Conservative Democrat

During the past 25 years, we have seen a growing trend toward ideological polarization in both major parties. Single issue constituencies and idealogues have gained power in the major parties at the expense of those with more centrist views. The reality is that the largest group of voters remains in the middle which helps to explain why Americans are increasingly alienated from both Democrats and Republicans. Since self-professed conservatives greatly outnumber those who identity theselves as liberal, it is especially critical for Democrats to appeal to the center. This year, the Democratic Party is fortunate to have three nominees for U.S. Senate who recognize the need for our party to win back social traditionalists and to stress nationalism and economic populism. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Harold Ford, Jr. of Tennessee and Jim Webb of Virginia are all in a good position to claim victory and bolster the moderate-conservative wing of the Democratic Party.

Casey, Ford and Webb are certainly not the first center-right candidates to win a Democratic nomination for a major office. In past elections, moderate to conservative Democrats have often experienced the betrayal of progressive party activists and went down to defeat as party organizations withheld support. Some Democrats would prefer to lose with ideologically perfect candidates than compromise at all on any issue - especially the social issues like abortion, gun control and gay-lesbian concerns. While the moderate to conservative rising stars of 2006 have encountered some intra-party opposition, all have gained broad-based party support in their respective campaigns. Polls show Casey with a lead while Ford and Webb are in virtual ties with their Republican opponents.

Harold Meyerson has an excellent article on Bob Casey and Harold Ford in October issue of The American Prospect http://www.prospect.org/

Meyerson points out that Ford has shifted away from a formerly held "New Democrat" pro-free trade position and embraced nationalist positions on matters such as trade and port security.

"His (Ford's) campaign was one of the first to run ads against the Dubai ports deal. 'We need to control our borders," Ford says. 'We don't want to learn that terrorists came across the border and exploded our movie theaters, or that they have blown up 25 schools in the Midwest."

Ford has favored a hard line stand on ilegal immigration opposing any amnesty plan and supports a ban on same sex marriage. The American Prospect article quotes Ford as stating "They're going to say I'm a liberal. I believe that marriage should be between men and women. I don't know any better, that's how I was brought up. We didn't have any choice. Where I grew up, when you awakened on Sunday, you went to church...I learned the faith thing the old-fashioned way ! Me, a liberal ? I chair the faith-based caucus !"

Casey is described by Meyerson as a social conservative and economic liberal. The Pennsylvania Democrat is pro-life, pro-gun rights, a strong supporter of organized labor and a proponent of activist government. Meyeron notes "Casey's conservative positions on social issues are well known. This frees him to devote the lion's share of his speeches to economic fairness." In his Senate campaign, Casey has been focused on critical matters like developing renewable energy sources, fair trade agreements, a higher minimum wage and more affordable health care.

Jim Webb does not stress social issues like abortion and gay marriage in his Virginia Senate race but definitely reflects socially traditionalist values. Webb is first and foremost a military man. He wears combat boots to his campaign appearances. Webb is a decorated Vietnam Vet - a former Marine Officer who later served as Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan. A former Republican, Webb switched parties over the failed military intervention in Iraq. A conservative friend of Webb, Mackubin Thomas Owens pointed out in a National Review Online column earlier this year http://tinyurl.com/mlhw5 that Webb's opposition to intervention in Iraq does not mean that he is any way soft on defense and national security matters. Owens explained in the February 13 edition of NRO that Webb has opposed the Iraq war "based on strategic considerations — he is concerned that by committing such a large force there for an extended period of time we have weakened ourselves in the long run against a rising China."

