Grassroots Enterprise Launches 'Winner's Welcome Wagon;' Allows Grassroots Lobbying of New Officials -- Before They Take Office

11/16/2004 10:49:00 AM

To: National Desk, Political Reporter

Contact: Bill McIntyre of Grassroots Enterprise, 202-741-3719

WASHINGTON, Nov. 16 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Grassroots Enterprise, a public affairs firm specializing in high-impact ways to recruit, retain and mobilize stakeholders, today announced the launch of "Winner's Welcome Wagon," a new offering that enables constituents to make early, direct contact with new Congressional and Administration officials -- before they've even taken office.

"You never get a second chance to make a first impression, and Winner's Welcome Wagon gives our clients a strategic advantage by getting their issues in front of newly elected Members of Congress before everyone else," said Bill McIntyre, Vice President for Grassroots Enterprise. "By getting contact information while these members-to-be are still in transition, and by using a carefully crafted strategy to reach out to them, we get a head start of weeks or even months on the competition."

Most government affairs business units wait until after the next Congressional session has started before they can initiate constituent-based communications. Winner's Welcome Wagon, on the other hand, is ready today.

Further, the service extends beyond Congress, also allowing for easy communication with new Administration officials. With the recently announced departures of Attorney General John Ashcroft, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and others, many departments will be transitioning to new leadership. Winner's Welcome Wagon offers a way to welcome and connect with these new leaders, and to do it before they have even taken office.

Winner's Welcome Wagon drives HTML-rich email alerts to client stakeholders (members, shareholders, etc.) asking them to send letters/faxes to newly elected U.S. Representatives and Senators. And the Grassroots Enterprise team of veteran strategists works with clients to ensure that these communications are timely, impactful, and extremely effective. These messages can even be designed with "just-in-time customization," enabling stakeholders to target members with automatically personalized messages that reflect data, issues, and concerns specific to that member's district.

State elected official programs are also available. Program costs vary depending on database size, content requirements and output requirements.

About Grassroots Enterprise

Founded in 1999, Grassroots Enterprise is a non-partisan, public affairs firm providing communications programs for legislative/regulatory challenges, coalition building, retiree cultivation, supplier mobilization, candidate campaigns, ballot initiatives and fundraising.

Grassroots Enterprise, Inc. has offices in Washington, D.C. and San Francisco. For more information, contact: Bill McIntyre by email at bill.mcintyre@grassroots.com or by phone at 202-741-3719. The company Web site address is: http://www.grassroots.com .

-0-

Washington Post Staff Writer

House Republicans proposed changing their rules last night to allow members indicted by state grand juries to remain in a leadership post, a move that would benefit Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) in case he is charged by a Texas grand jury that has indicted three of his political associates, according to GOP leaders.

The proposed rule change, which several leaders predicted would win approval at a closed meeting today, comes as House Republicans return to Washington feeling indebted to DeLay for the slightly enhanced majority they won in this month's elections. DeLay led an aggressive redistricting effort in Texas last year that resulted in five Democratic House members retiring or losing reelection. It also triggered a grand jury inquiry into fundraising efforts related to the state legislature's redistricting actions.

House GOP leaders and aides said many rank-and-file Republicans are eager to change the rule to help DeLay, and will do so if given a chance at today's closed meeting. A handful of them have proposed language for changing the rule, and they will be free to offer amendments, officials said. Some aides said it was conceivable that DeLay and Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) ultimately could decide the move would be politically damaging and ask their caucus not to do it. But Rep. Jack Kingston (Ga.), another member of the GOP leadership, said he did not think Hastert and DeLay would intervene.

House Republicans adopted the indictment rule in 1993, when they were trying to end four decades of Democratic control of the House, in part by highlighting Democrats' ethical lapses. They said at the time that they held themselves to higher standards than prominent Democrats such as then-Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.), who eventually pleaded guilty to mail fraud and was sentenced to prison.

The GOP rule drew little notice until this fall, when DeLay's associates were indicted and Republican lawmakers began to worry that their majority leader might be forced to step aside if the grand jury targeted him next. Democrats and watchdog groups blasted the Republicans' proposal last night.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said last night: "If they make this rules change, Republicans will confirm yet again that they simply do not care if their leaders are ethical. If Republicans believe that an indicted member should be allowed to hold a top leadership position in the House of Representatives, their arrogance is astonishing."

House Republicans recognize that DeLay fought fiercely to widen their majority, and they are eager to protect him from an Austin-based investigation they view as baseless and partisan, said Rep. Eric I. Cantor (Va.), the GOP's chief deputy whip.

"That's why this [proposed rule change] is going to pass, assuming it's submitted, because there is a tremendous recognition that Tom DeLay led on the issue to produce five more seats" for the Republicans, Cantor said after emerging from a meeting in which the Republican Conference welcomed new members and reelected Hastert and DeLay as its top leaders.

