy Kennedy. First, let's just reveal a bit in how telling this defeat is. Brown ran a splendid campaign, period. Regardless of the fact that I think he will be awful for the people of Massachusetts. He made several brilliant moves. One of them was iterating over and over that this was not "Ted Kennedy's seat", but rather "the people's seat". Which is indeed true. Second, he capitalized on a terrible candidate in Coakley. He shook hands with voters in the freezing cold while Coakley simply scoffed at the idea.

I'm certainly not here start a love fest for Scott Brown, however I think his win, along with others, shows a changing paradigm in both parties as to how candidates win elections.

This past summer I read a wonderful book called "The Last Campaign", about the last several weeks of Bobby Kennedy's presidential bid in 1968 that ended in his assassination. One of the resonating and interesting themes in the book was the tension between Kennedy and others in the Democratic establishment, as he was running against an incumbent Democratic president. Despite that, Kennedy believed that Johnson's advancement of the Vietnam War was the wrong course of action. He believed this so strongly that he ended losing his life for it. However, the pertinent lesson here was that Democratic politics (and similarly Republican politics as well) was all about who was next in line to fill a particular position. If you were VP, you ran for President. If you were Attorney General of a State you ran for Governor. When picking any position it seemed parties looked to the next person in line.

As we have seen over the last few years in politics, as the public becomes increasing inundated by the 24 hour news cycle, and a political campaigns and candidates become more savvy, "who's next" has less of an effect. We only need to look at Obama to see this. In 2004 he was a state senator in Illinois and certainly not "who's next" to be the President of the United States. Hillary Clinton was, and we all know how that turned out.

Similarly, that's what hurt us (progressives) in this election in Massachusetts. We nominated someone who was next up for a shot to be Senator, as opposed to evaluating someone who could be humble and brilliant enough to win. That's the greater lesson here for the midterms. A poor campaign that does not connect with people will not win, period. How silly was it for Coakley to just assume that she would be a shoe-in. To think that voters would just hand her the seat. The reason she lost was not a referendum on Obama. How could it have been when she had a 17-point lead in December? What was the variable that caused her lead to evaporate? Her cavalier attitude, her forwardness in taking voters for granted, and her tone deafness to the people of Massachusetts.

Moreover, the over-arching theme here is that Democrats should not just look for who is the next in line to become the nominee for a specific position. Our progressive political machine must be fluid, smart, and flexible. If someone looks like a bad fit, they probable are. Let's learn this lesson and fight in 2010.

Harold's Left:

There is an important trend happening in American politics. Paul Krugman, noted progressive economist and thinker, explains in his wonderful book Conscience of a Liberal that part of the reason that America has not been nearly as progressive in initiatives like health care and corporate regulation as Western Europe and Japan is because America has a fixation with race that has hindered this growth. It's an interesting proposition. Krugman basically says that the reason whites in the Mid West, Appalachia, and the Deep South have continued to vote against candidates who support policies to help poor and working class Americans is because many people have been convinced by the right-wing communication machine that supporting working class rights is supporting minority advancement.

A classic example of this was in the early 1980's when President Ronald Reagan illustrated the blame for the cause of what he called the "welfare state'. He said that there was essentially some over-weight, under-educated black woman in Chicago who was popping out kids and living off you (you of course means the blue-collar white). He called this notion the "Welfare Queen". Since then, and perhaps before that, there has been this intrinsic part of conservative politics that plays on the fears of some whites that if they support social programs they are underhandedly supporting minorities and more importantly; they are supporting lazy folks who do not deserve their tax dollars.

If you are a Republican strategist, it is a brilliant policy, and perhaps a necessary one. A policy that is at the underbelly of some of the dissent against health care reform. So I have been asking myself: Why are Americans willing to pay over 800 trillion dollars for an illegitimate war in Iraq, but yet willing to listen to the nickel-and-diming of the Right on health care reform? Now, an important caveat is that when I say "willing to pay" regarding Iraq, I don't say that because Americans were supportive of the war, I say that because you almost never heard politicians nickel-and-diming it's appropriation. So, based on that here are a couple of important things to think about: One is that much of the criticism one would hear on health care reform from the average person is that "I don't want to pay to help someone else". This notion poses an interesting quandary. Why is it that folks are willing to spend bundles of money to help folks in far corners of the world with their tax dollars and the lives of their sons and daughters, but are not willing to help fellow Americans. Many, including Krugman and myself, would argue that there has been a consistent and effective attempt in the U.S. to link social help to helping the lazy "welfare queen". Secondly, history shows that money has been used as a way to traditionally support the nixing of social progress. Many who attempted to look unbiased in the 1800's argued that the American economy was too tied to slavery and would fail without it. Many argued that opening public places to blacks in the South would drive away the very white customers who made them successful and would end up costing the American economy money. And when MLK day was argued in the Senate the bigots used the loss of an American workday as a justification for not honoring his contribution.

