text:
Too many tea partiers split votes | POLL
If Tuesday's Republican House and Senate primaries were referendums on the tea party movement's potency in the GOP, it's fair to say the movement is so close to victory and yet so far away.
While overtly pro-tea party candidates failed to win the two elections, the numbers suggest the presence of several of them in each contest was part of the reason.
<IF YOU GO>The number of primary ballots cast in Vanderburgh County reversed a trend of increased primary voting in mid-term election years, according to uncertified election results.
Pending the addition of provisional ballots, 15,703 votes were cast. That compares to 16,132 in 2006 and 9,350 in 2002.
But while the total is down, the number of uncertified Republican primary ballots cast went up substantially — from 9,234 in 2006 to 10,929. It was a precipitous drop in Democratic ballots cast — from 6,898 in 2006 to 4,774 — that accounts for the overall reduction.
"For the first time in over 25 years, we had no contested countywide race," said Democratic Chairman Mark Owen. "There was no reason for a lot of Democrats to go to the polls."
Other than minor party offices, Democrats had just two contested township trustee positions on the ballot. Republicans had local primaries as well as contested U.S. Senate and 8th District House primaries.</IF YOU GO>
In the 8th District primary, tea party favorite Kristi Risk garnered 29 percent of the vote to winner Larry Bucshon's 33 percent. Bucshon was backed by national GOP leaders and most party leaders in the district.
But if the combined 18 percent of the vote won by visibly pro-tea party candidates Steve Westell and Dan Stockton were added to Risk's total, Bucshon would lose even if he received the 9 percent that went to a more conventional Republican, John Lee Smith. Three other candidates who sometimes identified with the tea party movement collected the remaining 11 percent of votes.
In the Senate race, more than half of Republicans who cast ballots voted for a candidate other than establishment-backed primary winner Dan Coats.
"(Risk) could have staged an upset," said University of Evansville political scientist Robert Dion. "This would have been a big, big story."
Dion said the combined 42 percent of the primary vote collected by Bucshon and Smith is a fair representation of the more traditionally conservative establishment Republican vote in the 8th District.
Dion said the presence of former Rep. John Hostettler on the GOP Senate ballot almost certainly benefited Risk and other primary winners closely identified with conservative causes, such as state Senate candidate Jim Tomes and Knight Township trustee candidate Jim Braker. Conversely, each candidate's supporters likely also voted for the others where possible.
"It's spillover, mutually re-enforcing phenomena," Dion said. "Conservatives have a deep relationship with (Hostettler). When he's on the ballot, that really means a lot, especially in a Republican primary."
Split movement
But the fact remains that 8th District GOP candidates who embraced the tea party movement split that segment of the Republican electorate. The numbers suggest a single candidate backed by tea partiers could have defeated the preferred candidate of the national GOP.
"This is definitely something the liberty movement will be looking at very closely, to see if we can create a process whereby you don't have so many (tea party) candidates," said Evansville resident Mike Sandefur, vice president of the Freedom Maker Coalition of Indiana.
"It's hard to say exactly what that process would look like. Sometimes you have to experience a situation before you have the will or motivation to change it."
In fact, such a change would require persuading some pro-tea party candidates not to run for office in order to coalesce behind a single contender or changing the law.
In Indiana, state law does not require candidates in congressional elections to win absolute majorities. It is only necessary to win more votes than the other candidates, regardless of how many candidates are on the ballot.
As is often the case with the decentralized tea party movement locally and nationwide, there is no consensus among activists on the issue.
"I would rather have a larger group of candidates to select from than a smaller group," said Mike Wilson, one of the organizers of Evansville-based United Freedom Makers. "Let (candidates) stand on the merits of their platforms."
About Bucshon, too, gauging tea party sentiment is a matter of depends upon which tea partier is asked. Most activists said their organizations will let passions from the primary cool before they start to talk about the 8th District congressional race.
Some noted that Terre Haute resident John Cunningham is seeking the seat as the Libertarian Party's nominee. They said Cunningham has as much of a chance to get tea party support as Bucshon or Democrat Rep. Trent Van Haaften of Mount Vernon.
Jim Bratten, a spokesman for the Evansville-based Tri-State Tea Party, said Bucshon probably will be the choice of his organization's members now that tea party candidates have been defeated.
"I don't see anybody that I know of personally voting for Trent Van Haaften, because he'd just be another (Democratic Rep. Brad) Ellsworth, and why would we want that?"
Subscribe to the Courier & Press or The Gleaner
Need Help? Call us at 1-877-304-7771.
Monday-Friday: 6am-5pm / Saturday: 6am-11am / Sunday: 7am-Noon


text:
AUSTIN, Texas - The Texas Exes will honor Thomas G. Loeffler of San Antonio, a 1971 graduate of UT Law, as one of six University of Texas at Austin alumni who have distinguished themselves professionally and through service to the university with the Distinguished Alumnus Award at a ceremony at 7 p.m. on Friday, Oct. 3, at the LBJ Auditorium.
After graduating from law school, Loeffler began his distinguished record of public service by serving as chief legislative counsel for the late Texas Sen. John Tower. Then at age 28, Loeffler was appointed special assistant for legislative affairs by then-President Gerald Ford. Loeffler also decided to run for office and in 1978 was elected for the first of four terms in the U.S. House of Representatives, representing the 21st Congressional District of Texas, soon becoming chief deputy whip. In 1987, President Ronald Reagan called upon Loeffler to serve as the principal coordinator for Central America in the White House Office of Legislative Affairs.
He is also the founder and senior government affairs partner of Loeffler, Jonas & Tuggey, LLP in San Antonio. Loeffler's record of public service is complemented by his service to The University of Texas at Austin. In his 12 years on The University of Texas System's Board of Regents, Loeffler served in many capacities, including vice chairman and chairman of the board. He currently serves as a trustee for the university's Law School Foundation and chairman of the Foundation's Development Committee. He was named an Outstanding Alumnus by the School of Law in 2002. He is a Life Member of the Texas Exes.
Other 2003 Distinguished Alumnus Award recipients include:

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Any thoughts on how I can find someone to create a website that allows very simple video editing? I want my website to allow users to upload two personal videos and attach them to a template created from a download from Videohive. The finished product to look like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIPB6ih7p2s I can't seem to find someone who has done anything like this. All help is appreciated.
Contact me via email, maybe I can help you.
Helpful Information
- Please read our community guidelines. Self promotion and discussion of piracy is not allowed.
- Open a support ticket if you would like specific help with your account, deposits or purchases.
- Item Support by authors is optional and may vary. Please see the Support tab on each item page.
Most of all, enjoy your time here. Thank you for being a valued Envato community member.


text:
Originally written on Fox Sports Kansas City | Last updated 11/17/14
After entering the All-Star break on a low note, the Kansas City Royals are likely feeling much better about themselves to start the season's second half.Back-to-back wins over the division-leading Detroit Tigers will do that for a team.Kansas City looks to complete the sweep on Sunday as it hosts Detroit.The Royals (45-49) had lost five in a row prior to the break while being outscored 30-12. One run was good enough for a victory in Friday's opener, then they tagged Justin Verlander for eight hits in 5 23 innings Saturday in a 6-5 victory, the team's fifth win in its last six games versus Detroit.Mike Moustakas was 3 for 4 with a go-ahead homer in the fifth inning off Verlander."There's a great pitcher on the mound and he doesn't make too many mistakes," said Moustakas, who entered in a 3-for-20 slump. "I got a pitch I could handle and didn't miss it."Another victory would give the Royals their first three-game sweep of a team with a record over .500 while bringing them within five...
Comments are closed.
What do you think?To leave a comment, you can:
MLB News
Delivered to your inbox
You'll also receive Yardbarker's daily Top 10, featuring the best sports stories from around the web. Customize your newsletter to get articles on your favorite sports and teams. And the best part? It's free!
Follow us on Twitter
|Best of Yardbarker
|NFL News
|MLB News
Today's Best Stuff
For Bloggers
Join the Yardbarker Network for more promotion, traffic, and money.
Company Info
What is Yardbarker?
Yardbarker is the largest network of sports blogs and pro athlete blogs on the web. This site is the hub of the Yardbarker Network, where our editors and algorithms curate the best sports content from our network and beyond.
|© 2015 Yardbarker, Inc. All rights reserved. Use of this website (including any and all parts and components) constitutes your acceptance of these Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. (What's New?)