Other Republicans agreed the conference is likely to change the rule if given the chance. An indictment is simply an unproven allegation that should not require a party leader to step aside, said Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.). Rep. John Carter (R-Tex.), a former trial judge, said it makes sense to differentiate between federal and state indictments in shaping party rules because state grand juries often are led by partisan, elected prosecutors who may carry political grudges against lawmakers.

Republicans last night were tweaking the language of several proposals for changing the rule. The one drawing the most comment, by Rep. Henry Bonilla (Tex.), would allow leaders indicted by a state grand jury to stay on. However, a leader indicted by a federal court would have to step down at least temporarily.

"Congressman Bonilla's rule change is designed to prevent political manipulation of the process while preserving the original ethical principles of the rule," Bonilla spokeswoman Taryn Fritz Walpole said.

Hastert and DeLay, meanwhile, are publicly taking a hands-off posture. Hastert told reporters the decision was up to the conference, adding, "we'll see what happens." DeLay spokesman Stuart Roy said his boss "believes we should allow members of the conference to come to their own conclusions and let the conference work its will without him exerting undue influence one way or the other."

A Texas grand jury in September indicted three of DeLay's political associates on charges of using a political action committee to illegally collect corporate donations and funnel them to Texas legislative races. The group, Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee, is closely associated with DeLay. DeLay says he has not acted improperly and has no reason to believe he is a target of the grand jury, which continues to look into the TRMPAC matter.

The House ethics committee on Oct. 6 admonished DeLay for asking federal aviation officials to track an airplane involved in the highly contentious 2003 redistricting battle, and for conduct that suggested political donations might influence legislative action. The ethics panel deferred action on a complaint related to TRMPAC, noting that the grand jury has not finished its work.

The Texas investigation is headed by Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle, an elected Democrat who has been bitterly criticized by DeLay supporters. Yesterday, Cantor called Earle's efforts "a witch hunt."

"It's a totally a partisan exercise," Cantor said. "It's coincidental with what's going on up here [in the Capitol], where they are trying every avenue to go after Tom DeLay because they can't beat him" on the House floor or in congressional elections. Changing the rule is not a sign that lawmakers think DeLay will be indicted, Cantor said, but rather a public rebuke of an investigation they feel is wholly unwarranted.

Tuesday, Nov. 16, 2004 3:48 p.m. EST

Group Claims ACT 527 Shredding Docs

National Right to Work Foundation (NRWF) attorneys today hand-delivered an emergency request to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) asking the agency to obtain a federal court injunction to halt rampant document destruction by America Coming Together (ACT) staff.

This occurred just as the foundation's vice president, Stefan Gleason, filed a formal complaint about ACT's funding.

Filed last week on behalf of employees, the complaint alleges that Service Employees International Union (SEIU) officials handed over tens of millions of dollars of workers' forced union dues to ACT.

The NRWF claims that some of those funds were, in turn, spent illegally to finance political campaigns through the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

Jeffery A. Williams, police officer and president of Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 25 in Orlando, Fla., supplied NRWF attorneys with photos and a sworn statement.

The photos reveal numerous bags of newly shredded documents at an ACT office after allegations surfaced that tens of millions of dollars of the group's funding came unlawfully in the form of workers' union dues.

The NRWF claimed that it is suspected that similar shredding is occurring at numerous ACT offices across America. Foundation attorneys are today calling on the FEC to obtain immediately an injunction from a U.S. district court to prevent ACT from destroying any potentially relevant evidence in an FEC investigation.

The FEC complaint cites numerous statements by SEIU head Andrew Stern about the use of workers' forced union dues to fund ACT. Stern stated earlier this month that "SEIU is the largest contributor to America Coming Together at $26 million."

ACT spent over $100 million in this fall's elections on the campaigns of candidates a large portion of union members do not support.

The NRWF claims that ACT then used some of those funds to underwrite political fund-raisers for the DNC. For example, artwork fund raising events held by ACT across America, where attendees were given expensive artwork prints in exchange for individual donations of at least $1,000, raised more than $750,000 for the DNC. Under federal law, union officials specifically must not contribute to political campaigns using "dues, fees or other moneys required as a condition of membership in a labor organization."

In doing so, states the complaint, SEIU union officials violated the rights of workers who are required, as a condition of employment, to make forced-dues payments to the union and who may not agree with the political aims of SEIU officials, ACT or the DNC.

"SEIU officials used the hard-earned wages of rank-and-file workers to bankroll the campaigns of hundreds of political candidates across America," stated Gleason. "No one should be forced to pay compulsory dues to a union, especially when its officials continually abuse that government-granted special privilege."

The FEC is the government agency charged with investigating the Foundation's complaint.

Above is slanted to Republican view

One justice's vision of role of the courts

By Warren Richey | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON – During the presidential campaign, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia received a strange letter in his home mailbox.

It was a fundraising flier from Democratic strategist James Carville. The appeal invoked an issue apparently thought to be so frightening that it would prompt recipients to fork over massive amounts of money to the Kerry campaign.

The "terrifying" message came with the headline: "What Would You Think of CHIEF JUSTICE Scalia?"

When Scalia related the story at a recent gathering of the conservative Federalist Society here in Washington, the audience erupted into sustained and thunderous cheers and applause.

