Howard Dean on voting:

“The vote,” he often says, “gets you a C. If you're going to be a citizen you've got to do a hell of a lot more than vote.”

2011 version:

 “I tried to get in, but it was a zoo, so I gave up,” Dean said Thursday. “I stood in line for about 15 minutes. The line didn’t move. It was about 400 people long, and I just didn’t go in.

“Which now, of course, I regret.”

Cross-posted at Rational Resistance http://rationalresistance.blog…

Some of my comic book friends will be aware of the Bizarro World, a DC comics construct designed to be the opposite of earth. As Wikipedia teaches us: In the Bizarro world of “Htrae” (“Earth” spelled backwards), society is ruled by the Bizarro Code which states “Us do opposite of all Earthly things! Us hate beauty! Us love ugliness! Is big crime to make anything perfect on Bizarro World!” In one episode, for example, a salesman is doing a brisk trade selling Bizarro bonds: “Guaranteed to lose money for you”. (And this was before AIG and credit default swaps!)

We’ve long thought that conservatives have a backward, bizarro understanding of how the world works, and today we have some excellent evidence of that fact.

Let’s start with what’s going on on Congress. Yesterday Republicans in the House of Representatives passed a resolution to block those power-mad regulators from adopting a rule regulating farm dust. After all, who wants our stout yeoman farmers crippled by the nettling impositions of the pointy-headed bureaucrats in Washington?

Only one tiny quibble, though: EPA had never proposed tightening rules on farm dust, and the agency said lawmakers were raising concerns based on a myth about the rulemaking.

. . .

In her letter dated Oct. 14, [EPA administrator Lisa] Jackson said that she decided to keep the 1987 dust standard in place after a review of the science, an analysis by agency scientists and recommendations from an outside advisory panel.

That’s right, the Republicans have protected farmers against an imaginary regulation.

I guess that’s better than spending their time on legislation that would actually do something, since we know how badly that comes up when Republicans get their way.

Or, to go to a more fertile hotbed of unreality, the right-wing talk radio.

You’ve undoubtedly heard something about President Obama’s speech earlier this week (although, strangely enough, it seemed to get a lot less news coverage than what any number of Republicans said this week).

Here’s what Rush Limbaugh said about it:

The elected president of the United States said in Osawatomie, Kansas, trying to be Teddy Roosevelt, that the United States of America has never worked. That is a quote, “has never worked.”

And here is what President Obama actually said:

Quote:

Now, just as there was in Teddy Roosevelt’s time, there is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let’s respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. “The market will take care of everything,” they tell us. If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes – especially for the wealthy – our economy will grow stronger. Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers. But if the winners do really well, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else. And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn’t trickle down, well, that’s the price of liberty.

Now, it’s a simple theory. And we have to admit, it’s one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. That’s in America’s DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. But here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked. It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It’s not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the 50s and 60s. And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade. I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this theory.

As anyone with elementary reading ability can see, what has “never worked” in President Obama’s statement is the boldfaced language: that if we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes, especially for the wealthy, our economy will grow stronger and jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else.

There are two important observations to make about this:

1. He is incontrovertibly correct.

2. The people who believe in the assertion about the magical powers of cutting regulations and taxes, regardless of what they say, care nothing about what trickles down to poor people. As long as the rich are better off, that’s literally all they care about.

But most importantly, we see that the only way Limbaugh was able to find to attack Obama’s speech is by attacking the opposite of what Obama actually said. What we see time and again is that the Republicans are not only unaware of reality, they are actively hostile to it.

So in closing, I think there’s only one thing to say: Hello!

One of the hotly contested areas in state legislation in recent years has been Republican attempts to create new, onerous identification requirements for voting and registering to vote. Republicans claim that all they are interested in is the integrity of our sacred ballot, while liberals and Democrats have pointed out that these efforts are no more than a thinly veiled attempt to prevent one of the most reliable Democratic voting blocks from voting.

For example, Attorney General Eric Holder has argued that voter suppression efforts are inconsistent with the values embedded in American democracy.

“I am not talking about any one particular state effort, but more generally I think for those who would consider trying to use methods, techniques to discourage people from coming to the polls — that’s inconsistent with what we say we are as a nation,” Holder said.

Evidence in a new case in Maryland proves that the Republican claims are the transparent lies we have argued they are, and that they have, in fact, been engaged in a systematic effort to keep black voters away from the polls.

The case is a prosecution for election law violations by the campaign of former Maryland governor Robert Ehrlich. The Washington Post reports that in the lead-up to the 2010 gubernatorial election, Ehrlich's campaign placed over 100.000 anonymous robocalls to the predominantly black Baltimore and Prince George's Counties, telling voters there that the election was in the bag for the Democratic candidate and that they could “relax.”

Without anything more this seems like a pretty clear-cut case of suppression, right? The jury agreed, and convicted Ehrlich’s campaign manager Paul Ehrlich of four counts of election law violations.