text:
Rodney King Found Dead At Age 47
The pool where Rodney King was found dead at the bottom is seen on... News PhotoCalifornia,Day,Horizontal,Human Interest,Outdoors,People,Rialto Bridge,Rodney King,Social Issues,Swimming Pool,USAPhotographer Kevork DjansezianCollection: Getty Images News 2012 Getty ImagesRIALTO, CA - JUNE 17: The pool where Rodney King was found dead at the bottom is seen on June 17, 2012 in Rialto, California. King, whose video beating by Los Angeles police in 1991 sparked riots after the acquittal of the four officers involved, was found dead at the age of 47 from an apparent drowning in his swimming pool. (Photo by Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images)


text:
Why is it a recurring theme that Americans have average backhands?
View Single Post
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 392
Connors had possibly the best backhand of the open era. At the very least, he's in a select group with just a few other players. It was Jimbo's backhand that enabled him to continue to rally effectively against players half his age.
The best two-handers come from players who habitually put a lot of shoulder and torso rotation into the shot (Connors, Djokovic). Too many players, including some of the Americans mentioned in this thread, rely on wristy, arm-oriented strokes that make it very easy to set up for a forehand on the next shot. If you're a savant, you can pull off a backhand stroke like that (Borg). If you're not, you'll produce a Courier/Roddick backhand. Note that when Connors was coaching Roddick, Andy's backhand improved because he paid more attention to footwork and body position. He also developed a decent slice. But by then it was too late to acquire a backhand that was a genuine strength; Roddick's goal was just to prevent it from being too great a liability.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by JMR


text:
Programs - General Description
Current Program/Catalog Information
To view current program information, select a program (or "ALL" for all programs) from the drop-down menu.
Health Information Management - Medical Coding and Billing (Fall Admission) Certificate
Health and Sciences Division
General Description | Semester Layout | Course Requirements | Printable Checklist
|To provide Medical Coding graduates for entry level positions in the various healthcare settings meeting the educational, economic, and healthcare delivery system needs.
|Medical Coders regularly communicate with physicians for clarification of patient diagnoses and procedures. They must have a good background in medical terminology and disease processes. Coders utilize patient health information to appropriately assign numerical codes for billing and reimbursemt. Coders must understand government and insurance regulations and guidelines. Coders also abstract information from the health record to be used in research, internal and external health statistics. Coders must be able to work independently, pay attention to detail and possess good communication skills.
Coders are employed in any type of facility that provides patient care. Entry-level positions begin around $25,000-30,000 annually. Salary ranges vary by geographical location.
Program Entrance Requirements
Transportation and Materials
Academic Standards
Agency Requirements
|Students in health majors must meet the published clinical agency requirements when participating in assigned labs. Requirements include immunizations, background checks, and drug testing. To be in compliance with Article, 23, Section 44-7-2920 of the S.C. Code of Law, all students enrolled in AHS 141, DAT 154, DHG 154, HIM 102, MED 102, MLT 110, NUR 160, NUR 201, PNR 110, RAD 101, RES 101, and SUR 101 must complete the requirements listed above prior to being assigned to any direct care entity. Results of the background check/drug screening could affect the student's ability to complete required clinical rotations and/or become credentialed. For example, a felony conviction could make a student ineligible to take the licensing exam(s) required by the profession or prevent the student from participating in the clinical training component.
Incomplete "I" Grade Policy
|An Incomplete "I" is assigned for academic work which, for unforeseeable, emergency and justifiable reasons beyond student's control, has not been finished at the end of the term. Having a non-passing grade does not constitute justifiable reason or an unforeseeable emergency. Incomplete grades are contingent upon instructor approval. However, it is the primary responsibility of the student to request an incomplete grade from his/her instructor. An instructor, who agrees to award an incomplete grade, must file an incomplete grade form.
|Incomplete grades may be given only in the following circumstances:
|Appropriate grades must be assigned in other circumstances. A failing grade and last date of attendance should be recorded for students who cease attending class without authorization. Students who are unable to complete a course and who do not meet these circumstances should consider dropping the course.
|The following provisions for incomplete grades apply:
Graduation Requirements


text:
What is AAT?
The Art & Architecture Thesaurus (AAT) (r) is a structured vocabulary for generic concepts related to art and architecture. It was developed by The Getty Research Institute to help research institutions become consistent in the terminology they use.Learn More
More Info
Primary Description:
Large, densely woven flameworked sphere using 3mm Pyrex rod. The sphere is woven outward from the center. During this process, the object is held in place by a complex glass armature that is removed as the work increases in size.
Exhibitions (1)
Corning Museum of Glass
Changing Exhibitions Gallery
Publications (5)
Plum Woven Heaven, Tangled Earth (adult) (2011)BIB# 134421
Layering Creative Virtues onto an Object, Part 2: Survey (2009-05) illustrated, p. 12;
Recent Important Acquisitions, 44 (2002) illustrated, p. 244, fig. 57; BIB# AI64571
Susan Plum and Joyce Scott: Borderscapes (2000) pp. 50-51; BIB# AI47463
Year In Review (New Glass Review, 21) (2000) illustrated, p. 41;
Multimedia (2)
Plum Woven Heaven


text: Patt Morrison for May 21, 2012 May 21st, 2012, 12:00am Dharun Ravi sentenced to 30 days after roommate commits suicide May 21st, 2012, 12:59pm | Patt Morrison The former Rutgers University student was convicted of crimes related to secretly recording Tyler Clementi and a male companion in their room. Add your comments Democratic senators go after Facebook co-founder for avoiding taxes, but Republicans call foul May 21st, 2012, 1:08pm | Patt Morrison Senators Charles Schumer and Bob Casey think Eduardo Saverin's primary motivation for renouncing his U.S. citizenship last year was to avoid paying taxes on his stake in Facebook post-IPO. Add your comments Clifton's Cafeteria may boast oldest neon in the world May 21st, 2012, 12:52pm | Patt Morrison Renovators of Clifton's Cafeteria in downtown Los Angeles have uncovered what they think is the oldest neon light bulb in the world. Add your comments How bad is hyper-partisanship in the US government? May 21st, 2012, 12:49pm | Patt Morrison "It's Even Worse Than It Looks," according to Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein, whose new book explains how our existing political system is operating in a state of adversarial culture war that threatens the very fabric of American society. Add your comments Possessing drugs for personal use could be classified a misdemeanor, not a felony May 21st, 2012, 10:07am | Patt Morrison Will reducing the personal possession of drugs like cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine from a felony to a misdemeanor help California's budget woes? Add your comments It was supposed to be the end of the world as we know it, but it wasn't May 21st, 2012, 12:43pm | Patt Morrison It was exactly a year ago today that local preacher and Family Radio founder Harold Camping predicted the world was going to end. Add your comments The legacy of former California Governor Pat Brown lives on in granddaughter's documentary May 21st, 2012, 12:48pm | Patt Morrison Sascha Rice's film "California State of Mind – The Legacy of Pat Brown" examines Brown's impact on the state and how his legacy has influenced the contemporary challenges California faces. Add your comments Find an archived Episode: January February March April May June July August September October November December 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015


text:
- News
- Premium
- Lifestyle
- Tech
- Communities
- Video
- Multimedia
- More
Greenpeace activists break into French nuclear plant
Published on Mar 18, 2014 4:03 PM
STRASBOURG (REUTERS) - Environmental activists from Greenpeace entered a nuclear power plant operated by EDF in Fessenheim, eastern France, on Tuesday, demanding European governments cut the use of nuclear energy, the group said.
Greenpeace said that more than 60 people of 14 nationalities had entered the plant, France's oldest. Firefighters confirmed activists had broken into the site. Other authorities declined to comment.
There was no indication that power output from the plant had been interrupted, according to the website of the RTE electricity network operator.
President Francois Hollande has promised to close Fessenheim by 2016 and cut France's reliance on nuclear energy to 50 per cent of its electricity mix from 75 per cent now.
To continue reading, log in if you are a subscriber
Enjoy 2 weeks of unlimited digital access to The Straits Times. Get your free access now!


text:
You've viewed all of your free items on Creativity.
To register, get added benefits and unlimited access to articles, Become a Member. Already a Member? Sign in.
The unique personalities of Tokyo's underground fashion scene reinterpret the legendary vodka brand, and their innovative creations are captured by famed Absolut photographer Nadav Kandar and put on display online. The stylish "subwa
Become a member
We are glad you are enjoying Creativity. You have reached your seventh and last free item. To get uninterrupted access and additional benefits, become a member today.
Already a member? Log in.


text:
I've noticed a big shift toward more and more client-side Javascript code these days. Packages like Backbone.js and others perform validation, access control and more. Is this causing security risks and if so what risks should we be aware of? Is Javascript based validation a security risk?
It's a security risk if it isn't backed up with equivalent or stronger validation on the server side.
It can be very powerful as an ease-of-use feature to make the UX smoother, preventing tedious or jarring round-trips and page reloads, but you're quite right that you can't rely on it as a security feature.
Browser-based validation is a user convenience.
It has nothing to do with security, since it doesn't actually validate requests.
You still need to validate everything on the server.
Javascript validation in and of itself is not a risk. Is can provide an additional layer of data validation/scrubbing. What IS a risk is relying SOLELY upon client-side validation if your information is being passed to a server to process.
Javascript should never be your security screening. Javascript being client side, is vulnerable. Javascript validation is used to ease user experience.
It is better to use server side scripting for security purposes.


