Late night political blogging

Elections mean late nights, so expect blog posts to come after most people's work day ends.

I've blogged a lot about Mike Arcuri's Congressional campaign in NY-24, and more recently about Jack Davis' race in New York's 26th Congressional District. The pundits rate those two races as the top two Congressional campaigns in New York.

But an underdog campaign that I'm also excited about is Eric Massa's Congressional campaign in the 29th District against incumbent Rep. Kuhl. A friend of mine was out riding her bike in the district, and she said there were a sea of Eric Massa signs up. Combine that grassroots energy with Rep. Kuhl's thoughts on Iraq and Katrina, and this is a race that Eric Massa can win.

This analysis of a September poll (it's well worth reading all of it) shows Eric Massa is right behind Rep. Kuhl, 40% to 43%, and makes the case that as Eric Massa becomes better known he will pull ahead.

So that's the key. Can we introduce Eric Massa to enough voters to win his Congressional race and Take Back Congress. We're phonebanking this weekend - sign up to call from home.

And here's a good primer on Eric Massa from Swing State Project.

Technorati tags: Working Families Party | 2006 Election | Take Back the House | Vote Row E | NY29 | Eric Massa

Reynolds compared to DeLay

Congressional Quarterly (via Swing State Project) is now rating Jack Davis' challenge to Tom Reynolds in New York's 26th Congressional District as "Leans Democratic".

From the CQ article:

"And nowhere is that more true than in New York's 26th District, where the re-election prospects of four-term Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds - head of the Republicans' national House campaign organization - have seen a stunning reversal of fortune. The controversy over Reynolds' handling of information about Foley's activities has prompted CQPolitics.com to change its rating on the race to Leans Democratic from Leans Republican.
. . .
The Leans Democratic rating does not mean that Reynolds definitely will lose on Nov. 7: His past popularity, strong fundraising advantage and the Republican lean in his upstate New York district gives him at least a chance of reversing the tide running strongly against him.

But all of the momentum appears on the side of the Democratic nominee, factory owner Jack Davis, who had been running a vigorous underdog campaign even before the Foley scandal erupted.

The contest is a rematch of the 2004 race in which Davis held Reynolds to an unexpectedly close 56 percent to 44 percent edge. Now, three separate polls since late last week showed Reynolds trails Davis by significant margins.
. . .
Reynolds - who has defended himself by saying that the e-mails in question were not the sexually explicit ones to other young men that were later revealed - says he mentioned the matter to the office of House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois, a matter of serious dispute since the scandal broke.

This has led many critics to demand to know why Reynolds didn't think the matter required a more thorough investigation, and whether he would not have been much more aggressive if - in his role as chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee - the lawmaker making inappropriate contacts with pages had been a Democrat rather than a Republican."

In case you're curious, the other Republican-held seats that CQ rates as "Leans Democratic" are Mark Foley's and Tom DeLay's. Tom Reynolds and Tom DeLay, two incumbents who would do anything to win elections.

Turning to the other New York races, Mike Arcuri's race in New York's 24th District is rated "No Clear Favorite", John Hall (NY-19) and Kirsten Gillibrand (NY-20) are rated "Leans Republican", and David Mejias (NY-3), Dan Maffei (NY-25) and Eric Massa (NY-29) are rated "Republican Favored".

Seven seats in play with four weeks to go, and I think the races are closer than those rankings show.

Help push our D-WFP candidates over the top: phonebank or donate.

Technorati tags: Working Families Party | 2006 Election | Take Back the House | Vote Row E | NY24 | Mike Arcuri | NY26 | Davis | Reynolds

Count on Me - four weeks to go

The Count on Me campaign is a 7-week drive to identify 200,000 progressive voters who will give Eliot Spitzer a clear public mandate for progressive change by voting for him for Governor on Row E, the Working Families Party ballot line.

As people take the Count on Me pledge, they've been telling us why they're casting a progressive vote on Row E. Universal health care is the #1 answer, with living wage jobs close behind and campaign finance reform, fair funding for schools and affordable housing all with their supporters.

Here are some of the reasons people are giving for their vote on Row E:

"I want to see working class minds in office making the decisions that need to made to straighten out what is supposed to be for the people!"

"Better jobs. Better health care."

"Bulk prescription drug buying"

Add your two cents and take the Count on Me pledge.

Technorati tags: Working Families Party | 2006 Election | Vote Row E | Count on Me

Davis leads Reynolds by 15 points

A Zogby International poll for the Buffalo News has Jack Davis 15 points ahead of incumbent Rep. Tom Reynolds. Davis was already running a strong race against Reynolds in New York's 26th District, holding Reynolds accountable for trade agreements that have left the district hemorrhaging jobs.