Not exactly the reaction Mr. Carville intended. But the incident sharply illustrates the gulf that exists between conservatives and liberals over the future direction of the US Supreme Court.

While Scalia is viewed by many liberals as a right-wing ideologue bent on overturning Roe v. Wade and other progressive decisions they favor, he enjoys a far more exalted status among a growing cadre of conservative law students, lawyers, professors, and judges. They see him as an intrepid legal warrior seeking to put rules back into the rule of law.

His is an approach to law that seeks to limit the ability of judges to use judicial power to impose their own value judgments and policy preferences on the nation. It is a form of judicial restraint embraced by President Bush, who has said he will seek to appoint future Supreme Court justices in the mold of Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

What might that mean for the high court and the future of American jurisprudence?

In his speech to the Federalist Society, Scalia offered a detailed description of his approach to constitutional interpretation. In his view, Supreme Court justices overstep not only their authority but also their expertise when they try to answer some of society's most divisive moral questions in legal cases such as abortion. He says moral issues should be resolved by elected political leaders, not unelected judges.

And he warns that the high court's willingness to take up moral questions that are still open to debate within society will increasingly mire the court in a political morass. It is a trend that has made judicial nominees targets in a bitterly partisan Senate confirmation process featuring character assassination and filibusters.

"One shudders to think what sort of political turmoil will greet the next nomination to the Supreme Court," Scalia told his Federalist Society audience, which included many individuals thought to be on a White House shortlist for a high-court post.

"The lesson is, in a truly democratic society - or at least the one in America - one way or another the people will have their say on significant social policy," he said. "If judges are routinely providing the society's definitive answers to moral questions on which there is ample room for debate ... then judges will be made politically accountable."

His comments come at a time when Washington is rife with speculation about Chief Justice William Rehnquist's ongoing battle with cancer and the potential for a Supreme Court vacancy.

Scalia was once considered a prime candidate for chief justice. But some analysts say the highly partisan nature of the Senate confirmation process and the intense focus on abortion by Senate Democrats make it unlikely that he could be elevated to the top job.

Other than offering the anecdote of the fundraising letter, Scalia did not mention the chief-justice issue during his lecture. Instead, he focused on what he sees as the problem of judges becoming involved in issues that he believes have no place in a court of law.

He offered examples from the US Supreme Court - abortion, gay rights, the death penalty, gender equality at military schools, and assisted suicide.

Such cases highlight competing visions of the scope of a judge's power to discover new constitutional rights or expand existing rights. Scalia believes judges must look to the text of a disputed constitutional provision and interpret it based on the intent of the drafters. To Scalia, a static constitution is a protection of American liberty because it sharply limits a judge's ability to amend the Constitution by mere judicial fiat.

His is a minority view. Many more judges in the US and overseas have adopted the approach that constitutions are living documents, open to contemporary interpretation to address modern concerns. Many see their job as working to achieve a measure of justice.

Scalia calls it "the power to do good." He denounces it as an open invitation to judicial activism.

"Under a regime of static law, it was not difficult to decide whether under the American Constitution there was a right to abortion or to homosexual conduct or to assisted suicide," he said. "When the Constitution was decided, all those acts were criminal throughout the United States and remained so for several centuries. There was no credible argument that the Constitution made those laws invalid."

"Of course, society remained free to decriminalize those acts [through legislation], as many states have," he added. "But under a static Constitution, judges could not do so."

The issue is not new. Every Republican presidential candidate since Richard Nixon has promised to appoint justices who believe in judicial restraint, Scalia says. "And every Democratic candidate since Michael Dukakis has promised to appoint justices who will uphold Roe v. Wade, which is synonymous with judicial activism."

He added that each year the conflict over the future of the court has grown more intense and more political. "I am not happy about the intrusion of politics into the judicial appointment process," Scalia said. "Frankly, however, I prefer it to the alternative, which is government by judicial aristocracy."

At the GA, the fault line divides as expected
By Nathan Guttman
CLEVELAND - The opening night of the General Assembly of the United Jewish Communities was devoted to Israel, but the discussion agenda was weighted toward the issues that trouble the communities themselves: from community management and fundraising to welfare and caring for the needy at home.

This major gathering of leaders representing nearly all Jewish communities in North America presented an excellent opportunity to gauge the range of Jewish opinion - a range that guides the community's political path.

Several hundred delegates crowded into one of the discussion halls yesterday to hear something they already knew: When you bring two Jews together, you wind up with at least three opinions. On stage for the debate were two speakers representing polar opposites in contemporary American Jewry: Dennis Prager, a popular radio talk-show host who is considered a reliable representative of American conservatism, and Letty Cottin Pogrebin, who represents the once-dominant way of thinking in the Jewish community - strict liberalism.

The range of discussion topics attested to the broad spectrum of conceptions American Jews subscribe to these days. On abortion rights, for example, still one of the hottest topics on the American agenda, the positions of both sides was known in advance, but of interest was the arguments.