text:
Kiosk Browser
10,000 - 50,000 downloadsAdd this app to your listsTweets por @Appszoom
Kiosk Browser allows you to run other applications installed on your device. Kiosk Browser now have wake lock functionality to keep the screen on and can also be made to reload the start page if the network restarts.
Tags: kk qrcode, kk browser, kk browser apk, kk, browser kk, kkbrowser apk, kk browser se apk, kk broswer.apk, kk browser andy powell apk, kk apk.
orientation fix
Force forgetting of form data
Hide scroll bars
Make default background white, show page load errors.
Fix rare crash.
Allow always offline for browsing from sdcard.
4-Nov 2011
Small fixes, added more options to preferences, added platform settings. More javascript interfaces.
See http://lin.cx/kiosk3 for extra features.
(59 stars)
As a user experience designer I've been using this to run a full screen Axure prototype for usability testing since apparently no default Android browsers right now let you hide the location bar. My one qualm is the size of the slider in the zoom settings...it's like a game trying to get it to the size I need. Would be great if that could be made bigger or changed to a picker so it'd be easier to
(59 stars)
Working perfectly using Android 3. My tablet updated to Android 4 and the "shadowbox" feature on my site stopped working correctly.
(59 stars)
Just a white screen
(59 stars)
No matter what I change the URL to.
(59 stars)
This is an excellent utility. Pros: Simple yet powerful. Light weight Stable Cons: Does not support javascript alert Does not allow facility to lock orientation.
(59 stars)
Perfect to test my app prototype. I love the ability to turn off the zoom and other distracting features that normal browsers have :-D


text:
Gear Review
very interesting
A little goes a long way to pull moisture from your hands (keep in mind my hands do not sweat much). An excellent choice when you cannot use standard chalk. I could not see any marks and I use less so buildup would in theory be less of a problem. It does feel different, so try it out to get used to it before heading out for a long climb.
View More Details on Metolius Super Chalk Eco Ball


text:
Bradley Handwerger / WWLTV.com Sports Reporter
Email: email@example.com | Twitter: @wwltvsports
METAIRIE, La. Nose tackle Brodrick Bunkley was one of three Saints players listed as not practicing Wednesday as New Orleans prepares for a second-consecutive NFC South opponent in Tampa Bay.
Safety Isa Abdul-Quddus (ankle) and defensive end Tyrunn Walker (knee) also missed practice. Earlier Wednesday, NFL.com reported that Bunkley is expected to miss several weeks with a calf issue, an injury that happened in the first six minutes of Sunday's win over Atlanta.
Four players, meanwhile, were listed as limited linebacker Curtis Lofton (knee), defensive end Glenn Foster (ankle), cornerback Jabari Greer (back) and cornerback Patrick Robinson (foot).
Linebacker Martez Wilson (elbow), receiver Marques Colston (foot), linebacker Junior Galette (hamstring), tackle Zach Strief (neck) and guard Jahri Evans (back) all were full.
For Tampa Bay, cornerback Michael Adams (knee) and tight end Tom Crabtree (ankle) didn't practice while cornerback Rashaan Melvin (hamstring) and guard Carl Nicks (foot) were limited. Running back Erik Long (calf) was full.


text:
Narrow your search
Elemental Path and ToyTalk hope to pioneer interactive toys. But will kids and parents want Internet-connected Barbies and dinosaurs?
IBM's Watson isn't just serious about crunching numbers, it's also serious about crunching food.
Disney is making a live-action version of "Beauty and the Beast," and Emma Watson of "Harry Potter" fame is locked in to play brainy beauty Belle.
Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman don vintage clothes and hairstyles for a sneak peek at the upcoming "Sherlock" special. Will the lads be time-traveling or attending a costume party?
Big Blue's 'Jeopardy'-winning computer now comes in the form of an app that uses its technical know-how to assist military personnel in transitioning to life back home.
The famous supercomputer and the culinary magazine join forces to develop a cooking app that spews out new and innovative recipes. Fennel-spiced baby back pork ribs, anyone?
Silicon Valley faces tough questions about how it treats women. But the problem isn't just for modern-day women -- it goes back at least 200 years.
The "Hobbit" star follows his "Sherlock" buddy Benedict Cumberbatch into the world of Marvel movies.
The cognitive computer, Watson, has designed a six course meal for some lucky attendees of the South By Southwest festival in Texas.
The next step for IBM's famous cognitive computer is being creative at a high level, and partnering with people. So why not apply that computing power to cuisine? At SXSW, that's what IBM is doing.


text:
Jason Motte makes the two-inning save look easy against Giants
Oct 18, 2012, 1:08 AM EDT
Jason Motte had never had a two-inning save before the Cardinals asked him to get six outs in a two-run game after Wednesday's long rain delay. Not only did he do the job, but he made it a breeze, retiring every Giant he faced as St. Louis won 3-1.
In so doing, Motte became just the second different National League reliever to record a two-inning save in the postseason in the last 10 years. Brad Lidge had three of them for the Astros between the 2004 and '05 NLCSs, all of them against the Cardinals.
Motte was also the first pitcher since Mariano Rivera in the 2005 ALDS to go six up, six down in a postseason save chance. The last NL reliever to do it was Arizona's Byung-Hyun Kim in the 2001 NLCS against the Braves.
But that's all gravy. What the Cardinals care about is that Motte needed just 19 pitches to dispose of the Giants in Game 3, meaning he should be fine to go an inning in Game 4 if the need arises.
- goldensombrero3000 - Oct 18, 2012 at 1:31 AM
When will the Cardinals face misfortune?
- kicksave1980 - Oct 18, 2012 at 1:43 AM
I think they've faced misfortune in losing guys like Furcal, Berkman, and the loss of Pujols in the offseason. Last year, it was Wainwright. Whether it was Freese last year, or someone like Matt Carpenter this year, guys have stepped up their game when it matters.
Without trying to sound hokey, I really believe that it's organizational. Traditionally good teams usually find a way to remain at or near the top. Guys who come up through an organization like the Cardinals seem to always be able to step in and pick up the slack. I realize how ridiculous that sounds, but I can't think of another explanation. Whatever it is, I'll take it.
- stlouis1baseball - Oct 18, 2012 at 9:51 AM
Misfortune? They have battled adversity for the last two years. Lots and lots of impactful adversity.
The injuries and departures over the last two years are far to many to post.
Last night there 7-8-9 "blueprint" didn't work. It was due for implosion.
I even said as much to my Father right before the inning started. Mujeica was due for a bad outing. Dude has been lights out…but it was only a matter of time before the other shoe drops.
The Cardinals battled through this "misfortune" and/or "adversity" and plowed on.
Great job Mitchell Boggs. Better job Jason Motte.
- forsch31 - Oct 18, 2012 at 9:56 AM
You mean like losing Beltan, their best offensive player in the playoffs, in Game 3? That kind of misfortune?
- triaxfusion - Oct 18, 2012 at 6:28 AM
Misfortune? All the injuries, losing their best player and manager, down 6-0 to start the NLDS game 5 on the road. They just overcome misfortune better than other teams.
Top Posts
- Tony Cingrani hits Bryce Harper in the back with a pitch, then complains he was too slow getting to first base 6
- Video: Josh Hamilton hits his first home run of the season 15
- Rockies starter Chad Bettis loses his no-hitter in the eighth inning 1
- Stephen Strasburg exits start in the second inning with an apparent injury 4
- More than half of polled baseball fans prefer having the pitcher hit 57
- The Marlins aren't happy with the Dan Jennings hire 42
- Andrew McCutchen is doing just fine now, thank you 20
- The schedule: if it ain't broke, don't fix it 69
Most Commented
- The Big Unit: Wide Angle Watcher (90)
- And That Happened: Wednesday's scores and highlights (89)
- Chipper Jones will fight you if you insult his "girl" (83)
- Alex Rodriguez is the all-time AL RBI champion. Sorta. (76)
- Tony Cingrani hits Bryce Harper in the back with a pitch, then complains he was too slow getting to first base (73)
- J. Hamilton (3697)
- A. Garcia (2955)
- J. Cueto (2861)
- Y. Puig (2761)
- M. Adams (2694)
- J. Lucroy (2676)
- D. Wright (2622)
- E. Rodriguez (2577)
- R. Castillo (2531)
- T. d'Arnaud (2523)