In the present we see a growing trend of whites moving away from progressive politics. As many of us discussed this summer, the Republican party has used the election of a black president and his promotion of social programs as an interesting way to make the racial divide a growing part of our political future.

Harold's Left:

Riddle me this... How is it that the Senate seat of one of our most beloved progressive heroes, Ted Kennedy, could be lost because a potentially moronic and horrifically run campaign by Martha Coakley could potentially derail the President's agenda and be the beginnings of a resurgence of the obstructionist agenda of the Republican Party. Here's why:

1. It would crush health care reform and any semblance of a progressive agenda

Health Care reform is in a precarious predicament without the possibility of losing Ted Kennedy's Senate seat. If we do lose this seat, then we can forget doing almost anything useful for the next several years. As I mentioned a few days ago, Republicans have changed Senatorial protocol by using the threat of the filibuster to force cloture votes at a rate since 2006 that is three times that of any other time in history. So, can you imagine what will happen if we don't have a 60 (even if that includes Joe the Dummy) vote majority? Yeah... nothing.

2. Fox News and the Right will make it a referendum on Obama

If Coakley losses, even if it is because of her mismanaged campaign, the Right will use it as a way to claim this is about Obama. And can you blame them? If we loss Massachusetts. MASSACHUSETTS. That's like the Republicans losing Utah. How can we blame them for attacking Obama on it. Not only that, it's the Senate seat of the most important liberal senator of the last century. You can bet that if we lose this, Fox News will beat the drum off Tea Party nonsense and a Republican resurgence.


Folks. If you are in Massachusetts, please go out and vote tomorrow. If for nothing else to uphold the legacy and the lifelong work of Ted Kennedy. It would be an absolute disaster if we lose this seat. We cannot let this happen. I will be making calls tonight to voters in Massachusetts and I don't even live there. Let's not let it happen.

Harold's Left:

Over 20 years ago there was a struggle to elevate a man who moved American history in a way few others have. During the early 1980's, the Republican Party was up in arms over the proposal of a national holiday to celebrate the legacy of MLK. President Reagan threatened to veto, and Senator Jesse Helms threatened to veto the bill. Opponents, who tried to use all sorts of excuses to cloud their racism; that it would be too costly to create another federal holiday, that it would be unfair to elevate so ethnic leader to a position of national prominence, and that he was too much of a leftist and possibly a communist.

The reality is that King and his legacy represent the best of what it has meant to lover this country. He used a keen respect for the founding values of America to challenge folks who were intent on denying them for centuries. King has been elevated to a level that has surpassed most of the former Presidents of this country, as is also evidenced a new Washington memorial between the Washington and Lincoln memorials now being called the "line of liberty".

On today, we celebrate the legacy of one of the most important progressives of the 20th century.

Harold's Left:

At this point I'm certain that everyone has heard about Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's comment about President Obama. His comments are detailed in the new Washington gossip book Game Change, "He [Reid] was wowed by Obama's oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama - a 'light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,' as he later put it privately."

So of course this introduces a myriad of issues. Is it acceptable language? Does he have a point? Does this compare to former Senator Trent Lott's comments? Finally, what does this say about American race relations?

I'm certain that if Harry Reid could take his comments back he would. They are of incredibly poor taste, even if he's saying something that many people would perhaps agree with. However, Reid understands the political dynamic that exists in America when it comes to race. Moreover, this is not just a political dynamic, but one the exists in nearly every facet of American life. The reality is that if Barack Obama, regardless of his intellectual ability, was darker, more Southern, and spoke in a way that was more like Dr. King, he may have had a tougher time getting elected, period.

In my personal life I am aware of this.

Does Harry Reid have a point? Absolutely, if anything this says more about the rest of America's views toward African-American culture than about Harry Reid's racial attitudes.

What's most despicable here is the right-wing's reaction to this. Bozos like Michael Steele and his Republican cronies are calling for his resignation and that there is a double-standard for conservatives. There isn't. Trent Lott said that America would have been a better place if segregationist presidential candidate Strom Thruman would have been elected. That is completely different than saying that Barack Obama will be a strong presidential candidate because of the realities of American culture. What's more is that Sen. Reid has a long history of fighting for issues of social justice, while Trent Lott had a history of being aligned with segregationist organizations in Mississippi like the CCC (Conservative Citizens Council formerly know as the White Citizens Council) and voting against the MLK holiday that we will celebrate this coming weekend.