Webb is a strong Second Amendment supporter. WDBJ-TV reported in August that the Virginia Democrat favors the right of Americans to carrry weapons and defend themselves and their families. In a May interview http://tinyurl.com/hdyq6, Webb shared his views on trade policy:

"We are in a situation where workers are losing jobs because of unfair trade practices from foreign governments, and we cannot and should not allow these practices to continue. The first place I would look would be the protections available to our industries in our existing trade laws. We should make it clear to foreign governments that we will not allow them to operate outside of established international trade law to gain an advantage over U.S. companies. Beyond that, I believe it would be fair to re-examine NAFTA and other acts to try and rebalance the playing field." Webb has summed up his position on trade as "free trade is not fair trade." http://tinyurl.com/hb7k8

A victory by Ford and Webb would greatly help to break the Republican hold on the Solid South. At present, there are only four Democratic U.S. Senators from the South and just three if you fail to count Bill Nelson of Florida - a Southern accented native Floridian who represents a state that is increasingly non-Southern except for geography. To win a governing majority, it is critical that Democrats become politically viable again in the South and other red states.

Casey's election to the Senate would send a message to working and middle class social traditionalist-economic populist voters that they are welcome again and have a real voice in the Democratic Party. Such voters make up a significant part of the swing vote in Pennsylvania and other states like Iowa. Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio and Wisconsin. As a Senator, Casey will be a spokesperson for a long neglected element of the Democratic Party's constituency. Social traditionalists, often Roman Catholics from labor union backgrounds, once formed the base of the Democratic Party in many states. It is important that we welcome these voters back to our party. Let's hope that Casey, Ford and Webb prevail in November and move our party back to the mainstream values that have been exploited by hypocritical Republicans.

* "FOLEYGATE" FALLOUT - WASHINGTON TIMES SAYS RESIGN, MR. SPEAKER

The Washington Times cannot be accused of being a liberal newspaper. I think any reasonable person would agree that the newspaper leans strongly to the right on most issues and is certainly no front from the Democratic Party. In fact, the Washington Times, like Republican talk radio show hosts, often refers to the party as the "Democrat Party."

As a fairly partisan Democrat, I was shocked to find that yesterday's Washington Times contained an editorial which reflected my views on the mishandling of "Foleygate" by the Republican House leadership. The Times is calling for House Speaker Dennis Hastert to resign which I think under the circumstances would be the appropriate thing to do. I realize that Democrats in Congress have engaged in similar misbehavior at times, but the reality is that the Republican leadership despite all of the talk about moral values participated in covering up the actions of a pedophile. That is inexcusable in my view. See link to the Washington Times editorial http://tinyurl.com/r75ua
and text below:

"The facts of the disgrace of Mark Foley, who was a Republican member of the House from a Florida district until he resigned last week, constitute a disgrace for every Republican member of Congress. Red flags emerged in late 2005, perhaps even earlier, in suggestive and wholly inappropriate e-mail messages to underage congressional pages. His aberrant, predatory -- and possibly criminal --behavior was an open secret among the pages who were his prey. The evidence was strong enough long enough ago that the speaker should have relieved Mr. Foley ofhis committee responsibilities contingent on a full investigation to learn what had taken place, whether any laws had been violated and what action, up to and including prosecution, were warranted by the facts. This never happened."

"Rep. John Shimkus of Illinois, the Republican chairman of the House Page Board, said he learned about the Foley e-mail messages "in late 2005." Rep. JohnBoehner of Ohio, the leader of the Republican majority, said he was informed ofthe e-mail messages earlier this year. On Friday, Mr. Hastert dissembled, to put it charitably, before conceding that he, too, learned about the e-mail messages sometime earlier this year. Late yesterday afternoon, Mr. Hastert insisted that he learned of the most flagrant instant-message exchange from 2003 only last Friday, when it was reported by ABC News. This is irrelevant. The original e-mail messages were warning enough that a predator -- and, incredibly, the co-chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children -- could beprowling the halls of Congress. The matter wasn't pursued aggressively. It was barely pursued at all. Moreover, all available evidence suggests that the Republican leadership did not share anything related to this matter with any Democrat."