text:
Alleged suicide bombs kill 8 at Pakistan Sufi site
KARACHI, Pakistan Two suspected suicide bombers have attacked the most beloved Sufi shrine in Pakistan's largest city, killing at least eight people, wounding 65 others, and sending a stark reminder of the threat posed by Islamist militants to this U.S.-allied nation.
Angry mobs burned tires and torched buses in the aftermath of the bombings in Karachi late Thursday.
The attack came amid tensions between Washington and Islamabad over NATO helicopter incursions that have led Pakistan to close a key border crossing used to ferry supplies to Western troops in Afghanistan. Despite U.S. apologies over the incursions, one of which left two Pakistani soldiers dead, Islamabad said Thursday it had yet to decide when to reopen the crossing.
The explosions at the Abdullah Shah Ghazi shrine in southern port city of Karachi happened at the busiest time of the week when thousands typically visit to pray, distribute food to the poor and toss rose petals on the grave of the saint. The dead included two children.
Ghazi was an 8th century saint credited with bringing Islam to the region along the coast. Local legend has it that his shrine protects Karachi from cyclones and other sea-related disasters.
Pakistani Sufi sites have frequently been the target of Islamist militant groups, whose hardline interpretations of the religion leave no room for the more mystical Sufi practices that are common in this Sunni Muslim-majority nation of 175 million.
The first explosion took place as the suspected bomber was going through the metal detector before a long staircase leading to the main shrine area, said Babar Khattak, the top police official in Sindh province. The second blast took place about 10 seconds later, farther ahead of the metal detector, he said.
In the aftermath, an Associated Press reporter saw blood, flesh and shoes splattered at the shrine compound.
Mohibullah Khan, a 38-year-old manual laborer, was about to visit the shrine after evening prayers at a nearby mosque when the explosions occurred.
"I heard a huge bang and smoke billowed from there," Khan said. "I ran back toward the mosque and seconds after heard another big explosion. Then I moved to help the wounded and put six or seven of the crying ones in ambulances and police vehicles."
Gunshots could be heard throughout the chaotic city of 16 million-plus after the attack, while angry mobs torched at least two buses in the downtown area and burned tires on some roads.
Sindh province Home Minister Zulfiqar Mirza said all city shrines were being sealed off.
Condemnations poured in from Pakistani leaders, including President Asif Ali Zardari, who was staying elsewhere in the city at the time.
"We remain committed to fighting these murderers and expelling them from our land," Zardari aide Farahnaz Ispahani said in an e-mail.
In July, twin suicide bombers in the eastern city of Lahore attacked Data Darbar, Pakistan's most revered Sufi shrine, killing 47 people and wounding 180.
That attack - also on a Thursday - infuriated many Pakistanis, who saw it as an unjustified assault on peaceful civilians. In the aftermath, even amid fury against militants, many also blamed the U.S. presence in Afghanistan for fueling Islamist violence in their nation.


text:
About Us
Diner's Lure
"A Cape Cod visit without the gloves and boots."
LA Times
Planning a banquet? Contact us for all the details or click below.
Bluewater Makes Bayot's Top Ten Seafood Restaurants
We're on Gayot's Top 10 Seafood Restaurants in Orange County, so naturally they've also put us in their list for Best Orange County Seafood Restaurants.
Thanks Gayot!


text:
see through 1
See definition in Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary
Not be deceived by; detect the true nature of: he can see through her lies and deceptions
Más ejemplos en oraciones
- Of course, the electorate are increasingly seeing through the lies and deceit of Labour.
- Only by knowing his true nature was it possible to see through his gentlemanly veil.
- It amazes me how they can obfuscate or even lie and believe people won't see through them.
not be deceived by, not be taken in by, be wise to, get/have the measure of, read like a book, fathom, penetrate, realize, understand
informal not fall for, have someone's number, know someone's (little) game
Definición de see through en:
See definition in Oxford Advanced Learner's DictionarySaltos de línea: see-through
Pronunciación: /ˈsiːθruː/
(Especially of clothing) translucent: this shirt's a bit see-through when it's wet
Más ejemplos en oraciones
- Mom comes downstairs minutes later with a short, short miniskirt and a see-through shirt.
- The latest collection includes delicate see-through dresses and tops featuring raw hems and ruche detailing.
- She also wore a pink see-through sweater with a black tank underneath.
transparent, translucent, clear, limpid, crystal clear, crystalline, pellucid, glassy;
thin, light, lightweight, flimsy, sheer, diaphanous, filmy, gossamer, gossamer-like, gossamer-thin, chiffony, cobwebby, gauzy, gauze-like, ultra-fine
Palabras que riman con see-throughcorkscrew
Definición de see through en:
¿Qué te llama la atención de esta palabra o frase?
Los comentarios que no respeten nuestras Normas comunitarias podrían ser moderados o eliminados.
Obtenga más de Oxford Dictionaries
Suscribirse para eliminar anuncios y acceder a los recursos premium
= de moda