Both speakers tried to infuse the debate with Jewish significance. Cottin Pogrebin quoted the Bible and Rabbi Yehuda Hanassi in support of the notion that life begins at birth, not before. Prager countered that such an approach is disastrous: "It's a sacrilege that the Jewish community is associated with a total permission to conduct abortions regardless of any moral consideration," he cried. Half the audience responded with enthusiastic applause.

This public debate, which also addressed other raging issues in American society - from same-sex marriage (Prager calls it un-Jewish, Cottin Pogrebin believes Judaism favors it), through stem-cell research (opinion similarly divided), to federal funding for parochial schools - underscored the changes the Jewish community has been undergoing over the past decade.

Although the vast majority of American Jews is still located on the liberal side of the map, as surveys and the recent elections demonstrated, conservative positions are no longer considered unusual and are slowly but surely making their way into the heart of Jewish American discourse.

Nonetheless, as the GA opening events demonstrated, a complete consensus exists on one issue - unqualified support for Israel. Despite a variety of opinions on Israel's political path, concern for Israel's security unites the entire community.

In an interview with swissinfo, Kaspar Schuler, head of Greenpeace Switzerland, talks about past successes and the challenges ahead.

swissinfo: Why does an international organisation like Greenpeace need a Swiss branch?

Kaspar Schuler: Several multinational companies have their headquarters in Switzerland, and we see our role as allies of developing countries which are victims of corporate policy.

Greenpeace Switzerland is also among the top five financial contributors with SFr4 million [$3.4 million] annually. I don’t mind if some people consider us a cash cow. But this is certainly not the main reason to justify our existence.

 

swissinfo: What are the most urgent policy areas on the agenda of Greenpeace Switzerland?

K.S.: It is sad to say that Switzerland is no longer at the forefront of implementing laws protecting the environment. Discussions about legislation on chemicals and dangerous substances are much more advanced in the European Union.

K.S.: We helped to keep Switzerland’s agricultural produce and other food sold in shops free of genetically modified substances.

Greenpeace is also involved in tough negotiations with chemical companies around Basel to impose standards for cleaning up old waste dumps.

K.S.: We reviewed our climate campaign after Swiss voters in 2003 rejected a proposal to extend a ten-year ban on the building or upgrading of nuclear power plants. The launch [of our campaign] will be in the next few months.

 

swissinfo: Historically, Greenpeace has been active in protecting the maritime environment. How difficult was it to win support for this cause in a landlocked country like Switzerland?

K.S.: Not difficult at all. Swiss Greenpeace members appear to relate easily to life in the oceans. The fundraising campaign for a new Greenpeace boat two years ago was one of the most successful in our history.

K.S.: True, it is no longer the number one issue, which makes it a big challenge for us. But Greenpeace Switzerland is still very present in the media. We might not be making the front pages with long articles, but there are regular small articles.

K.S.: By no means. We cannot go beyond certain legal and bodily risks for those activists taking part in protests. Safety comes first for us.

 

swissinfo: Why did you take the job at the helm of Greenpeace Switzerland three years ago?

K.S.: It is a question of personal conviction. A few years ago my young family and I were involved in a battle over the construction of a water reservoir in a mountain area.

 

swissinfo: Do you still believe that lobbying is as important as fighting?

K.S.: Absolutely. Last July we struck a deal with Swiss door producers. They agreed to use certified tropical timber for their annual production of about 600,000 doors.

swissinfo-interview: Christian Raaflaub

Following seems to be Republican view DEFEAT THE RIGHT IN 24 MONTHS

by JOE LYLES

First of all, John Kerry lost.  That is the only way to describe it.  He saw -- correctly -- that the election was his to lose.  His strategy was "don't lose."  His strategy was to upset no one, to frighten no one, to put no one on the defensive.  His strategy was to let events and circumstances win for him.  Dubya's strategy was to define John Kerry as "wishy washy" -- the way Dubya wanted him defined.  John Kerry only responded in the last month -- when it was too late.  Dubya's strategy was to define himself as a "strong, principled leader."  John Kerry never effectively challenged that basic image -- which in the end, is the ultimate reason he lost. 

John Kerry never seized the initiative, and never pressed the case against George W. Bush.  In fact, I noticed how little I was hearing from either candidate the last ten days.  There was nothing new.  There were no new attacks, no new positions, no new momentum.  Kerry was "coasting." 

In fact, what Kerry was doing was listening to the DLC "Republican-lite" strategists in his employ, whose strategy is apparently "be a little less Republican."  In fact, that has been their strategy for twenty years.  The result of this approach has been losses the last two cycles in races that Ralph Nader correctly said should have been "slam dunks."  Now we are heading into what will add up to twelve years of Republican control of the Congress.

The verdict is in.  "Republican-lite" doesn't work, and an entire generation of Democratic strategists stand utterly discredited.  So let me speak for progressive Democrats everywhere, to Joe Lockhart, Bob Shrum, and Mary Beth Cahill and the rest of the Democratic establishments political operatives.  You're all fired!