But then the Mark Foley scandal broke. Now we know that Tom Reynolds knew about the emails Mark Foley sent to underage pages, and that Reynolds' Chief of Staff had tried to cover up the scandal and had told Republican higher-ups about Foley years ago.

To most of us, Reynolds' role in the scandal is inexcusable. Reynolds' first response was to cover everything up, and then to hide behind kids instead of coming clean. Now he's trying to fast-talk his way out of trouble, and when that doesn't work it's safe to expect Reynolds to start sliming Jack Davis with negative attacks. Since Reynolds is the Chair of the RNCC, he'll have a ton of money to sink into negative ads.

So now both Davis' Congressional race in NY-26 and Mike Arcuri's race in NY-24 are rated "toss up" by the pundits, including the New York Times and the Cook Report (pdf). At least three more New York Congressional races are close, with underdog upsets looming. How big will the Democratic surge in New York be this year? That's up to us.

Volunteer today.

Technorati tags: Working Families Party | 2006 Election | Take Back the House | Vote Row E | NY24 | Mike Arcuri | NY26 | Davis | Reynolds

2 New Polls Show Davis Leading Reynolds

Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research:
Davis 50%
Reynolds 42%
n=522, October 3-4
client: Jack Davis
Link

Survey USA
Davis 50%
Reynolds 45%
n=482
client: WGRZ-TV
Link

Technorati tags: Working Families Party | 2006 Election | Take Back the House | Vote Row E | NY26 | Reynolds | Davis

Benefits to a higher minimum wage, part 407

I came across an article by Susan Hansen on TomPaine.com talking about a higher minimum wage and the economy that I'd like to share. If you don't read the whole thing, here's the key part:

"[S]tates leading in manufacturing exports - such as Washington - or foreign direct investment - California and New York - are the states that pay higher wages. But states such as Arkansas, Idaho and West Virginia - which have cut their labor costs most drastically since the 1970s - rank in the lowest quartiles in terms of exports. Higher state labor costs are also associated with faster growth in gross state product, education levels, productivity and personal income.

International data support these conclusions as well. According to the World Competitiveness Index, the most competitive country in the world is Finland, and the other Scandinavian "welfare states" with generous unemployment and health care policies also rank in the Top 10. Countries such as Estonia, Ireland, Singapore, and South Korea, which have invested heavily in education, have also attracted high levels of foreign investment.

What about jobs and employment? My research showed that trends in state labor costs have little impact on unemployment rates, which remain higher in central cities and in isolated rural areas. Despite its drastic cuts in state labor costs, West Virginia still has the nation's highest unemployment rates. Job growth is modestly greater in states with lower labor costs. But many of these jobs are part-time, low-paid and offer few, if any, benefits. Thus declines in state labor costs are associated with a number of negative social outcomes: higher rates of crime, poverty, suicide, divorce and births to single mothers. Creating a few more low-paid jobs does not counter these adverse trends.

Congress and the presidency, firmly under Republican control, may invoke international competition and "globalization" to justify their refusal to raise the minimum wage and for shifting the tax burden from wealth and capital to workers' wages. But in many states, political officials have made other choices: to increase the state minimum wage, to enact the Earned Income Tax Credit to benefit the working poor, to expand rather than restrict access to workers' compensation and unemployment benefits. The global economic system is not a static, immutable force over which we are powerless. Indeed, it is the officials we elect who can influence how the costs and benefits of globalization are distributed."

Read this sentence again: "Higher state labor costs [read: a higher minimum wage and better benefits] are also associated with faster growth in gross state product, education levels, productivity and personal income."

Here in New York, the Working Families Party was able to muscle through a minimum wage increase. We took heat for it, including from some surprising quarters, but we did it because it made working families lives better and because it bettered the state.

Congress needs to follow suit. Republicans running for Congress this year have had the chance to raise the minimum wage, and they haven't done it. That's something to think about when you go to vote.

And if you've made up your mind, help us throw the bums out.

Technorati tags: Working Families Party

Blatant Plagiarism ... for Economic Justice

Sometimes someone else writes something so dead-on that we have no choice but to cut-and-paste whole cloth. Tuesday's NLRB decision excluding nurses and other workers with limited supervisory duties from union membership was a stab in the back of working families.

