The Blue State

Democrats not pushing minimum wage issue hard enough

There is often a misconception that Democrats focus on the wrong issues in the run-up to each election.  I would actually argue that the Democrats push the right issues, however they are often much more cautious than Republicans when doing so -- which is the true problem here.

GOP strategists are incredibly talented when it comes to putting yummy frosting on their somewhat homophobic position on gay marriage, and their overly jingoistic stance on flag burning.  You at least have to give those strategists credit for making red meat out of tofu.  Of course, those two positions, if enacted, would neither prevent gay people from privately marrying nor prevent flag burning from taking place.  Yet, the Republican base gets so fired up when those issues are addressed because they are preached with so much passion.

The Democrats have such a great opportunity to rally the base via the minimum wage issue, which unlike the flag burning or gay marriage amendments has a profound impact on families all across this country.  But as usual, the Democrats have yet to use it to light a fire under their base and attract new voters to their party.

If you do not believe me that the minimum wage issue can help the Democrats, consider the following NBC News poll released this month:

I'm going to read you some positions that someone running for Congress could take. For each one, please tell me whether you would be more likely to vote for a candidate for Congress who takes this position, less likely to vote for this candidate, or would it not make a difference to you either way?

Favors adding an amendment to the Constitution that bans flag burning: More Likely - 44%, Less Likely - 27%, No Difference - 27%, Unsure - 2%

Favors adding an amendment to the Constitution that bans gay marriages: More Likely - 37%, Less Likely - 39%, No Difference - 22%, Unsure - 2%

Favors increasing the minimum wage from five dollars and fifteen cents per hour to six dollars and sixty-five cents per hour: More Likely - 54%, Less Likely - 25%, No Difference - 20%, Not Sure - 1%

As you can see, voters care more about minimum wage than both gay marriage and flag burning.  The Democrats need to focus more attention on this issue, and send minimum wage advocates, such as John Edwards, all over the country to campaign for Democratic House and Senate candidates.  They have such a huge opportunity here, and can invoke passion that will resonate with workers all across the country.
------------------------------------------------------------
Other blogs are writing about this issue: Daily Kos, RawBlogXport, The Ford Report, Just Ain't Right, Nye, Fallen Monk, Corporations Create Fascism, The North Texas Liberal, Daughter of Liberty.

Marriage amendment voted down...what a surprise!

Just as about every man, woman, child, animal, plant and living being on this earth had expected, the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage was rejected today by a 49 to 48 vote.  The Senate needed two-thirds support in order for it to move to the House and then state legislatures.

Meanwhile in Iraq, 2,481 U.S. soldiers have died to this date.  Median and real wages are down.  We are still not prepared for another hurricane.  Our energy policy that has helped cause the high prices at the pump is in shambles.  Hopefully the GOP Congress will find some of these concerns important enough to dedicate at least the same amount of time as what was spent dividing our country on the gay marriage debate.

Bush really does not care about marriage amendment

To all you dedicated Evangelical Christians out there, do not buy into the President's little acting job when it comes to his proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.  A close friend of President acknowledges to Newsweek what most political strategists have expected about Bush's true motivation:

Though Bush himself has publicly embraced the amendment, he neverseemed to care enough to press the matter. One of his old friends toldNEWSWEEK that same-sex marriage barely registers on the president'smoral radar. "I think it was purely political. I don't think he gives as--t about it. He never talks about this stuff," said the friend, whorequested anonymity to discuss his private conversations with Bush.White House aides, who also declined to be identified, insist that thepresident does care about banning gay marriage.

(Read the whole Newsweek article)

Add this to the fact that in January of 2005 the President told the Washington Post that he no longer had plans to lobby such amendment.  Besides, the White House knows the constitutional amendment will not pass anyway.  So to think this is anything other than an election year ploy gives Bush and his party of corruption much more moral credit than they deserve.

(Related News)

Video: The wedding march to November

The same individuals from the Westboro Baptist Church who show up at funerals of U.S. soldiers and hold up offensive anti-American signs, such as "God Hates America" and "Thank God for I.E.D.'s", are joining George W. Bush and his conservative Senate allies to promote a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Below is a video that illustrates what kind of lunatic fringe we are dealing with here:

And you thought Pat Robertson was crazy.  Add these guys to the culture of intolerance.