text:
Breaking news and analysis of politics, the economy and activism.
A majority of the United States Senate has voted to advance a constitutional amendment to restore the ability of Congress and the states to establish campaign fundraising and spending rules with an eye toward preventing billionaires and corporations from buying elections.
"Today was a historic day for campaign finance reform, with more than half of the Senate voting on a constitutional amendment to make it clear that the American people have the right to regulate campaign finance," declared Senator Tom Udall, the New Mexico Democrat who in June proposed his amendment to address some of the worst results of the Supreme Court's interventions in with the recent Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission decisions, as well as the 1976 decision in Buckley v. Valeo.
That's the good news.
The bad news is that it's going to take more than a majority to renew democracy.
Fifty-four senators, all Democrats and independents who caucus with the Democrats, voted Thursday for the amendment to clarify in the Constitution that Congress and the states have the authority to do what they did for a century before activist judges began intervening on behalf of wealthy donors and corporations: enact meaningful campaign finance rules and regulations.
But forty-two senators, all Republicans, voted no. As a result, Udall noted, the Republican minority was able to "filibuster this measure and instead choose to support a broken system that prioritizes corporations and billionaires over regular voters."
The Republican opposition effectively blocked further consideration of the amendment proposal, since sixty votes were needed to end debate and force a vote. And, even if the Republicans had not filibustered the initiative, actual passage of an amendment would have required a two-thirds vote.
Though the Republican move was anticipated, Senator Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent who has been one of the Senate's most ardent advocates for reform, expressed frustration with the result. "I am extremely disappointed that not one Republican voted today to stop billionaires from buying elections and undermining American democracy," said the senator, who has advocated for a more sweeping amendment to address the influence and power of corporate cash on American elections and governance. "While the Senate vote was a victory for Republicans, it was a defeat for American democracy. The Koch brothers and other billionaires should not be allowed to spend hundreds of millions of dollars electing candidates who represent the wealthy and the powerful."
Now, said Sanders, "the fight to overturn Citizens United must continue at the grassroots level in every state in this country."
Sanders is right to reference the role of grassroots movements.
Four years ago, when the US Supreme Court removed barriers to corporate spending to buy elections, serious reformers said a constitutional amendment would be necessary to reverse the Court's Citizens United ruling. Most pundits and politicians, even those who recognized the threat posed to democracy by the opening of the floodgates for big money, dismissed a constitutional fix as too bold and too difficult to achieve.
But the people embraced the constitutional route to reform. Grassroots organizing succeeded in getting sixteen states and close to 600 communities to formally demand that Congress act.
At the same time, the money poured in, with campaigning spending breaking records in the 2012 presidential and congressional elections—and heading toward breaking the record for midterm elections in 2014.
That was enough to shake up even the most cautious Senate Democrats, who began moving earlier this year to advance the Udall amendment. Though activists wanted a stronger amendment, the Senate deliberations confirmed that there is broad support for a constitutional response to the money-in-politics mess—and that a substantial number of senators now see that constitutional response as right and necessary.
Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!
"Less than five years after the Citizens United decision sparked national outrage, we have seen the movement to get big money out of politics go from local, grassroots organizing to a vote in the United States Senate," explained People for the American Way Executive Vice President Marge Baker, who worked with activists from Public Citizen, Common Cause, Free Speech for People and other groups to collect and deliver 3.2 million signatures on petitions supporting an amendment. "Today's historic majority vote is a remarkable milestone for this movement and a platform for taking the fight to the next level. The debate in the Senate this week is a debate that Americans across the country who are passionate about fixing our broken democracy have wanted to see."
With the DC debate done, for now, the fight goes back to the grassroots. Activists with groups such as Move to Amend, Public Citizen's "Democracy is for People" campaign and Free Speech for People will continue to organize and agitate, not just for an amendment but for an amendment that makes it absolutely clear that money is not speech, that corporations are not people and that citizens have a right to organize elections where votes matter more than dollars.
"We have amended the US Constitution before in our nation's history. Twenty-seven times before. Seven of those times to overturn egregious Supreme Court rulings. For the promise of American democracy, we can and we will do it again," declared John Bonifaz, the president of Free Speech for People, said Thursday. "The pressing question before the nation today is whether it is 'we the people' or 'we the corporations and big money interests.' This not a Democratic issue or a Republican issue. This is a deeply American issue. Whatever our political differences may be, we all share the common vision of government of, for, and by the people. Today's US Senate vote is just the beginning. While this amendment bill did not receive this time the required two-thirds support in order to pass the Senate, we will be back again and again until we win. History is on our side.'
Read Next: John Nichols on the "pivotal moment" in the fight to remove big money from politics
Buried in the data from the much-hyped CNN poll that suggested Americans were "alarmed" by the actions of the the ISIL, and that they feel "increasingly concerned" that ISIL could pose a threat to the United States, were two key details:
1. Americans want limits placed on the US military response to the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant and to the broader political challenges that have developed in those countries. For instance, a majority of Americans, 61 percent of Americans oppose placing US troops on the ground in Iraq and Syria.
2. More than 70 percent of Americans believe that President Obama should seek congressional authorization for military strikes against ISIL.
Amid all the "alarm" and "concern," the American people remain wary about any rush to war, and they believe that Congress—not just the president—should have a say with regard to expansion of military action. And make no mistake, what President Obama described in his speech to the nation Wednesday night was a dramatic expansion of US military involvement and action in Iraq and Syria.
As Congresswoman Barbara Lee, D-California, said in a statement after hearing the president's proposals, "The facts are clear. We are no longer talking about limited strikes to prevent genocide and protect U.S. personnel. We are talking about sustained bombing and the use of military force."
The president seemed to recognize the war wariness—and the war weariness—of the American people. Though he outlined plans for US involvment in a broad effort to "degrade and destroy and ultimately destroy ISIL," Obama told the nation in a speech Wednesday night:
I want the American people to understand how this effort will be different from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil. This counterterrorism campaign will be waged through a steady, relentless effort to take out ISIL wherever they exist using our air power and our partner forces on the ground.
Yet the initiative the president outlined was one of offensive warmaking in Iraq and Syria, with the United States taking the lead in mobilizing "a broad coalition of partners" for military action "to drive these terrorists from their lands." This military action will involve not just "a systematic campaign of airstrikes" but the deployment of an additional 475 US troops "to support Iraqi and Kurdish forces with training, intelligence and equipment." According to CNN, that brings the total number of US soldiers on the ground in Iraq to roughly 1,700.
Even as he described a dramatic increase in US military involvement in the region, the president avoided asking for the congressional consultation that is required by a US Constitution that explicitly affords Congress the power "to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water."
Rather, Obama announced, "I have the authority to address the threat from ISIL. But I believe we are strongest as a nation when the President and Congress work together. So I welcome congressional support for this effort in order to show the world that Americans are united in confronting this danger."
Translation: Obama is not inclined to seek the congressional advice and consent that is imagined and intended by the Constitution.
Congressman Jim McDermott, D-Washington, described the "I welcome congressional support" line as "really kind of condescending."
The question now is whether Congress will assert its clear authority as a co-equal branch of government to debate and vote on plans for war and, through the power of the purse, to define the scope and character of warmaking.
That assertion is unlikely to come from congressional leaders. And many House and Senate Democrats were quick to express support for the president's plans, while some Republicans argued that he should go further.
But a number of members of House and Senate continue to voice concerns about the lack of definition for the new initiative, and about the lack of clear congressional authorization for military action.
Senator Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisconsin, responded to Obama's remarks by expressing respect for the restraint she said the president had shown. But Baldwin added, "I remain concerned about the potential for open-ended U.S. military engagement in the Middle East." Congresswoman Linda Sanchez, D-California, expressed "reservations about expanding airstrikes into Syria. Committing U.S. military involvement to a country that is undergoing a complicated and lengthy civil war has serious potential international implications." Echoing Baldwin, Sanchez added, "I am concerned about the possibility of a protracted military campaign that might put American troops in future danger."
To address such concerns, Senator Angus King, an independent from Maine who caucuses with the Democrats, says he is working with a bipartisan group of senators to draft a resolution defining the president's authority. Unlike the open-ended authorizations given President George Bush in 2001 and 2002, King told The Washington Post, "I think that we should be talking about something that is much more limited. For example, in duration or defining who the enemy is."
King said there should be a congressional debate before the November election. "We have a constitutional responsibility to be engaged in this," he argued. "I'm frustrated by Congress's propensity to criticize and not make decisions. This is an opportunity where we should engage in this. I think it strengthens the country if we do so."
Senator Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, was blunter: "The Constitution is very clear. The power to declare war resides in Congress. If we are to go to war, Congress must approve."
That is the view that Congresswoman Lee has long held, and she restated it strongly on Wednesday night, saying, "The Constitution requires Congress to vote on the use of military force. This is not about this President. This is about any President and any Congress. We must re-establish the checks and balances laid out by the Constitution."
Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chairs Raul Grijalva, D-Arizona, and Keith Ellison, D-Minnesota, joined Lee in asking for immediate debate. "Congress must weigh in when it comes to confronting ISIL through military action," they said. "The voices of the American people must be heard during a full and robust debate in Congress on the use of military force. Speaker Boehner should put legislation authorizing military action on the floor of the House of Representatives before Congress leaves for the upcoming district work period."
Appearing on MSNBC's All In with Chris Hayes Wednesday night, House Armed Services Committee member John Garamendi, D-California, declared, "This is about war and this is a very serious matter. Mr. President come to Congress and get your authorization."
Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!
In a statement earlier Wednesday, Garamendi pointed out that "the U.S. Constitution and War Powers Resolution are clear: Congress is obligated to weigh in on extended U.S. military actions. No matter how noble the cause, no matter how just the engagement, Congress' voice and vote are required within a 60-90 day window."
Garamendi's office reports that "the 60-day window in our military campaign against ISIL ends on October 7th, although the precise date is subject to some interpretation."
While the congressman says "our current limited air strikes and special operations missions against the Islamic State have a clear purpose and are narrow and targeted in scope," he explains that "it's incumbent on Congress to vote on that strategy if it involves military action. To do otherwise ignores our Constitutionally-required duty. The people we represent and our brave men and women in uniform deserve better than that. They deserve a vote."
Garamendi's sentiments are shared by activists.
Democracy for America, the group formed by backers of Howard Dean's antiwar presidential campaign of 2004 was pointed in its call for a vote. Even as he decried ISIL as "a collection of brutal barbarians who threaten the stability of the Middle East," DFA's Neil Sroka said, "We remain deeply troubled by any plan for U.S. military engagement that has not been explicitly debated by the American people and voted on by Congress."
"While regional leaders and the global community must respond to ISIS's growing list of atrocities," Sroka explained in his statement, "after more than a decade of war, the American people and their representatives in Congress must have a calm, rational public debate of that response and the appropriate level of U.S. involvement."
That debate, argued the national group Peace Action, should weigh the wisdom of the military response that Obama has proposed. "We agree with the president that there is no military solution to the problems posed by [ISIL]," said Peace Action executive director Kevin Martin. "And yet his proposed strategy relies far too heavily on the use of military force. It's time to stop the bombing and escalation and use the other tools of U.S. foreign policy—working with allies in cutting off weapons, oil and funding streams for starters—which will be much more active in dealing with [ISIL]."
Read Next: Phyllis Bennis on the speech on diplomacy Obama should have given Wednesday night
As President Obama was preparing to outline his strategy regarding Iraq and Syria, Massachusetts Democrats turned out a sitting congressman and nominated an Iraq veteran who is absolutely opposed to deploying ground troops in the region—and absolutely determined to avoid the incremental missteps that lead back toward war.
While Seth Moulton supported the president's decision to provide humanitarian assistance to Iraqi civilians in the face of imminent genocide as "the morally right thing to do," the candidate has raised tough questions about sending US military advisers to the region. "We must be very careful not to put American combat troops on the ground in Iraq," says Moulton, "and I remain deeply concerned about the risk of civilian casualties when airstrikes are used without direction from ground forces."
Moulton says the instability and violence that has torn at Iraq—particularly in regions where the Islamic State movement is active—represents "a political crisis resulting from a complete loss of trust in [former] Prime Minister Maliki and his increasingly sectarian government. This must ultimately be met with a political solution, not a military response."
In statements and interviews during his congressional campaign in northeast Massachusetts, Moulton made a compelling and consistent—as well as highly nuanced—case for avoiding the sort of military response that would steer US forces back into Iraq. And he did so with authority, as both a progressive Democrat who has opposed George Bush's war in Iraq and a Marine veteran who served four tours of duty in Iraq from 2003 to 2008.
On Tuesday, Moulton swept to an easy victory over Congressman John Tierney, an eighteen-year incumbent who was the first and only House Democrat to be defeated in a party primary this year. Moulton still faces a fall contest with a well-known and well-funded Republican, but most observers agree the challenger's greatest hurdle was the primary. Though Tierney was vulnerable, at least in part because of an old gambling scandal involving his wife and brother, few thought the incumbent would be defeated until the final weeks of the campaign.
It was during those final weeks that the Democratic primary debate took up the issue of Iraq—with both candidates seeking to position themselves as antiwar contenders. Questions of war and peace were certainly not the only ones on the agenda, but they were, as The Boston Globe noted, "in play."
Tierney made the point that he voted against authorizing George Bush and Dick Cheney to go to war at a time when popular sentiment was divided on the issue. And the incumbent's supporters argued that he deserved credit not just for his vote but for his foresight.
But Moulton's campaign made a compelling case that he would come to Congress as a war-wary representative with profound knowledge of the region. "Although Seth was firmly against the Iraq War, Seth served his country and led his platoon—eventually serving four tours of duty in Iraq over five years," the campaign noted. "Seth led an infantry platoon during the 2003 invasion and was in the first Marine company to enter Baghdad. Later, he worked to establish independent Iraqi media. The following year, Seth returned to Iraq as an infantry platoon commander and fought in the lead company in the Battle of Najaf."
That knowledge was on display when Moulton explained the dangers involved in dispatching substantial numbers of military advisers to Iraq—as the president has already done. An Associated Press profile of the candidate began by recalling that "Seth Moulton's opposition to another ground war in Iraq is rooted in firsthand experience acquired from four tours. As a young Marine, he saw how quickly a militant threat could transform U.S. military advisers into a force entangled in the months-long battle for control of Najaf, some 100 miles south of Baghdad."
Please support The Nation. Donate now!
And Moulton reinforced that point, saying, "Americans have to realize that when the president says he's sending military advisers to Iraq, make no mistake, these are US special forces or Marines or Rangers or other units that are American ground troops."
That's an insight that Moulton brings to debates about military intervention—an insight that has, too frequently, been missing, not just in the debate about what to do now but in debates about US military actions going back to Vietnam. Memory and experience matter when complex issues of war and peace are in play. And it matters, in particular, when there are candidates who place themselves in what Moulton describes as "the long tradition of men and women who served and then used their public positions to speak out against war."
Read Next: John Nichols on what it means when a top Republican runs as an ally of marriage equality
The markers by which we measure political progress are many. But few are more consequential than the decisions made by politicians at election time. It is one thing for a sitting senator or candidate to vote the right way on a procedural question or to quietly issue a press release. It is something else altogether when an incumbent or challenger spends money to link a candidacy with what was until relatively recently considered to be a controversial stance.
So it is significant that Dr. Monica Wehby, a prominent Republican recruit for the US Senate race in Oregon, has produced a new television commercial that identifies her as an ally of advocates for marriage equality. In the ad, Ben West, a plaintiff in the lawsuit that led to this year's court decision overturning Oregon's bar on marriage equality, hails Wehby, saying, "I know she'll fight for every Oregon family, including mine."
Politico says, "No Republican Senate candidate has ever run an ad like this statewide." LGBT groups have been quick to make note of the ad, as have conservative websites.
What's important to understand is that what is happening with this ad may have more to do with national trends than with political realities on the ground in the reasonably "blue" state of Oregon—with the exception, of course, of the reality that Wehby is behind in the polls, is not getting the support she had hoped for from national conservative and Republican groups and is looking for a boost for her candidacy.
Wehby's appeal won't necessarily shift ardent backers of equal rights away from the Democrat she is challenging, Senator Jeff Merkley. Merkley has been a stalwart advocate for LGBT rights for many years. His history of support for marriage equality is long, and it is part of a broader progressive record that has put him well ahead in the polls. The Human Rights Campaign gave Merkley a strong endorsement earlier this year, with the HRC's David Stacy saying, "The historic passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act in the Senate last year could not have happened without his tireless work. From the repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell' to marriage equality and other issues of fairness, Merkley is a true ally, and HRC is proud to stand with him."
Additionally, though Wehby says, "I don't have a problem with gay marriage," she takes conservative stances on a host of other issues, and she would, if elected, vote to organize the Senate under Republican leadership that is known for its resistance to LGBT rights initiatives. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell describes himself as a "traditionalist" and objected noisily in February to a federal judge's decision striking down Kentucky's measures that discriminated against same-sex couples seeking to marry.
Don't see the Wehby ad as a signal that the Republican Party is about to make the big turn on marriage equality, or LGBT issues in general. There are already Republican senators who have moved on the issue, and more will. The polling data tell us that when the generation that is coming of age now starts to vote in significant numbers, the GOP will have to change—not just in states such as Oregon but nationwide. But the Republican National Committee as recently as last year reaffirmed the party's "support for marriage as the union of one man and one woman."
Please support The Nation. Donate now!
So how should we see the Wehby ad? As evidence that support for marriage equality is no longer so politically "bold" or "courageous" as it once was. In some states, it is necessary to making a mainstream appeal.
What the Wehby ad provides is additional and meaningful confirmation of the speed with which the marriage-equality debate is shifting—that a fundamental political change is coming more rapidly, perhaps, than even proponents of that change had imagined.
When Republican candidates start to embrace marriage equality as part of a broader appeal for the backing of swing voters, when they see the stance as essential to a broad appeal, that's the measure of progress. Support for marriage equality is no longer a risk in much of America. It's advantageous politically—so advantageous that a prominent Republican is making it part to her 2014 election-season appeal. This is a first, but it will not be a last.
Read Next: Richard Kim on why gay marriage is winning
The Senate will wrangle this week over whether to amend the Constitution to allow citizens and their representatives to organize elections where votes matter more than dollars.
The amendment that is being considered is a consequential, if relatively constrained, proposal, which focuses on core money in political concerns but which does not go as far as many Americans would like when it comes to establishing that money is not speech, corporations are not people and elections should not be up for sale to the highest bidder.
Yet it is difficult to underestimate the importance of the debate that will unfold this week. The debate signals that a grassroots movement has established the rational response to a political crisis created by US Supreme Court rulings (including, but certainly not exclusively, the Citizens United and McCutcheon decisions) that have opened the floodgates for domination of political debates by billionaire campaign donors and corporate cash.
Organizing and campaigning by citizens—working in conjunction with groups that has never been adequately funded, on a project that has never received a fair share of media attention—has gotten sixteen states and more than 600 towns, villages, cities and counties to demand an amendment. And the Senate is taking that demand seriously enough to propose a fix, to organize a debate and to schedule votes that will provide a measure of the prospects for making a democracy amendment the twenty-eighth addition to the Constitution.