With apologies to Podesta & company, here's what the Center for American Progress says about it today:

Working Americans Under Attack

Workers' rights have been severely crippled. On Tuesday, President Bush's National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) -- "easily the most anti-worker labor board in history" -- issued a decision that will deny the right to organize to as many as 8 million workers in 200 occupations. Under the Taft-Hartley Act, "supervisors" in an organization are prohibited from joining unions. In a party-line vote of the five-member NLRB, the three Bush appointees voted to broadly interpret who can be called a supervisor, extending to someone who "spends as little as 10 percent to 15 percent of his or her time overseeing the work of others." AFL-CIO President John Sweeney noted, "The rights of anyone who spends 7 hours and 10 minutes a day on routine duties and 50 minutes on 'supervisory functions' are at risk." Working Americans' right to organize has suffered under the Bush administration. Currently, 32 million workers -- 25 percent of the workforce -- have no right to form a union under federal, state, or local law. Even though productivity has steadily risen, the restriction on workers' rights has contributed to lower wages and a "middle class in turmoil." Tuesday's NLRB decision is a defeat for workers everywhere. In a blistering dissent, the two board members appointed by former President Clinton warned that the ruling "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."

'FAR OUT OF STEP WITH WORKPLACE REALITY': The 1947 Taft-Hartley amendments to the National Labor Relations Act were never meant to exclude professional workers who have no power to hire, fire, or discipline employees. But that's exactly what the NLRB ruled on Tuesday. In 2001, the Supreme Court -- with Justice Antonin Scalia writing for the majority -- forced the board to reexamine the definition of "supervisor," ruling that the definition set by the then-Clinton appointee-dominated board was too strict. But as the AFL-CIO's Stewart Acuff points out, Tuesday's Oakwood Healthcare, Inc. ruling goes "far beyond the clear intent of Congress, far beyond NLRB precedent, far more than necessary to comply with the Supreme Court's 2001 Kentucky River decision that gave rise to the ruling, and far out of step with workplace reality." The majority wrote that a supervisor is now someone who can assign "an employee to a certain department (e.g., housewares) or to a certain shift (e.g., night) or to certain significant overall tasks (e.g., restocking shelves)" or someone who has "men under him" and can decide "what job shall be undertaken next or who shall do it."

EXACERBATING THE CARE CRISIS: The nation is undergoing a "care crisis." A recent study in the Health Affairs medical journal "found 6,700 patient deaths and 4 million days of hospital care could be avoided each year by increasing staff of registered nurses," which requires not only training additional nurses, but also recruiting and retaining them in hospital positions. The Oakwood ruling will directly affect nurses, classifying more as supervisors ineligible for union protection. Lower unionization levels definitely won't help recruit more nurses or improve healthcare. Acuff notes, "Nurse unions lead the way in advocating for lower patient-to-nurse ratios and limits on mandatory excessive overtime, both of which have major consequences for patient care. It is no accident -- and has been documented by solid scholarly research -- that heart attack survival rates are higher for patients in hospitals where nurses have a union than in hospitals where nurses do not have a union." Vanessa Quinn, an emergency room nurse in upstate New York, said that expanding the definition of who is a supervisor is disastrous: "If we can't get young people into nursing, we're in trouble. They need to know they can go into this profession and take care of a family. Without union protection, pay will not be competitive."

WIDE-REACHING RESTRICTIONS FOR MILLIONS OF WORKERS: The Oakwood decision will go far beyond nurses though. The conservative National Association of Manufacturers yesterday applauded the NLRB's Oakwood decision, stating that it "updated a few decades of old 'us vs. them' workplace notions and brought federal labor law closer to the realities of the 21st Century workplace." But the problem with the ruling is precisely that it ignores the realities of the 21st century workforce, which, as Sweeney notes, "is more skilled and educated than those of previous generations. Workplace hierarchies have flattened out. Few employees today are in jobs that don't require them to exercise some independent judgment, to show someone else how to perform a task, to pass assignments on to co-workers. This should not cost them their right to a union voice on the job." By spending as little as 10 percent of the day "supervising" others -- even "minor, incidental, or occasional supervisory duties" -- an employee will lose the right to union representation. As the New York Times noted, "most of the nation's more than 20 million professional workers could fall into that category because many professionals, like a doctor overseeing nurses or a lawyer overseeing a secretary, could be deemed supervisors under the board's new guidelines." By 2010, this number could jump to 34 million professional workers, accounting for over 23 percent of the workforce.