"Now the scandal must unfold on the front pages of the newspapers and on the television screens, as transcripts of lewd messages emerge and doubts are rightly raised about the forthrightness of the Republican stewards of the 109thCongress. Some Democrats are attempting to make this "a Republican scandal," andthey shouldn't; Democrats have contributed more than their share of characters in the tawdry history of congressional sexual scandals. Sexual predators come inall shapes, sizes and partisan hues, in institutions within and without government. When predators are found they must be dealt with, forcefully and swiftly. This time the offender is a Republican, and Republicans can't simply "get ahead" of the scandal by competing to make the most noise in calls for afull investigation. The time for that is long past."

"House Speaker Dennis Hastert must do the only right thing, and resign his speakership at once. Either he was grossly negligent for not taking the red flags fully into account and ordering a swift investigation, for not even remembering the order of events leading up to last week's revelations -- or he deliberately looked the other way in hopes that a brewing scandal would simply blow away. He gave phony answers Friday to the old and ever-relevant questions of what did he know and when did he know it? Mr. Hastert has forfeited the confidence of the public and his party, and he cannot preside over the necessary coming investigation, an investigation that must examine his own inept performance."

I applaud the Washington Times editors for their courage and willingness to speak out against the corrupt Republican leadership.

* NLRB CONTINUES ATTACK ON COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

The AFL-CIO Weblog today has a disturbing news item http://tinyurl.com/r58zl
about the latest attempt of the National Labor Relations Board to further weaken collective bargaining rights in our nation. As you may know, the Bush Administration has long been attempting to take away overtime pay protections from millions of workers. This decision is another blow to organized labor which has been under attack since the Reagan Administration declared war on the working class in early 1981.

"The Republican-dominated National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) voted along party lines to slash long-time federal labor laws protecting workers’ freedom to form unions and opened the door for employers to classify millions of workers as supervisors.Under federal labor law, supervisors are prohibited from forming unions."

"The NLRB ruled on three cases, collectively known as “Kentucky River,” but it’s the lead case Oakwood Healthcare Inc. that creates a new definition of supervisor. Dozens of cases involving the definition of supervisor now before the NLRB will be sent back, with employers having the option to craft arguments that will meet the new definition of supervisor and limit the number of workers who can join a union."

"Although the Oakwood decision covers only nurses, the expanded definition of superviors means up to 8 million workers, including nurses, building trades workers, newspaper and television employees and others may be barred from joining unions. In Oakwood, the board agreed with the employer that charge nurses are supervisors. But the ruling also sets broad definitions for determining who is a supervisor that invites employers to classify nurses and many low-level employees with minor authority as supervisors. The decision was issued Sept. 29 but not released until today."

"The board’s new definition essentially enables employers to make a supervisor out of any worker who has the authority to assign or direct another and uses independent judgment. Amazingly, the board also ruled that a worker can be classified as a supervisor if he or she spends as little as 10 percent to 15 percent of his or her time overseeing the work of others."
"AFL-CIO President John Sweeney calls the decisions “outrageous and unjustified.”

"It’s the latest example of how the Bush-appointed NLRB is prepared to use legal maneuvering to deny as many workers as possible their basic right to have a voice on the job through their union. The NLRB should protect workers’ rights, not eliminate them. If the administration expects us to take this quietly, they’re mistaken."

"This week, working people are coming together in the streets in cities across the nation to make sure everyone knows that the Bush administration is slashing workers’ right to have a voice on the job."

"In their dissent, NLRB members Wilma Liebman and Dennis Walsh say the decision “threatens to create a new class of workers under federal labor law—workers who have neither the genuine prerogatives of management, nor the statutory rights of ordinary employees.” Liebman and Walsh wrote that most professionals and other workers could fall under the new definition of supervisor, “who by 2012 could number almost 34 million, accounting for 23.3 percent of the workforce.” http://www.afl-cio.org

We must elect a Democratic Congress that will restore basic labor protections to America's workers.

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this