Bush goes back on promise to never again lobby gay marriage ban

President Bush addressed the nation this morning to endorse a constitutional amendment that would override the power of the states and ban gay marriage nationwide.  The event was supposed to take place at the White House Rose Garden.  But at the very last minute, the White House switch things up by moving the "gay marriage press conference to a less prominent location," CNN explained.  At the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, the President criticized who he called "activist judges" for bringing this issue into the forefront.  As expected, he was very selective when it came to choosing his audience:

Speaking to an audience he described as "community leaders, scholars,family organizations, religious leaders, Republicans and Democrats,"Bush said he was proud to stand with the group on its support of theFederal Marriage Amendment, which defines marriage as a union between aman and a woman. He urged Congress the pass the amendment, againinvoking the specter of "activist judges," a threat he referred to morethan a half-dozen times in the 10-minute address.

But according to the Washington Post, in January of 2005 the President made a promise not to lobby senators for the amendment.  What a contradiction!:

Bush has given the appearance of a reluctant supporter of banningsame-sex marriage. In an interview with The Washington Post in January2005, he said he did not plan to lobby senators for the amendmentbecause it did not have much chance of passing, infuriatingconservative supporters.

It is almost a done deal that the amendment would not pass this year either, prompting just about every political analyst, both liberal and conservative alike, to conclude that Bush is once again guilty of engaging in divisive cultural pandering in an election year.  Joe Scarborough, a former Republican Congressman and host of MSNBC's Scarborough Country, told host Ann Courie on Monday's edition of the Today Show that "everybody knows the President is pandering -- including the President's base."  Even Lou Sheldon, the founder of the right-wing Traditional Values Coalition, does not like the idea of this amendment.

It remains to be seen whether conservative Evangelicals will allow themselves once again to get duped by this cheap political trick.  As the saying goes: "Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me!"
(Related News)

Monday Editorial: GOP putting bad poker face on gay marriage debate

Today, as President Bush plans to endorse a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage nationwide during a picturesque Rose Garden photo-op, one has to question the rationality of the GOP strategists.  As in any election year, these GOP insiders are crafting a strategy where its success is dependent on the ignorance of voters.  They are trying to tell Mr. and Mrs. Smith taxpayer that they should cast their ballots in support of politicians who pledge to protect family values; because when it comes to valuing family, you know that our friendly GOP Congressional majority and their lobbyist friends are looking out for you!

That message worked in 2004 because most Evangelical conservatives actually bought into the notion that Bush was one of them.  Two years and millions of betrayed conservatives later, these same voters have almost no reason at all to show up and vote.  They remember the promises that were made in 2004 about abortion and the federal marriage amendment.  Even more phony to them is the fact that the GOP plans to do the same thing during this election season.  Voters this time around know the distinction between cheap talk and results.  Has it ever occurred to these Washington strategists that conservative voters might be wondering why the anti-gay marriage amendment was never brought up in 2005?  This is yet another election ploy, and Bush and most of his Congressional Republican allies are in the middle of it.

If anything, this will backfire.  Why?  Republicans, although they do have Karl Rove and Frank Luntz on their side, suffer from a disorder.  They lack the humility to subscribe to realism.  So when U.S. soldiers and Iraqi security officers continue to get shot at and killed in Iraq, they send Dick Cheney onto Larry King Live to tell America that the insurgency is in its last throes.  When real and median wages drop, they hire Henry Paulson, a Wall Street spinster, to tell everyone that the economy is as good as it was in the 1990s.   When gas reaches $3.00 a barrel, they propose throwing tax rebate money in the faces of families and expect everyone to be fine with it.  And when the number of uninsured Americans reaches a record, they send out supply-side Republicans onto the 24 hour news circuit to promote the repealing of the estate tax for the rich.

This refusal to admit reality, whether abroad or at home, is mind-boggling.  During every chance the Democrats get between now and November, if they were smart (I say that because most of their strategists are not), should repeat this message to voters: if you think the most immediate concerns in this country are the estate tax, tort reform and Hillary Clinton, then by all means vote Republican.  But if you think we need to hold the oil companies accountable; if you think we need real energy reform,; if you think we need to fix the current prescription drug nightmare for seniors; if you think we need to speed up the transition in Iraq; if you think we need to raise the minimum wage; and if you think that realism is the best antidote to spin -- then this November you have every incentive to kick out of office all the Bush-friendly Republican incumbents all over the country.