Documents obtained in the case prove beyond any question that the whole point of this campaign was to suppress the black vote. For instance in a campaign briefing document called the Schurick Doctrine the consultants say “The Schurick Doctrine is designed to promote confusion, emotionalism, and frustration among African American democrats, focused in precincts where high concentrations of AA vote. As a result of the doctrine, the three favorable outcomes will benefit Republicans on Election Day. The three outcomes are: Don’t Vote (Stay Home), Don’t Vote at the Top of the Ticket ( Skip Box/Bracket for Governor), and Vote Republican (largely due to our persuasion messaging).

Another page of handwritten notes from Rhonda Russell, who worked for the campaign, included the note “suppress turnout in Black communities”.

How do you defend the indefensible? Well, the Republican defendants claimed that the robocalls had nothing to do with suppressing black vote, it was just part of a “reverse psychology” strategy, whereby their calls to black voters would somehow motivate their white conservative base to get out to vote.

Of course, anyone who has worked on campaigns and knows about how they work knows that the Get Out the Vote (GOTV) effort is designed to make sure that identified supporters vote by calling them and reminding them to vote, not by calling people who you expect to support your opponent.

In other words, what we have argued for many years, racism in Republican efforts at vote suppression, has just been proved beyond a doubt.

Cross posted at Rational Resistance.

I first heard of Barney Frank when I was a relatively new Legal Services lawyer back in 1981. It was the first year of Reagan's presidency, and also the first year Reagan tried to implement his war on the poor by killing off the Legal Services Corporation. We heard that the appropriation for Legal Services was going to be taken up, so a few of us went to watch the debate on the floor of the house on C-SPAN, which was also brand new at the time.

Although Frank was a new congressman (it was his first term), he was the floor manager for the Legal Services appropriation. I was completely impressed. He was pretty much everything you see when you see him today: smart, prepared, funny, and completely unwilling to back down from a fight.

We won the funding debate, and even in a year when Reagan was getting Congress, under Tip O'Neill, to give him just about everything he wanted, he never succeeded in destroying legal services for the poor.

In the last thirty years Frank has always been a strong voice for working people and those exploited by the powerful, big money interests that have come to increasingly dominate our government.

What has made him so popular, though, is not just his unapologetic liberalism, but also the pugnacious and witty way he disemboweled the other side.

Other people will have their favorite Frank moments, but I'll just close with this one:

What's in the news tonight?

From the Post: Leaders of ‘supercommittee’ concede defeat

From the Times:  Panel Fails to Reach Deal on Plan for Deficit Reduction

From WCAX:  Reaction to committee's failure to cut deficit

The truth of it, as pointed out by both Bernie Sanders and Howard Dean, is that this is a win for the Democrats.

First, they finally, FINALLY! stood up for something.

Second, what they stood up for is both good policy and good politics. As Bernie said,  “What is amazing is in a time of strong political division in America on this issue the American people are united,” Sanders said on MSNBC. “Every single poll that I have seen says that the American people understand that when the richest people are becoming richer, and their effective tax rate is the lowest in decades, they’ve got to pay more taxes to help us with deficit reduction.”

Finally, for those who are concerned about the deficit and the national debt, the failure to reach a deal cuts spending by more than any deal would have, and takes more out of the military budget than we ever would have seen.

We have a promise from President Obama to veto any legislation that would sidestep or avoid the automatic sequestration, and he's also promised to block any attempt to extend the Bush tax cuts again.

Whether he will actually do it is anyone's guess, but for now I see this as a win for the good guys.

UPDATE: Initial University response

11/20/2011 12:24 PM

 Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding the police action on the quad on Friday,

November 18. You may have already seen the message from Chancellor Katehi

expressing her concern about this action (available via http://ucdavis.edu/). The Chancellor

has committed to form a task force composed of students, faculty and staff to review this

incident, with the expectation that a report will be provided to her within 30 days of the

formation of the task force. Your complaint to me, which I will treat as a whistleblower

complaint under the University’s Whistleblower Policy, will be reviewed through the task

force process.”

Thank you,

Wendi Delmendo

Wendi Delmendo

Chief Compliance Officer — General Campus

University of California, Davis

wjdelmendo@ucdavis.edu

You may have seen this video of brutal treatment inflicted on peaceful demonstrators by the University of California campus police.

Fortunately, there is a way to respond.

The University of California has a system to report and correct behavior that is counter to the values of the university.

Welcome to the University of California's systemwide intolerance report form.

The University of California's Principles of  Community are grounded in our mission of instruction, research and  public service. We value diversity, affirm the inherent dignity of every  person and uphold  communities of justice. We strive for a campus and a  world free of discrimination, intolerance and hate. We are equally  committed to freedom of expression, critical inquiry, civil dialogue and  mutual respect.