Election Day Shenanigans

Let me take just a minute and address the other popular explanation for Kerry's loss.  Some say the election was stolen -- and there is some good evidence that it may have been.  The exit polling data had the curious habit of being inaccurate -- in Dubya's favor -- in "touch screen" voting states.  The error was on the order of 5% of the vote.  States without touchscreen voting showed error rates at about one half of one percent.  Then of course, there were the eyewitness accounts, such as the one I posted here on election day.  In other words, the mischief presented by touchscreen voting, without a paper trail, appears to have materialized. 

Some respond to this with declarations such as "Democracy is dead," "the fix was in," and other declarations of the futility of trying to win elections.  While it is certainly true that the integrity of the vote is important -- and indeed critical in close elections -- the statement that "democracy is dead" is overdone, in my view.

Electoin shenanigans are as old as the United States , itself.  Republicans have claimed for years that JFK stole the election of 1960 -- a close election where the votes in Illinois were critical to his win.  I haven't studied the details of the claim, so I can't pass on its legitimacy, but the claim is colorable.  Whether it made a difference, Mayor Daly's Chicago machine certainly added some votes that were never actually cast by anyone.  And of course there was "landslide Lyndon," who won his Senate seat by 87 votes from a ballot box he successfully fought to keep closed.  Why did LBJ fight to keep that ballot box from being opened?  You tell me.  In his defense, it is well known that Texas politics in those days was a contest to see who could steal more votes.  LBJ lost in 1941, because he quit stealing votes early, and let his opponent catch him.  In 1948, he didn't make that mistake.

In the case of electronic voting systems, they actually have the potential -- unrealized at this point -- to minimize such shenanigans.  All they need is a paper record.  Though no system is foolproof, a simple cash register tape, recording the votes sequentially and furnishing the voter with a top copy receipt, would make ballot box stuffing extremely difficult.  As for Diebold, the manufacturer of electronic voting machines, they also make ATM machines.  They wouldn't even think about offering an ATM that didn't print a receipt.  Meanwhile, Republicans have a strange resistance to the idea of providing a little verifiability to electronic voting machines.  The discrepancy between exit polling and actual results in touchscreen states perhaps explains their reluctance.

Here's the important thing to understand.  You can't steal a landslide.  Stealing votes is a "nickel and dime" affair.  You have to take care that your theft is undetectable.  For example, if the votes in Broward County , Florida had shown a Bush majority, we would know -- absolutely know -- that the actual votes hadn't been counted.  Why?  Broward County is the most reliably Democratic county in the entire State of Florida .  Exit polling, and even traditional polling presents another problem.  If every pre-election poll shows a Kerry lead of a couple of points, vote theft is limited to a few percent in Dubya's favor.  If New York came in for Bush -- where Kerry enjoyed a twenty point lead in multiple independent polls -- everyone would know what happened. 

So if Dubya's hacks stole votes -- and I guarantee they stole at least a few -- they didn't steal many.  In fact, the data showing discrepancies between actual votes and exit polling, also include discrepancies in states Kerry won.  Wisconsin showed such discrepancies -- in Dubya's favor once again.  Kerry won Wisconsin , anyway.  Why?  He had what exit polls showed to be an eight point lead there -- too wide for Dubya to make up with vote theft. 

Now I don't wish to minimize a stolen election -- if it was indeed stolen, and it certainly may have been.  Furthermore, in this particular case the consequences of defeat will be serious.  These cheap-labor conservatives are extremists with a highly corrosive agenda for this country.  News reports today indicate that Dubya is claiming a "mandate" and planning to do what we all feared.  It appears that his arrogance will only get worse, and include such goodies as privatizing Social Security -- which he denied planning -- and tax code "simplification."  That means shifting the tax burden off the wealthy, in case you're wondering.  For proof, just today, he has floated the suggestion of a national sales tax.  Meanwhile, Iraq is still the festering sore it was last week, with no end to the insurgency in sight.  Iran just signed a natural gas deal with China , making them ripe for a fresh look at invasion.  We'll see how long that pledge not to reinstate the draft holds up.  I'm betting it doesn't last through the spring. 

Notwithstanding that his re-election may be the result of fraud, the real question is why it was ever close enough to steal.  That is the indictment against John Kerry.  This may be the most extremist right-wing administration in history.  Regressive taxes like a national sales tax and privatization of social security are hugely unpopular.  He says he has a mandate for such policies, but he doesn't.  In fact, right-wing flacks attacked Kerry for "scaring people" about Social Security, when in fact Kerry was absolutely correct.  [Kerry also made very little of this issue, largely abandoning it.  Was he intimidated by the claim that he was "scaring people?"]  The case against George W. Bush was there to be made.  John Kerry didn't make it.  He needed another five points to take the election out of reach of fraud -- still not a landslide.  He wasn't going to get there with focus group tested single issues.  He might have gotten there if he had mounted a serious effort first, to show Dubya for the corporate fascist that he is, and second, to articulate a clear progressive vision.  As it was, "middle of the road" voters -- meaning middle income voters -- barely saw Dubya's image of "leadership in the war on terra" tarnished. It certainly could have been.

