Category Archives: Politics: US

This is great. I hope we see a lot more of it.

Congress and the Benefits of Sunshine: Representative-elect Kirsten Gillibrand has decided to post details of her work calendar on the Internet at the end of each day so constituents can tell what she is actually doing for their money.

In fact, it is a quiet touch of revolution. The level of transparency pledged by Ms. Gillibrand, Democrat of New York — down to naming lobbyists and fund-raisers among those she might meet with — is simply unheard of in Congress. The secrecy that cloaks the dealings of lawmakers and deep-pocket special interests underpinned the corruption issue that Ms. Gillibrand invoked as voters turned Republicans from majority rule last month.

For all the worthy proposals for ethics reform being hashed out by the incoming Congress, a heavy dose of Internet transparency should not be overlooked in the effort to repair lawmakers’ tattered credibility. The technology is already there, along with the public’s appetite for more disclosure about the byways of power in Congress.

The Web is increasingly wielded by both campaign donors and bloggers clicking and tapping as wannabe muckrakers. Politicians would be wise to catch up. Local citizens were enlisted to track pork-barrel abuses in the last campaign by a new watchdog organization, the Sunlight Foundation, which enlisted Ms. Gillibrand’s disclosure pledge. It aims to have voters use the Internet as an engine of political information.

Thin edge of the populist wedge!

Daily Kos peruses Senate arcana in Could Johnson’s absence throw the Senate into chaos? to speculate as to various GOP strategies to prevent Democratic control.

It’s well worth a read.

I just want to point out one thing: every single strategy described here, including filibustering the organizing resolution, would work equally well (or poorly) if Sen. Johnson were hale and present. So it’s hard to see how they would be more (or less) justified by his illness, so long as the Senators present were still split 50-49 in favor of the Democrats.

Update: More goodies from Jonathan Singer at MyDD.

Pelosi endorsed Murtha. Hoyer won big. David Sirota spins ‘Hoyer Beats Murtha’ so well that I would end up believing him if I could bring myself to care about this race.

That said, it’s a little eerie to contemplate that when the last Speaker to usher in a revolutionary-change-of-party Congress took office, his first act was to back a losing candidate for the #2 job: In 1994, Newt Gingrich’s choice for Majority Whip, Robert Walker, was defeated by … Tom DeLay.

Let’s hope history won’t repeat itself too much.

Billmon is perplexed: how did it happen that the Reagan Democrats have started sounding like ’70s left-liberals?

I suspect that it’s all about betrayal. The Reagan Dems felt betrayed by the left, because it gave them disrespect (and empowered women and minorities while white guys were having status anxiety), because they blamed the Left for “losing Vietnam”, and because when times weren’t good Reagan promised shiny tax cuts without pain (remember the Laffer curve?).

Slow to change, slow to change back, but not stupid. The Reagan Dems are concluding that they’ve been betrayed (they’d say “again”), and they’re mad about it. They still don’t get respect, this time for having the wrong bank balance instead of the wrong sexual politics. They blame the Right for Iraq, and who wouldn’t? Times if anything feel worse, but those tax cuts turned out be worth $50, raises lag medical insurance inflation, and the idea that today’s tax cuts for rich folks are tomorrow’s tax increases for the rest of us is starting to take hold –the checkbook metaphor is a powerful one for folks who feel economically precarious.

Meanwhile gays turned out not be so scary now that they’re out of the closet and are revealed to be real folks, like the neighbor’s kid. Throw in the GOP’s corruption, and Reagan Democrats need a new home. The DLC is just Reagan Lite, so that’s no use. Why not economic populism? The only strange thing about it is having populist leaders willing to argue for their followers’ true interests…

By any measure — except the inflated spin of Republican commentators who tried to move the goalposts — this is an historic victory for the Democratic party, even if they don't end up with a Senate majority. They have a real margin in the House, and picked up several governorships.

More importantly, the candidates elected to the House and Senate are by and large much smarter and more progressive than any entering class since 1994.

What does it mean? I think it means three things:

• Voters gave Democrats a mandate for change and accountability. Or to put it more bluntly, the people decided that an intervention was needed for this administration.
• The pocketbook is back as an issue: just talking about tax cuts is no longer a winning strategy. America looked in its wallet and purses, saw that the tax cuts weren’t there – and neither were any raises.
• And, post-Katrina and Iraq, people are warming to the idea that incompetent government is a bad thing – and that good government might just be worth paying for.

According to reports, Fidel Castro is alert and being briefed. And I’m thinking, why didn’t we get a president like that?

—David Letterman