If you experience or observe behavior that is inconsistent with our Principles of Community, please report it.

If you know of any instances of intolerant or violent behavior on campus you might want to report it using their handy online form.

My description of what I witnessed:

On November 18, 2011, a large group of armed men menaced and attacked a group of unarmed students sitting in the Quad. The mob were carrying firearms and other lethal weapons. Without provocation the mob discharged chemical weapons at a number of unarmed students, although the students had made no threat of violence and posed no danger to any person.

The bias involved was apparently the desire of the armed mob to suppress unpopular political opinions on campus.

The university promises me that they will investigate my report and get right back to me:

Thank  you for reporting your concern. The  information you provided will be treated  with sensitivity and addressed  as appropriate. If you provided your contact  information, we may  contact you directly. If not, please check back on your  report in 2  weeks to see if we have any questions or follow-up information for  you.

Your Report Key: 2577753955

 If you are aware of any incidents of bias, intolerance, or violence on one of the campuses of the University of California perhaps you would like to let the university know about it. After all, if they aren't aware of the problem they can't fix it, right? 

BREAKING: This afternoon Montpelier City Manager Bill Fraser issued this press release, stating that Chief Anthony Facos has withdrawn his request for Tasers for capital city police.

I want to express my personal appreciation to the Mayor and Council, the City Manager and police chief, the Taser Study Committee, and all the concerned community members who came out to advocate for this result, and for all the work they did on this issue.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

November 18, 2011

William Fraser, City Manager

Yesterday morning, Chief Anthony Facos asked to withdraw his request that the Montpelier Police Department carry tasers and asked that the City Council discontinue any additional hearings or discussion on the issue.  I agree with his request and consulted with Mayor Hooper.  She also thinks that the discussion should be discontinued.

Chief Facos and I continue to believe that tasers could be an important and appropriate tool for the safety of our police officers and citizens.  The City Council has been working very hard to find a balance between concerns about the devices and concerns about officer safety.  Their sincere dilemma is indicative of the division within the community about this issue.  Despite our opinions about tasers, the Chief and I both feel that a positive and productive relationship between the Police Department and our citizens is far more important.  The International Association of Chiefs of  Police (IACP) and the Vermont Attorney General both emphasize the importance of local support in relation to successful implementation of tasers.  We wish to maintain community confidence in our fine police force.

This issue was proposed with the budget in December of 2010, nearly a full year ago.  The heated debate needs to conclude.  It is time for the business of city government and effective law enforcement to move forward without this distraction.

We appreciate the opportunity to bring this issue forward and the absolute diligence with which the Mayor, City Council Members, the Taser Committee and many citizens have engaged in this issue.   I appreciate that Chief Facos has always, and continues to, put the interests of the community first.   We look forward to continuing our work with the community to ensure that  Montpelier is a safe place for our citizens and our employees.

William J. Fraser, ICMA-CM

City Manager

City of Montpelier  

39 Main Street

Montpelier, Vermont 05602

UPDATE: After hearing from Police Chief Tony Facos and about a dozen members of the public, the council voted to postpone consideration of the decision, probably to their December 7 meeting.

If you've been following the Taser story in Montpelier you'll want to be at City Hall tonight. That's because the Montpelier City Council is holding a public hearing on the proposed purchase of Tasers for the Montpelier Police Department.

 The Taser issue has been a contentious one in the capital city, with dozens of residents speaking out at previous public hearings, mostly opposed to the purchase. Last week the Council received the report of the committee it appointed to study and make recommendations on the issue. The report came out strongly against the purchase, with one dissenting voice.

Experience elsewhere indicates that police who are given Tasers tend to use them, sometimes with fatal results. If you're new to the issue, a good place to start is the report done by 60 Minutes last Sunday.

Come out tonight and let your Council representatives know your views on this important controversy.

If you're on Senator Leahy's e-mail list you might have received this e-mail from Senator Leahy:

I've got great news to report: Today, by a 10-8 vote, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the Respect for Marriage Act, legislation that would repeal DOMA and ensure the equality of all state-sanctioned marriages!

This is an historic milestone in our ongoing fight for freedom and equality. But we're not done yet. Next, the Respect for Marriage Act heads to the floor where I hope it will be debated and passed by the full Senate soon.

Six states, including Vermont, and the District of Columbia now recognize that all of their citizens have the freedom to marry, including same-sex couples. But because of DOMA, thousands of American families are being treated unfairly by the federal government. 

This is wrong — and we've got to change it. We must repeal DOMA to ensure the freedom and equality of all of our citizens. 

Thank you for your continued support in this critical fight.

Sincerely,

Patrick Leahy
U.S. Senator

Great news from Senator Leahy.

What happens from here? It's pretty obvious, right? The Republicans use the filibuster rule to block consideration of the legislation on the floor, once again demonstrating their anti-gay bigotry and their willingness to stand in the way of the will of the majority.

That, however, is progress.