So what do we do now?

The belief among many that "democracy is dead" appears to stem from a belief that the Republican's share of the electorate is more or less permanent.  The present political division of America -- right down the middle -- turns elections into contests between the "ground game" of each side.  In such an environment, obviously the capacity to steal even a few percent of the vote in just a few places translates into a huge advantage for the side in control of the counting system.  But this view reflects a level of pessimism on the part of progressives.  Many progressives who believe "democracy is dead" would appear to despair at the possibility of building a national progressive majority, large enough to be "tamper proof." 

In fact, there are many indicators that a national progressive majority is absolutely achievable.  One thing is sure though.  The lilly livered, focus group driven, visionless interest group politics as practiced by the present Democratic strategic elite isn't going to create that progressive majority.  We need a fresh approach. 

As it happens, I have just such a fresh approach.  In fact, I proposed it, right here, seventeen months ago.


A New Strategic Vision For The Left

Let's start with some good news -- which might make you sick, when you realize that Kerry, Lockhart, Shrum, Cahill and the rest of those wienies failed to understand this.  Your average American voter is far more progressive than he votes.  He is with us on the questions of universal health care, improving schools, restoring our manufacturing base, protecting American jobs, and protecting American wages and living standards.  Gore learned this in 2000.  When he stopped playing "Republican-lite" and started sounding populist New Deal Democratic themes, he started doing better. 

Fancy that.  People want Democrats to be Democrats.

There's even more good news.  The track record of Democrats in creating broad-based "bottom up" prosperity is undeniable.  Likewise, the track record of Republicans creating stagnant, slow growth, high-unemployment economies is similarly undeniable.  The proof of that is a simple fact I discovered about a year ago.  No Republican administration has ever left office with unemployment under five percent.  Three Democratic administrations have since 1933.  Democrats create robust "full employment" economies.  Republicans don't -- including this administration.  That isn't opinion.  That is verifiable historical fact.

As I said in the "flagship" article for this site -- Defeat the Right in Three Minutes -- Republicans are "cheap-labor conservatives."  They don't really like robust "full employment" economies.  Too many opportunities for working people make them harder for the corporate lords to control.  The Republican agenda is all about corporate serfdom -- and they are hard at work bringing it about.  If you don't believe it, take a look at an interview with chief Republican strategist Grover Norquist.  He says he wants "the McKinley era, without the protectionism." 

Do most Americans want that agenda?  Even nominally "conservative" Americans?  Rush Limbaugh's flying monkeys clearly want it.  But are they a majority?

No, they aren't.  That's the good news.  The bad news is that no one in the Democratic Party's leadership seems to have a clue about how to "strip the bark off those bastards." 

Well I do, even if they don't. 

The winning strategy against the cheap-labor conservatives is so very simple it's ridiculous.  EXPOSE THEM FOR WHAT THEY ARE.  The great weakness of being a cheap-labor conservative is that you have to hide it.  You have to invent disingenuous rhetoric about "less government."  See the Patriot Act, if you buy that crap.  You have to turn all of the prosperity creating infrastructure of New Deal liberalism into "tyranny."  Social Security and Medicare are "tyranny" but the Patriot Act isn't.  You have to run on bogus "wedge issues" like "gay marriage."  Yes sir.  We have a net loss of jobs in this country for the first time since the Hoover administration, but the burning issue of the day is "gay marriage." 

How about this line in a speech, Senator Kerry?  "While they've got you all worked up over two gays committing themselves to a monogamous civil union -- like that's a bad thing -- they've bankrupted the government.  What do you think is more important?"  The way you win is by keeping people's eye on the ball.  The response to EVERY wedge issue is the same.  "They are distracting you with bullshit, while they pick your pocket."  Which is exactly what they're doing.

Cheap-labor conservatives specialize in defining us, the way they want us defined.  They specialize in framing the issues the way they want the issues framed.  Here's a line I heard several times cross the lips of George W. Bush.  "They want to empower the government.  We want to empower individuals."  Doesn't that sound good?  Of course, he sets up a false dichotomy.  It's either we empower government or we empower individuals.  None of our present crop of Democratic strategists knows how to respond to that -- or apparently understands the need to destroy such images.  Framing the issues like that wins -- in case you're wondering.  It's why so many ordinary Americans buy into all of that 'less government' rhetoric.

The response is simple -- and needs to be made.  Public schools empower people when they educate them.  Public highways empower people, by making it easier for them to travel.  Public infrastructure like dams and rural electrification empower people, by giving them access to electric powered technology from washing machines to the computer screen you're looking at.  Fair trade policies empower people, by protecting their wages and living standards from competition with cheap-labor cesspools.  Full employment empowers people, by giving them opportunities and bidding up wages.  The legal infrastructure for labor unions empowers people to collectively bargain with giant corporations.  Even corporations -- creations of the law -- empower people to create heavy industry like steel mills, railroads and oil companies that individual partners would never have the capital to create.  [See, there are even conservative examples.]  Laws, public infrastructure, public institutions, and even private institutions supported by a democratic government empower individuals.  Suggesting otherwise is a lie.  The very purpose of a democratic government is to empower individuals, and the New Deal did a damn good job of it.

