In the Senate, nothing really moves forward unless there are 60 in favor of not filibustering. Otherwise a coordinated super minority (41) can stop any legislation dead before it starts.
This is why Employee Free Choice is DOA. The Senate won't get 60 to move it forward. The same can be said of any part of the Economic Recovery that the Republicans find distasteful.
OR they'll not filibuster if something they like is put in, which will dilute the impact of the legislation and put us back into compromise mode. We did it to them for two years ('04-'06), trust me, they were taking notes.
Add the Gentlemen's agreements that make the filibuster less painful and inconvenient, and you get a lot of nothing moving. Personally, I think that Harry needs to start yanking out the cots every time they even think of it. Wear them down and show Democratic Party determination to fix this mess. (With the added benefit of putting the Republican Party in a bad light in times of Crisis).
It looks to me like the major theme that prevented 60 was the Republican argument that it was dangerous to have one party control both the White House and the Congress.
I assume that Georgia's economy is taking a beating too. That there is massive uncertainly about the future and hope that Obama's leadership will get us out of the mess. Quickly.
Using the assumption that the Republicans will use the fear card, I would suggest a variation: Fear and Greed.
I think that Martin should nuance his campaign on the known that Chambliss will Oppose Obama. A theme of a vote for Chambliss will jeopardize the Economic Recovery can be developed.
Make the voters realize that their own self interest at stake. Force them to look at what is their self interest (the greed part) and what they risk if they blindly follow the Republican banner (the fear part).
By not having one Party clearly in charge during this crisis, they are screwing themselves.
Use clear language about the economy, use the words 'October Crash' and don't sugar coat it. Use the word 'Depression' to get their attention. Make it Clear that Chambliss was an enabler of the Bush policies leading to Economic Ruin.
Sidebar: This guy (Chambliss) is clearly in favor of negative campaigning, Obama used negative campaigning in conjunction with positive campaigning and McCain's exclusive use of negative campaigning gave the public impression of a positive campaign. I'm betting that Chambliss will go exclusively negative.
None of this happens unless we get to 60 without Lieberman. If we still need his vote to break a filibuster, then Reid will cowtow to him.
Lieberman has started to change his tune over the last few days as he has begun to realize that the magic 60 number is a possibility.
Reid is too good at the back room politics, he'll keep his position unless external events force it from him.
Get it through your heads, Reid is a conservative democrat. This is why things like the bankruptcy reform (aka: Credit card Co. boon), FISA (aka: what Constitution?), and other such likable acts for progressives got passed into law.
Reid is also fairly good at working with the shifting winds (if you can beat his staff into an admission that change is in the air). If the progressive caucus can become a positive force, supported by the President, then Reid will become an enabler of progressive legislation, versus corporate & conservative legislation.
If Reid needs Lieberman, then he will keep his chair. My bet is that he doesn't keep his chair but gets the bone if we get to 58 or 59 (think moderate Republican). 60 or better, no bone. 57 or less, he stays, Reid will need him.
Sidebar: Without 60, employee free choice is dead.
In the Pacific Time Zone, the cable networks aired the infomercial at 5pm local time (nobody was home from work yet). Only the two broadcast networks had it on at the advertised 8PM time slot (time delayed of course). So, instead of a seven channel saturation it was fairly easy to miss.
But, if you did catch it, they moved into the 'live' event for the last two minutes of purchased time. There it ends on broadcast TV, but if you started switching to see more of this rally you picked it up 'live' on CNN.
That's smart. I can't even tell if the CNN broadcast is a repeat of an earlier one.
A good closer for the campaign addressed directly to the undecideds, unfiltered by the MSM.
Carl, I think that a lot of this is because the unfolding investigations on a national platform are hurting her more. I suspect that the majority of Alaskans really were not paying attention until these investigations ended up on the national news for multiple nights running. That's embarrassing.
I'm beginning to suspect that she may be a one term governor who gets primaried out in two years, now that the typical Alaskan voter has been browbeaten with all some of her transgressions.
Couple this with Stephens' conviction and the public is going to want a clean candidate, Sarah doesn't cut it anymore, way too much baggage now.
Of course if Stephens' wins re-election then the opposite may be true....
I contend that the ability for Obama to aim higher is dependent on the Senate races. He has chosen the 'safer' political route, this is his practice and pattern.
If we can achieve the 60 seat margin in the Senate, then I think that Obama will take that as a signal to become more aggressive on renewables, as he can muster the necessary votes to beat filibuster, he will subsequently drift closer to Gore's Plan.
It is the 'safer' political route, as is his practice and pattern.
This makes our immediate job to get the democratic majority.
A Small bailout will keep the voters focused on the Economy, the MSM won't let go if it.
Remember, We win on the issues, McCain wins if it's about Obama. Right now the Country is focused on One Issue. Obama is already pulling away from McCain on this issue, if we can keep it focused there, We. Win. Big.
Possibly to the Magic 60+ in the Senate.
Using the power of the internet, we as activists can hammer together a plan that can kill Supply Side economics and replace it with better long run economics.
We can also use the internet to coordinate and present as one voice, when we'll be listened to.
Hmmmmm... you have two points here, but let's focus on your second one. You're right, there is no model for bottom up economic change.
Now is the time & opportunity to Create a Bottom up model for change. (and avoid getting sucker punched in the future, it's way to late for us to do anything about the current one, IMHO).
I think that this is something we need to discuss looking toward the future. Paulson's plan is a bailout and a give away, everyone sees that. This is why everyone is so pissed and letting their Congresscritters know it. So, what to do? Push your Congress Critters to only pass a Band Aid. Push everything else to be taken up 1st thing in the next session.
As an example of trying to create bottom up economic policy, what if..... In the next session, any future bailout money was tied to infrastructure investment, $1 for the bank, $1 for infrastructure investment (still 700B total, keep the same price tag).
Sidebar: God knows, in order to get off of the oil standard there has to be massive infrastructure investment. An example here is Windpower, the best place to take advantage of windpower is on the great plains, but there is no efficient transport system to get it to the demand center markets on the coasts.
The current power transport system is not set up to deliver it and there is no incentive for state run utilties to invest in such power transport structures. Use the infrastructure investment money to give them the incentive to upgrade, (or have other companies take advantage and build transport structure). /Sidebar
The infrastructure investment will create a push from the bottom to develop and execute projects for the public benefit that create employment as an added benefit. let it be used on roads, sewers, drinking water systems, energy generation, any number of infrastructure improvements that benefit the public.
A perfect system? I don't know, but it's better than just handing over the money and getting a few shares of stock or oversight of executive pay. At the same time, a solution like this re-distributes wealth downward so there is more purchasing power on the lower end of the pyramid, enabling faster distribution of the 'troubled' assets by the government.