Senator Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent who has proposed a more specific and aggressively worded amendment than the compromise measure that is expected to be considered this week, argues that this Senate debate on the issue of money in politics marks "a pivotal moment in American history."
Though Sanders would go further than Democratic leaders in the Senate on a number of points, he has joined them in co-sponsoring the amendment by New Mexico Senator Tom Udall that will be debated this week.
The Vermonter understands why this debate is so significant.
It is not because Senate consideration of the issue at this point will lead to the rapid amendment of the Constitution. In fact, no matter what Senate Democrats do, there will not be a sufficient majority in the chamber where a two-thirds vote is required to approve an amendment for consideration by the states. Nor is there any realistic chance that John Boehner will suddenly decide to lead the charge against the corporate campaign spending and billionaire manipulations that bought him the House speakership.
It is not because the amendment that is being advanced now is the amendment that will ultimately be added to the Constitution. Make no mistake, there will be a Twenty-Eighth Amendment; there must be if the American experiment is to survive as anything akin to a democratic republic. As with past amendments, however, this initial proposal for updating the Constitution will likely be altered—with language strengthened or weakened based on the ability of mass movements to place demands for more or less radical change
So why exactly is this a pivotal moment?
Because when a movement becomes sufficiently dynamic to force a Senate debate—after just four years of organizing by groups like Move to Amend, Free Speech For People, Public Citizen, Common Cause, People for the American Way and allied groups at the local and state levels—that debate ought not be seen as beginning or the end of anything. It is a part of a process—an essential teaching moment, an essential organizing moment.
"It's overwhelmingly clear what the citizenry wants: fed up with a system in which the super-rich and giant corporations are effectively able to buy politicians and policy, the American people are rising up and demanding a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and restore our democracy," explains Robert Weissman, the president of Public Citizen. "Whatever happens on (this week), the day is not long off when the 28th amendment becomes the law of the land."
That's what Sanders means when he speaks of a pivotal moment.
Millions of Americans are already engaged with the movement to amend the Constitution to get money out of politics—and with the broader movement to address the twin fallacies that money is speech and that corporations should have the same rights as human beings. Tens of millions more are supportive of the struggle. Indeed, polls show there is overwhelming support for the amendment among Americans—73 percent in favor versus 24 percent opposed, according to a new Democracy Corps survey—and that this support crosses all lines of partisanship and ideology.
The Senate debate has the potential to get millions of additional Americans engaged with what Sanders refers to as "the major issue of our time—whether the United States of America retains its democratic foundation or whether we devolve into an oligarchic form of society where a handful of billionaires are able to control our political process by spending hundreds of millions of dollars to elect candidates who represent their interests."
The fact that the issue is being treated seriously at the congressional level will merge a sense of urgency with a sense of possibility. This could have an impact on the 2014 Senate races; indeed, the Democracy Corps survey found "overwhelming cross-partisan support (73 percent) for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United that can translate into added support for Democratic candidates who support the amendment and damage Republicans who oppose it."
Significantly, the Senate debate has the potential to influence the outcome of election contests. The Democracy Corps polling memo concluded, "Democratic candidates can gain from supporting this amendment. A 48-11 percent plurality of voters say they are more likely to support the named Democratic candidate after hearing an argument for the proposal. This represents broad support, as the number actually increases among voters under 50 to a 41-point gap and among independents to 42 points."
Those numbers may explain why Democratic senators who will never be confused with reformers have signed on as co-sponsors of the amendment proposal.
Please support The Nation. Donate now!
Ultimately, however, the amendment fight must be seen in a broader context than any Democratic political calculus. The movement must attract Republican support for an amendment. And this week's debate will tell us about the prospects for bipartisanship. Will Republicans who face re-election this year in states where there is strong and well-organized support for an amendment—such as Maine's Susan Collins, who faces amendment supporter Shenna Bellows—break with their party leadership and back this amendment? In open-seat races, will candidates such as South Dakota Democrat Rick Weiland, an outspoken amendment supporter, find their positions strengthened by an increased focus on the issue?
Constitutional amendments become viable when support for them grows so overwhelming that traditional partisan and ideological boundaries are broken. When this happens, the divide becomes less a matter of Republican versus Democrat or left versus right and more a matter of a broken present versus a functional future.
The corrupt political processes of the moment are not just anti-democratic, they are fundamentally unjust. What former Senator Russ Feingold refers to as a system of "legalized bribery" allows billionaires and corporations to buy more than elections; they buy policies and crony capitalist arrangements that undermine the fairness, the capacity for improvement and the basic stability of America.
There is no question that the arc of human progress is long. But nor is there any question that it bends toward justice. This week's Senate debate will not produce justice; but it will help to build the movements that are necessary to bend the arc.
Read Next: John Nichols on America's Most Dynamic (Yet Under-Covered) Movement: Overturning 'Citizens United'
Don Berwick is making a vital point about the need for progressives to expand the discussion about healthcare reform.
Democratic and Republican strategists, and the candidates who let campaign consultants frame their range of opinion, are still engaging in picayune debates about the strengths and weaknesses of the Affordable Care Act.
But Berwick, who for seventeen months headed the Medicare and Medicaid programs under President Obama, isn't getting lost in the political weeds. He's blazing a trail in the direction of what ultimately must be done—pushing at the constraints of the conversation and offering an illustration of why it is so important for progressives to get specific about the need for a "Medicare for All" fix.
Mounting an admittedly uphill campaign for the Democratic nomination for governor of Massachusetts, Berwick says, "I want us to be the first state in the nation to adopt single-payer health care—Medicare for All. With that one change, we can improve care and reduce costs for families and businesses. We can free up resources that will add tens of thousands of jobs all over Massachusetts. Single-payer health care— let's lead."
Berwick does not raise this issue casually. A Harvard Medical School graduate who practiced medicine serving low-income families before founding the nonprofit Institute for Healthcare Improvement, advised the World Health Organization and was so well regarded for his advice and counsel on improving Britain's healthcare system that he was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II.
But being one of the best thinkers and doers in the area of healthcare reform does not always bring rewards. During his tenure as administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Berwick was a key player in implementing some of the best components of the Affordable Care Act, including initiatives "ensuring that young people can stay on their parents' health plans until the age of 26, kids with preexisting conditions can no longer be denied the care they need, and insurance companies are subjected to new levels of transparency."
Yet, as Berwick's campaign now notes, "The toxic politics of Washington cut short Don's time there. Right-wing pundits attacked his commitment to equality and health care for all. Glenn Beck labeled him the 'second most dangerous man in America.' Senate Republicans vowed to filibuster his confirmation. In the face of the same Republicans who blocked Elizabeth Warren's confirmation to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Don was forced to step aside after only seventeen months leading Medicaid and Medicare."
The experience did not sour Berwick on the fight for healthcare reform.
But it did cause him to refocus his considerable energies.
The physician returned to his home state of Massachusetts and began preparing for a gubernatorial run in which he has argued that the states can and must lead on real healthcare reform.
To that end, he says, he wants to build on the leadership role Massachusetts has taken on reform to make Medicare for All a reality.
"I know from my first-hand experience in Washington guiding the early implementation of the Affordable Care Act that all eyes in the nation are on Massachusetts. Champions of real health care reform are crossing their fingers for us to succeed; opponents are hoping for us to fail. It is crucial that we lead, and show the rest of the nation that treating health care as a right, not a privilege, is sensible and successful public policy," explains Berwick in a statement on his website.
It is time to find a way to get to yes on a single payer system in Massachusetts. The complexity of our health care payment system adds costs, uncertainties, and hassles for everyone—patients, families, doctors, and employers. On day one, I will appoint a multi-stakeholder Single Payer Advisory Panel to investigate and report back within six months on how Massachusetts moves to a single payer health insurance system like Medicare for all.
Massachusetts is not the only state where single-payer healthcare reform is being placed in the agenda. In Vermont, Governor Peter Shumlin and his legislative allies have made significant progress on the issue. And they are not alone.
Last month's "Organizing for Healthcare Justice in the Age of Obamacare" strategy conference in Oakland, California, brought together Labor Campaign for Single Payer, Healthcare NOW! and the One Payer States group, as well as members of Physicians for a National Health Program and leading figures in National Nurses United, the California Nurses Association, the International Longshore and Warehouse Union and other labor groups. At the conference, much of the discussion was about state-based initiatives in Vermont, California, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington and other regions of the country.
In Massachusetts, Berwick says the work that has already been done in the state to extend access to health care creates an circumstance for developing a single-payer system. His arguments are strong in this regard. But it will take leadership to take the next step, which is why Berwick entered the gubernatorial race.
Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!
As next week's primary approaches, he's trailing two primary foes, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley and Massachusetts Treasurer Steven Grossman, both of whom have more resources and party connections. While his poll numbers have improved some as the September 9 primary approaches, Berwick is behind. Yet, if the measure of a campaign is the extent to which it shifts the discourse, Berwick's run has already been a success: He's at the table, as a candidate who is getting a serious hearing, participating in debates and in many senses framing the discourse.
After a June debate, an analysis for WBUR radio noted that Berwick "seems to be shifting the conversation, at least at this early stage, further to the left."
In particular, explained the WBUR report, "Berwick seems to be adjusting the conversation… on the issue of a single-payer health care system."
The other candidates are still more cautious on the issue. But Grossman is now saying that he wants to lead a "conversation" on single-payer—arguing, "You've got to build a consensus in our society around any dramatic societal change." And while Coakley says "We're not ready to go to single-payer yet," she adds, "I don't rule it out ever."