Regarding the issue of gay marriage, it is not even included among the GOP's priorities because if they genuinely wanted to ban it, why did they wait until an election year to push the issue?  Voters are aware of this.  In a way, it is like a poorly played poker game: Republicans are using the same betting style two elections in a row.  Everyone has already caught on to their true intentions by now.

(Related News)

So marriage trumps life?

Pardon me in advance for editorializing this blog post.  I just cannot help but comment on the ethical inconsistencies regarding Bush's views on states' rights.  In comparing his stances on abortion and gay marriage, Bush believes the following:

• The abortion issue should be left up to the states 
• Abortion destroys life
• The gay marriage issue is important enough that it be decided federally, not by states.

Essentially, when taking these positions into account, what Bush is saying is that preventing certain people from getting married is more important than preventing the destruction of life.

If he thinks that abortion destroys life, then why not protect every fetus in the country?

GOP marriage issue strategy will be harder this time around

President Bush and the Republican Congressional majority are betting that voters will cast their ballots based on marriage issues rather than in response to Iraq or economic concerns.  On Monday, one day before the Senate will vote on a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage nationwide, President Bush will lend his support to the cause in a televised Rose Garden address.  Only one Senate Democrat, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, will vote for it.  Many Republicans will join Democrats and vote against it.  Insiders say it is a done deal that the Senate will not have the 66 votes needed for the measure to pass (2/3 majority in Senate and House, plus 38 of the 50 state legislatures are required for any constitutional amendment).

Some ask, if Republicans already know the measure is not going to pass, why they would waste the taxpayers' time by putting all their energy towards an issue that divides people -- even though we have had a lot of that going on over the last few years?  Democratic National Committee spokesman Damien LaVera responded:

"They'renot interested in the policy, they're interested in reassuring theirconservative base and distracting attention from their failedleadership, and that's just wrong," LaVera told Cybercast News Service. "It's wrong to scapegoat people for their political gain."

Betting against the political awareness of voters this time around might not be such a good idea.  The Republicans are telling their conservative voters that a federal marriage amendment is a more important issue than cutting taxes, balancing the budget and fighting terrorism.

Rick Santorum disagrees.  He thinks that the bigger issue is how people are treated, and does not think that same sex couples deserve the same rights as the rest of us:

..it's an opportunity for us to get beyond, you know, We should treat everybodynicely.

Maybe Santorum should open up the window a bit more.  There is a war going on.  Iran might be next.  Gas prices are going through the roof.  Median family income is down.  Also down are real wages (wages adjusted for inflation).  The cost of health care and education are skyrocketing.  The Office of Homeland Security is still not ready to deal with this summer's hurricane season.  Yet, the issues that the GOP want to focus on are a federal marriage amendment and the estate tax repeal.

No wonder both the GOP Congress and the President have such a low approval rating.  They are out of the loop, and don't seem to care at all.

(Related News)

Specter and Frist trying to rescue GOP with gay marriage debate

Out of the blue, the political news story of the day was the clash between Republican Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter and Democratic Judiciary Committee member Russ Feingold over a bill that if passed would ban gay marriage nationwide.  In order for the measure to get to the Senate floor, it must pass committee -- which was where the shouting match erupted.  It ended up passing on a party-line vote.  Here was the exchange:

"I don't need to be lectured by you. You are no more a protector ofthe Constitution than am I," Judiciary Committee Chairman ArlenSpecter, R-Pa., shouted after Sen. Russ Feingold declared his opposition to the amendment, his affinity for the Constitution and his intention to leave the meeting.

"If you want to leave, good riddance," Specter finished.

"I've enjoyed your lecture, too, Mr. Chairman," replied Feingold,D-Wis., who is considering a run for president in 2008. "See ya."

Part of the exchange came in response to Specter's tactical decision to move the hearing to a smaller room where there was no room for an audience, and according to the web site PageOneQ, "does not even have enough chairs for every Senator to sit."

Even though Specter voted for the bill in committee, he is expected to vote against it once the bill reaches the House floor.  Considering that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist would like nothing more for his reputation than to rescue the GOP base by turning their attention to divisive issues like gay marriage, he probably had a deal with Specter to pass it through committee, even if it gets voted down by once it reaches the Senate floor.

What Frist needs to realize is the fact that this is not 2004.  Gay marriage, no matter what, will not be a major election issue.  Instead, most Americans will cast their vote based on Iraq, gas prices, immigration, health care and Congressional corruption.  So no matter what Frist tries to do on the gay marriage amendment front, it will be an uphill battle for his party between now and November.