Technorati tags: Working Families Party

NY Times weighs in on Reynolds - Foley scandal

From an editorial in today's New York Times:

"The more the House Republican leaders try to defend themselves on the Congressional page scandal, the worse it looks. They still do not seem to appreciate how serious this is, especially for a party that poses as the arbiter of morality. And they appear to be trying harder to deflect blame from themselves than to get to the bottom of what actually happened. The F.B.I. has begun investigating, but that will be a prolonged process, and the voters have to render a verdict in five weeks. There is evidence emerging that they should consider.
...
Mr. Reynolds, who was one of the few members of Congress to know about the Foley problem early on, insists he did all he had to when he "took it to my supervisor," Mr. Hastert. But Mr. Reynolds is a key member of the House leadership, and his constituents need to know whether he knew enough to have done more than he did. We'd also like to know why, in the months when Mr. Reynolds was one of the few people to know of Mr. Foley's misconduct, Mr. Foley contributed $100,000 to Mr. Reynolds's Congressional campaign committee."

Read the whole thing. Is this who we want running Congress?

Technorati tags: Working Families Party | NY26 | Foley | Reynolds

Reynolds Developments: In the Last Hour...

Via Capitol Confidential: Kirk Fordham has "resigned" (before he could be "fired"). It only took a few hours longer than predicted here yesterday afternoon.

Via The Politicker: StopTomReynolds.com has launched (courtesy of the Democratic Rural Conference).

Technorati tags: Working Families Party | NY26 | Foley | Reynolds

A Problem with Urban Outfitters

Maybe this popular knowledge, but it was news to us. This comes from Manhattan User's Guide, not one of our usual news sources:

A reader better informed than we are pointed out that both Anthropolgie and Urban Outfitters are owned by Richard Hayne.

Jonathan Valania wrote an excellent piece on Hayne in the Philadelphia Weekly a few years ago in which he reported that Hayne had donated $13,150 to Rick Santorum and his PAC over the years. (Santorum, as you'll recall, is anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, and in favor of teaching intelligent design.)

Hayne claimed in that article that his stores had no political affiliations or agenda. But Valania points out that a list of Santorum campaign donors included Urban Outfitters.

And the t-shirts at Urban Outfitters certainly seem to be an expression of a political point of view. In 2004, the store carried a t-shirt that declared "voting is for old people." You might accept their explanation that the message was meant ironically, but there's this:

Last year, the store sold a t-shirt that read "New Mexico, Cleaner than Regular Mexico."

And Urban Outfitters had no problem carrying the game Ghettopoly until the heat was on them.

Richard Hayne has every right to sell whatever's legal in his stores. You have every right to know where your dollars are going. Your money, your choice.

Good reason to think twice before patronizing one of those stores.

WFP on the Radio Wednesday: If Reynolds Knew...

WFP executive director Dan Cantor will be on the radio tomorrow in Western New York and will say that Congressman Tom Reynolds should resign if he knew that, as has now beeen reported, his chief of staff, Kirk Fordham, was actively involved in attempting to cover up Mark Foley's online activities. As Grg Sargent writes at TPM Cafe:

Reynolds has now denied knowledge of Fordham's work to protect Foley, the AP reports.

If Reynolds is to be believed, then he should fire his chief of staff. And if Reynolds' is not telling the entire truth, then he should resign.

Listen to Cantor between 8 and 8:10am on Wednesday morning on WHLD 1270 AM.

Of course, as fast-moving as this story is, either Reynolds or Fordham may actually have resigned by then.

Technorati tags: Working Families Party | NY26 | Foley | Reynolds

Editorial Boards Echo WFP Call for Independent Investigation of Foley Scandal

Tell Attorney General Gonzales and your members of Congress to appoint a special counsel to investigate a possible Foley cover-up.

The Working Families Party

For immediate release: October 3, 2006

EDITORIAL BOARDS ECHO WFP CALL FOR INDEPENDENT HOUSE INVESTIGATION

NEW INFORMATION: REYNOLDS STAFF TRIED TO BLOCK ABC REPORT;

Working Families Reiterates Request for Special Counsel

NEW YORK, NY -- Editorial boards around New York State today called for an independent investigation of how the Republican congressional leadership handled allegations of predatory sexual conduct by former Congressman Mark Foley. And new information makes the need for an independent investigation more pressing:

Congressman Tom Reynolds' (R-NY) chief of staff, Kirk Fordham, tried to broker a secret deal last Friday to get ABC News to cover up the worst part of the Foley child predator scandal, the lurid five-plus-page instant message chat in which Foley asked a child to measure his penis and then led the child into a detailed discussion of masturbatory techniques. (AmericaBlog)

On Sunday, the executive director of the Working Families Party (WFP), an independent political party in New York, wrote to U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez demanding the appointment of a special prosecutor to determine whether House leaders Denny Hastert and Tom Reynolds violated criminal laws by covering up the Foley scandal.