The more stunning and important issues are the comments of Clinton and Blagojevich.

Harold's Left:

1. The "Tea Party Patriots" will assert themselves as a huge influence on the Republican Party

As evidenced by the RNC's lackluster chairman Michael Steele's comments that "if I wasn’t doing this job, I’d be out there with the tea partiers,” The Republican Party, or the conservative movement as a whole is moving in an alarming direction. As we all know, the Tea Party movement, which derives its misguided name from the Boston Tea Party, is against all things government, equality, and justice. Theirs is a movement seemingly more rooted in intolerance of progress than sound public policy. Where was the Tea Party movement when government spending exploded under the Bush administration? Where were they when the deficit mushroomed starting in 2001? Is it merely a coincidence that they spring to life when America elects a black, progressive president? Hardly. The Tea Party movement is this: One which sees it's goal as 'preserving' some silly notion of America that has never really existed. "Sarah Palin's America", in which diversity is a crutch, religious freedom is nonexistent, and progress is loathed. Despite these qualities, their movement gains more and more followers on the Right, and will be a force to be reckoned with in 2010.

2. National security will begin to over-shine Obama's domestic agenda

Once the cause of health care reform fades in the coming months (although it will still be a big issue this November in the midterm elections) expect national security to pick up the mantle as the issue of the day next to the economy. Obama will have the extraordinary challenge of showing how his decision to send 30,000 more troops to the mountains of Afghanistan is really making America safer (I for one don't see it at all). He'll also have the serious challenge of confronting our enemies as they coalesce in places like Somalia, Yemen, and Indonesia. On top of that Iran may indeed be producing nuclear weapons underground, which could prompt airstrikes from Israel. There is no more important task for any American president, particularly a post 9/11 one, than keeping America safe.

3. Republican gains in the midterms will make legislation nearly impossible

It's inevitable that Republicans will pick up lots of seats in both the House and the Senate while it's unlikely they will garner majorities in either house given their sizable numbers disadvantage at the moment. However, what seems nearly certain is that governance will come to a screeching halt because of it. Despite the fact that our Founders did not intend for this, the filibuster and it's threat have become the exclusive legislating tactic for the obstructionist Republican party. Since Democrats gained a majority in 2006, the threat of the filibuster has caused the use of cloture votes, asking for a 60 seat approval, to skyrocket. Given that a 60 vote majority will be impossible on any issue that the Obama administration wants to push after the midterms, expect the Democratic agenda to come to a screeching halt.

Harold's Left:

The conservative marching band has done what we all knew they would. They can't help it. The impulse to be overly intolerant is so strong it's like a vampire looking for its next feed. The National Review Online has called for this to be the strategy for detainees:

Step (1): Return all Gitmo detainees to Yemen.

Step (2): Use Predator missiles to strike the baggage-claim area 20 minutes after they arrive.

Cute right? Yeah... not so much.

Moreover, former U.S. general officer Tom McInerney calls on Fox News for all 18 to 28 year old Muslim men to be strip searched.

Okay, so let's get this straight first. It is a reality that the majority of the threats from people who are both American citizens and foreigners in the last decade to the sanctity of American life have been folks of Muslim decent (while I would argue also right-wing extremism has been a formidable threat as well). We would indeed be ignorant to ignore the fact all of the 9/11 terrorists were Muslim and this young Nigerian man was also Muslim. However, the problem with profiling Muslims is the same one that would be true if we were profiling Christians; everyone looks different. Furthermore, only about 1/4 of Muslims are of Arab decent, there are simply millions and millions of others that are black, white, and everything in between. Not only that, blanket profiling, which has been a stalwart of the right-wing since America's inception, nearly always leads to negative consequences. During World War II, conservatives, in an effort to "keep America safe", put tens of thousands of Japanese-Americans in internment camps even though some of them were the family members of men serving in that very war.

The job of progressives is to ensure that American safety is the ultimate issue, but American values are equally as paramount. President Obama has said it time and time again that "our values are our security".

The fact is that this young misguided terrorist, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, looks just as likely to be from Balitmore as Nigeria, and given that he was traveling from a European country, and not some failed-state terrorist sponsoring nation, it seems that the calls for profiling, save his name, would have been fairly unsuccessful. Moreover, how much damage will we do to other law abiding citizens because of their names? Will we strip search the woman who has the matron of honor at my wedding who is Muslim, or my college buddy who is a graduate of the Wharton School of Business and works on Wall Street who is also Muslim with a Muslim-sounding name? Or even better my good friend who is a Special Forces soldier and has a Muslim-sounding name?

As we monitor the knee-jerk from this unsuccessful attack lets be sure to point out the ongoing buffoonery of the conservative movement.