But Dubya -- and the rest of the cheap-labor conservatives -- have no interest in "empowering individuals."  They are interested in chaining you to the oars of corporate America .  They want you broke, isolated, disorganized, distracted with "wedge issues," and utterly dependent on the corporate masters for your very survival.  When Dubya talks about "empowering individuals," he isn't talking about you.  He's talking about his "skull and bones" buddies.  He wants to empower them, so they can enslave you.  If you don't believe me, take some time to learn about "the McKinley era" also known as "the age of wage slavery."

The vast majority of Americans don't want to return to the McKinley era.  That's all you need to know.  If progressive candidates and progressive activists can succeed in demonstrating to the voting public what these cheap-labor conservatives have in mind for them, they will reject that agenda.  The Republicans conceal their agenda.  Dubya didn't run on the things he announced just today.  He didn't run on "fixing" social Security.  He barely mentioned it.  He didn't run on a national sales tax.  He didn't mention that one at all.  We know what he ran on.  Terror -- which as I write this two days after the election, is starting to look like exactly what we all knew it was.  It is starting to look like a grand distraction from a domestic agenda he barely discussed at all.

Why didn't he discuss it?  Think about it.  He didn't discuss his plans for his second term domestic agenda BECAUSE HE WOULD LOSE HIS ASS IF HE DID.  That means, by the way, he would lose by far more votes than he could ever hope to steal.

There's your strategy.  Pin him down on his cheap-labor agenda -- and every other Republican, while you're at it. 

Now let me show you in concrete terms how this works.  Let me first of all say, I am gratified by many people who have visited this site -- including in particular those wonderful folks who I have made friends with at my forum.  I am gratified to see the 200 or so blogs who have spread the "cheap-labor conservative" meme to the 150,000 people who have visited since the summer of 2003.  Unfortunately, no political campaign has put it to work.  They need to.  Here's how you do it.

First of all, learn a lesson from the cheap-labor conservatives.  They spend a lot of time doing something known as "opposition research."  As George W. Bush said to John Kerry, "you can run, but you can't hide."  Every cheap-labor conservative in Congress has record.  He has bills he has sponsored.  He has votes he has cast -- both in committee and on the floor.  He has statements he has made, duly recorded in the Congressional Record.  He has speeches, articles, op/ed pieces, fundraising letters, and a wealth of source material to verify his beliefs.  For a year already, I mention Grover Norquist's goal of returning us to "the McKinley era."  Norquist said that in an interview in The Nation two years ago.  I make it my business to make sure everybody hears about it.

That's how you do it.  That's how THEY do it.  Think about the Republican "attack ads" you've seen.  They find some obscure statement a Democrat made, or some obscure vote on some piece of legislation -- sometimes they find things that are decades old -- and they use those few facts to paint their opponent as exactly what they want him to be.  They use his own record, just like I use an opposing parties own words and conduct against him.  Nothing is more powerful.  John Kerry had to answer Dubya's charge about "voting against weapons systems" or "voting to raise taxes."  What did John Kerry present about Dubya's record. 

Look at Republican advertising, and then look at Democratic advertising.  Republican advertising is a hundred times more powerful.  I recall a Democratic commercial I saw a month or so ago.  There was an empty factory, and George W. Bush was heard talking up the economy.  It didn't work.  You know why?  Two reasons.  First, you had to be watching to get the impact.  If you were listening in the other room, all you heard was Dubya talking up his economic record.  Which brings me to the second problem.  The ad made the viewer do too much work to get the irony.  Irony has a very limited place in political advertising.  You have to beat people over the head with a two by four. 

Think about it.  Some people watch TV.  A lot of other people run the TV, without really watching it.  People talk about television being "passive."  You can just sit and be entertained.  Even that is too much work for some people.  They run the local news while they read the mail, balance their checkbook, watch the roast in the oven, read the note from the teacher, chew the fat with their girlfriend on the telephone, all while the TV plays in the background.  Democratic ads are aimed at people watching.  Republican ads are aimed at people who simply have the TV playing.  Their ads are simple, high impact messages designed to be heard in the kitchen.

That's why a Democrats ads need to say simple, direct things like, "Tom Delay voted to privatize social security.  He voted to for a national sales tax.  When asked to describe his vision he said, 'I want to return to the McKinley era.'"  Entirely too many Democratic political advertisers want to be cute.  They want to be funny.  They want to be intelligent.  They forget that their target constituency is that working mother who got up a 5:00 in the morning, worked all day, and is busy in the kitchen while her children are fighting because it's past suppertime and they're hungry.  She's got all the mental stimulation she can handle.  She wants you to get to the fucking point -- assuming she's paying attention at all.  Meanwhile, she hears Dubya on the TV -- playing in the next room -- touting his economic record.  She can't see the empty factory, because she isn't in there watching.  Then she hears someone say "John Kerry voted to raise taxes 793 times, voted to cut weapons systems 847 times, and now he says he's ready to protect you from terrorists." 