Today, an editorial in the Albany Times Union said,

"Given the potentially explosive nature of this case, along with the chances that other high-level lawmakers might be caught up in this scandal, an independent investigation seems to be warranted. By asking for a Justice Department investigation instead, Mr. Hastert has placed his trust in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who has a reputation for accommodating Republican interests. The public deserves better. The pages deserve better."

And an editorial in the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle said,

"An independent investigation must be opened immediately. House Speaker Dennis Hastert wants the attorney general involved. The key is to get this investigation into the hands of someone with a reputation for impartiality and thoroughness."

Dan Cantor, WFP executive director, reiterated his party's call for a special prosecutor:

"A growing chorus of respected voices are demanding that we get impartial answers to the key question: Why didn't the House leadership with knowledge of Foley's activity take action to stop sexual predator before the news media published the incriminating internet exchanges? Given the politicized context of the scandal, only a special counsel independent of the Bush Justice Department can be depended to find out, and hold the wrongdoers accountable."

The text of the WFP's request for a special counsel follows below:

THE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY
2-4 Nevins Street, 3^rd Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11217

October 1, 2006

The Honorable Alberto Gonzales
United States Department of Justice
Robert F. Kennedy Building
950 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530

Re: Request for the Appointment of Outside Special Counsel for the Investigation and Prosecution of Violations, or Conspiracy to Violate, Criminal Laws Relating to Mark Foley Affair

Dear Attorney General Gonzales:

The Working Families Party, an independent political party in New York State calls on the United States Department of Justice to appoint an outside special counsel with the independence to investigate and prosecute any and all criminal acts committed by any member of the U.S. House of Representatives relating to the apparent cover-up of the Mark Foley affair. Due to the severe threat to the integrity of the Congress, it is essential that such a counsel be appointed immediately. Such crimes are serious felonies and they need to be fully and independently investigated.

An independent investigation by a prosecutor, not subject to dismissal by any political appointee or elected official, is the only way to ensure that all those who participated in the cover-up of Foley's activities are held accountable for committing these serious crimes. No person is above the law, not even a member of Congress.

Republican members of Congress called yesterday for a criminal investigation of Foley's activities. That is a step in the right direction but does not go far enough. To borrow a phrase from Watergate, the cover-up is sometimes worse than the original crime. That deserves an independent investigation. According to a report by Ben Smith of the New York Daily News,

"On July 27, 2006, the [National Republican Congressional Committee], which [Rep. Thomas] Reynolds chairs, accepted an unusually large contribution of $100,000 from Foley. Hard to imagine something of that size just slipping past the chairman."

To be blunt, this has every appearance of "hush money" accepted by the political committee controlled by Representation Thomas Reynolds (R-NY). The actions or inactions of Reynolds and Speaker Hastert must be investigated immediately.

The Appointment of an Outside Special Counsel Is Plainly Warranted. As you know, the Justice Department's own regulations require the appointment of an outside special counsel when a three-prong test is met. 28 C.F.R. part 600.1. First, a "criminal investigation of a person or matter [must be] warranted." Second, the "investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney’s Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department." And, third, "under the circumstances it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter." If this three-prong test is met, under the federal regulations that govern the Justice Department, a special counsel must be selected from outside the government who has the authority to secure necessary resources for investigation and prosecution and who would have full investigatory and prosecutorial powers. 28 C.F.R. parts 600.3-600.6.

In this case, the most senior members of Congress have acknowledged the need for a criminal investigation. Because the political nature of the affair has put control of the House of Representatives at risk, a Justice Department under the direction of President Bush faces a deep conflict. And the potential stain of these allegations on a branch of Congress elevates the public interest to a level mandating appointment of a Special Counsel.

We thank you for your attention to this critically important matter. We trust you will review the facts and allegations and take the only appropriate action: appointment of an outside special counsel to conduct a thorough and independent criminal investigation. We look forward to the Department’s response. Please contact us to arrange a meeting to discuss this request.

Very truly yours,

Dan Cantor
Executive Director
Working Families Party

Tell Attorney General Gonzales and your members of Congress to appoint a special counsel to investigate a possible Foley cover-up.

Technorati tags: Working Families Party | 2006 Election | Take Back the House | Vote Row E | NY26 | Foley | Reynolds | Hastert