Which message does she hear?  She may not even realize that the first commercial was a commercial for John Kerry.  She knows the second one wasn't.  Is it any wonder she is a little confused when it comes time to vote as to just who exactly is on her side?  If you are wondering how the Republicans create the images and impressions that show up in polls.  If you're scratching your head at where people get these ideas, I just told you how they do it.  This last year, the Bush administration's record was so bad, it cost them a hundred million dollars to make those cut-through-the-background-noise messages stick.  But stick they did -- in part because John Kerry never countered them with cut-through-the-background-noise messages of his own.

As for the progressive future, "cheap labor" is a phrase our working mother will hear in the kitchen.  She knows all about cheap labor.  She lives it everyday.  The voting records and public statements of cheap-labor conservatives can be melted down into short, high impact sentences -- that she will hear in the kitchen.  All Democratic candidates have to do is dig up the material, boil it down to short sentences in hard hitting advertisements, and "strip the bark" off those cheap-labor bastards.

Let me share with you a remarkable outcome from this recent election.  In Florida , George W. Bush won by 350,000 votes.  On that same ballot was a ballot initiative to establish a state minimum wage, a dollar an hour higher than the federal minimum wage, and indexed to inflation.  Not only did the measure pass, it passed with a 3,000,000 vote margin.  That's a total 4.5 MILLION votes for the measure out of 6 million cast on the issue.  It passed with a million and a half votes more than John Kerry got -- which means an awful lot of Dubya's voters voted for it.  Cheap-labor conservatives hate the minimum wage -- like the devil hates holy water.  With support like that for a staple Democratic issue, don't tell me that Democrats can't win, and win big.

And don't tell me that John Kerry's loss wasn't his own god damn fault. 

======
Game plan For 2006

Set up a nationwide "527" committed to opposing vulnerable Republicans.

Spend a few months -- staring now -- identifying those vulnerable Republicans, and doing "opposition research" on them.

Develop some universal populist working class themes to use nationwide -- and in each individual race that dovetails with your "opposition research."  Make the epithet "cheap-labor conservative" the centerpiece of your attacks.

Raise money for television advertising.

Recruit and/or coordinate with Democratic campaigns in those races.

Develop and run "attack ads" based on those populist working class themes, that can be heard in the kitchen.

And stay tuned.  I may have an even better idea.

A native Floridian, Joe Lyles a/k/a "Conceptual Guerilla," recently returned to Florida, after spending fifteen years in the legal profession in North Carolina.  He is the author and webmaster of http://www.conceptualguerilla.com, and is presently organizing a ballot initiative in Florida to end 'black box voting' there.  You can reach him at webmaster@conceptualguerilla.com ."    

I'm conducting a one-woman literacy campaign against using the term, "adopt a . . ." as a fundraising or marketing ploy.

I know this sounds like another political correctness rant, but consider this. Language is important, so the way we describe and refer to adoption tells a community, and our children, how we really feel.

How many times have you asked an adopted person about his or her "real" parents (as if adoptive parents are somehow "unreal") or discussed how birthparents "gave up" a child (inferring abandonment instead of a much-considered "adoption plan.")

The use of "adopt a . . ." to support a cause, brand or product has been around for a while. We adults are accustomed to having words repurposed for commercial or political gain. Young children, however, are not so jaded. They truly take us at our word.

Despite letters of protest from members of Maine Families with Children from Asia, a statewide adoption group, the Sea Dogs baseball team has continued to promote its "Adopt a Sea Dog" program for years. According to its Website, "Schools throughout Maine can have a Sea Dogs player visit their school to talk about the importance of education, saying no to drugs and alcohol, and what it is like to be a professional athlete." If only parenting was so easy.

The state of Maine is no stranger to this misnomer. According to the State Planning Office Website, "School groups can adopt a beach, which they clean during Coast Week and then again in the spring as a class and family activity. You'll be provided with bags and an 'Adopt a Beach' certificate." You can avoid those dreaded doctor visits and parent-teacher conferences too.

Even the revered National Audubon Society has an "Adopt a Puffin" project to help preserve Maine's puffins. You can adopt a puffin online for a $100 donation. And you don't have to check their homework every night, either.

There is indeed more than one meaning to the term "adopt." A legislative body can adopt a resolution and a company can adopt a new personnel policy. But let's be honest, organizations use the familial sense of the word "adopt" to play on people's emotions, to make them commit to a particular cause or brand and to open their wallets.

Adoption is much more than sending in a check to save the rainforest or having a Sea Dog player read a book and sign autographs at a school. Adoption is a permanent, legal commitment to parent a child. Fundraising is fundraising, even when it helps puffins.

So let's support puffins, organize beach clean-ups and welcome Sea Dog players to our schools - without exploiting adoption. (The author is Christine Kukka of Scarborough is an adoptive parent and co-founder of Maine Families with Children from Asia.)