But as the Massacusetts race steers toward a close, Boston Globe columnist Alan Wirzbicki writes: "This lackluster Democratic primary wouldn't have been the same without [Berwick]. The only doctor in the race has added some needed fiber to the Democratic diet during this year's gubernatorial campaign. His single-payer health proposal has forced his opponents to engage in a substantive discussion of health care costs…"
Read Next:Zoë Carpenter reveals what Marco Rubio told a secret Koch fundraiser.
President Obama launched the fall campaign season with a robust call for increasing the minimum wage.
"If you work full time in America, you shouldn't be living in poverty, you shouldn't be trying to support a family in poverty," Obama told thousands of cheering union members in Milwaukee, adding, "There is no denying the simple truth: America deserves a raise."
The president wasn't trying to convince the American people. They know that increasing the minimum wage is necessary to address income inequality and the injustice of a circumstance where millions of American families are struggling because their hard work is not adequately compensated. A poll conducted last summer for the National Employment Law Project Action Fund found that 80 percent of Americans surveyed favor a $10.10-an-hour wage floor. Ninety-two percent of Democrats favor the increase, as do 80 percent of independents and 62 percent of Republicans.
This enthusiasm is not just theoretical. It is immediate. Seventy-four percent of Americans say that Congress should make it a priority to significantly increase the minimum wage.
That focus on Congress is the key, as Obama acknowledged when he noted Monday that "in the year and a half since I first asked Congress to raise the minimum wage—of course, the Republicans in Congress have blocked it."
"Eventually, Congress is going to hear [the people]," Obama continued. "We'll break those folks down. We'll just stay on them.… Persistence—you just stay at it. Because the only thing more powerful than an idea whose time has come is when millions of people are organizing around an idea whose time has come. Millions of people are voting for an idea whose time has come."
This emphasis on voting, on the fall election, echoes the elite consensus in Washington that, while hiking the minimum wage (up to $15-an-hour) has become a big issue at the state and local levels of government, Congress will not budge on this issue. That consensus says that only an election will change the shape of things to come.
But that's a bogus consensus. Telling full-time workers who are living in poverty that they must wait for the next election, and the next election, and the next election after that is a form of surrender.
Of course elections matter. But they are not an excuse for putting progress on hold.
The House and Senate will be in session this fall. A proposal to increase the base hourly wage to workers from $7.25 to $10.10 has been advanced. Top Republicans are on board for a higher minimum wage, with Mitt Romney saying "We ought to raise it," and Rick Santorum saying "It just makes no sense" to oppose an increase.
Members of the Senate Democratic majority back higher wages and, despite the obstructionist tactics of Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, the prospect of a high-profile vote just weeks before a critical national election might even get some Republicans—like Maine Senator Susan Collins— to do the right thing.
So where's the problem? In the House.
Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has shown no inclination to allow a vote. But the rules of the House allow a majority of members to go around the speaker and use a "discharge petition" to force a vote, which is precisely what the Time for a Raise campaign being championed by Ralph Nader argues is the right approach.
Nader and his allies are not just theorizing here. They are outlining strategies, naming names(of Democrats and Republicans) and proposing action.
"To date, 195 House members have signed the petition, meaning only 23 more member signatures are required to bring H.R. 1010 to a vote," argues the Time for a Raise message going into the fall. "There has been insufficient effort by House Democrats, concerned Republicans, labor unions and poverty organizations to mount an effort find and persuade the 23 House members needed to complete the discharge petition and bring a raise in the federal minimum wage to a vote."
"Time for a Raise" argues that Democratic leaders in the Senate and the House should ramp up the push for a minimum-wage hike as soon as their return to Washington.
Nader and his allies have produced compelling political math.
"To catalyze action," they explain in a new action plan, "the Time for a Raise campaign has identified 55 House members worth pressuring to sign H.R. 1010's discharge petition:
(a) 3 House Democrats who have not co-sponsored H.R. 1010 nor signed it's discharge petition;
(b) 6 House Republicans who signed a letter to then-majority leader Boehner in 2006 arguing that "Nobody working full-time should have to live in poverty";
(c) 17 House Republicans from districts won by President Obama in 2012;
(d) 26 other House Republicans who voted for a minimum wage increase in 2007; and
(e) 3 high-profile House Republican leaders.
Among the House members listed are Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito, a West Virginia US Senate candidate who have advocated in the past for wage hikes, and House Budget Committee chair Paul Ryan, who has been trying to portray himself—with a new book and speaking tour—as a compassionate conservative friend of working families. They should both sign the petition, as should House Republicans in swing districts and reluctant Democrats who represent thousands of families that would experience an immediate improvement in their circumstance with a minimum-wage increase. A refusal to sign the petition by candidates of either party sends a "Which Side Are You On?" message to voters that goes far beyond partisanship or ideology as the November 4 election approaches.
Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!
But this is not just about Republicans. Democrats have to step up. When the discharge petition was circulated last winter, Wisconsin Congressman Mark Pocan declared, "The minimum wage is woefully inadequate to help keep hard-working people out of poverty. When millions of Americans who work hard and play by the rules cannot support themselves or their families, when they live in poverty, we face an economic crisis. That's why we must raise the minimum wage, which would give 24.5 million Americans and more than 500,000 hard-working Wisconsinites a pay raise and generate $500 million in increased economic activity in our state alone."
That's a powerful message that Pocan has continued to push the issue at every turn, going so far as to propose an amendment to the Republican budget as a vehicle to force a minimum-wage vote.
That's the right idea, and the right level of aggressiveness.
Now, as members of the House return to Washington, Democrats should take up the call—not as an election issue but as an immediate demand for action. As Nader has illustrated, it is possible to turn the volume up on this issue quickly, and effectively.
Congress should put politics aside and raise the minimum wage. Now!
Read Next: Ari Berman asks if Texas will get away with its discrimination against voters.
Congressmen Keith Ellison and John Lewis have proposed legislation to protect union organizing as a civil right. "As go unions, so go middle-class jobs," says Ellison, the Minnesota Democrat who serves as a Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair. "That's why I'm proud to introduce the Employee Empowerment Act with civil rights icon John Lewis. This ground-breaking legislation will give workers the same legal options for union organizing discrimination as for other forms of discrimination—stopping anti-union forces in their tracks"
Amending the National Labor Relations Act to allow workers who face discrimination for engaging in union organizing to sue for justice in the civil courts—and to collect compensatory and punitive damages—is a sound and necessary initiative.
But it is certainly not a radical initiative—at least by American standards.
Indeed, the best way to understand what Ellison, Lewis and the cosponsors of their legislation are proposing is as a reconnection with a very American idea.
Despite the battering that unions have taken in recent years—in Wisconsin, Michigan and states across the country—Americans once encouraged countries around the world to embrace, extend and respect labor rights.
There was a time, within the living memory of millions of Americans, when this country championed democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the right to organize in the same breath.
When the United States occupied Japan after World War II, General Douglas MacArthur and his aides encouraged the country to adopt a constitution designed to assure that Hideki Tojo's militarized autocracy would be replaced with democracy. Fully aware that workers and their unions had a role to play in shaping the new Japan, they included language that explicitly recognized that "the right of workers to organize and to bargain and act collectively is guaranteed."
When the United States occupied Germany after World War II, General Dwight David Eisenhower and his aides urged the Germans to write a constitution that would assure that Adolf Hitler's fascism was replaced with muscular democracy. Recognizing that workers would need to organize and make their voices heard in the new nation, the Germans included a provision that explicitly declared: "The right to form associations to safeguard and improve working and economic conditions shall be guaranteed to every individual and to every occupation or profession. Agreements that restrict or seek to impair this right shall be null and void; measures directed to this end shall be unlawful."
When former first lady Eleanor Roosevelt chaired the International Commission on Human Rights, which drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that would in 1948 be adopted by the United Nations as a global covenant, Roosevelt and the drafters included a guarantee that "everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests."
For generations, Americans accepted the basic premise that labor rights are human rights. When this country counseled other countries on how to forge civil and democratic societies, Americans explained that the right to organize a trade union—and to have that trade union engage in collective bargaining as an equal partner with corporations and government agencies—had to be protected.
Now, with those rights under assault in America, it is wise, indeed, to recommit to the American ideal that working people must have a right to organize and to make their voices heard in a free and open society. As the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. said fifty years ago:
History is a great teacher. Now everyone knows that the labor movement did not diminish the strength of the nation but enlarged it. By raising the living standards of millions, labor miraculously created a market for industry and lifted the whole nation to undreamed of levels of production. Those who attack labor forget these simple truths, but history remembers them.
History remembers, as should we. The formal recognition of labor rights as human rights—and the extension of civil rights protections to prevent discrimination against labor organizing—is long overdue. Keith Ellison and John Lewis are renewing ideals that have historically enlarged America and made real the promise of democracy.
When the political mercenaries of American oligarchy jet off to consort with their electoral paymasters, they never imagine that the interactions will have consequences with constituents. The meetings are conducted in secret, the commitments that are made are never supposed to be revealed.
But, as Mitt Romney learned during the 2012 campaign, this is a new political era—when the old back-room banter about abandoning "the 47 percent" can go public and become the rallying cry for an opponent.
Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell was learning that Wednesday, as revelations about the top Republican's pledges to serve the agenda of the billionaire Koch brothers came back to haunt him on the campaign trail in Kentucky. Within hours after the revelation of McConnell promising a room full of millionaires and billionaires that he would block minimum-wage increases, the extension of unemployment benefits and student-loan debt relief, his Democratic challenger was signaling that the senator would be held to account at home.
Kentucky Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes, the Democratic candidate whose populist challenge has made McConnell's re-election race a polling "toss up," responded by linking the incumbent's remarks at the secret session to those of Romney at a secret session in 2012. "I think Mitch McConnell got caught in his 47 percent Mitt Romney moment," she told CNN. "I think it shows the extent and the lengths he will go to to pander to his party millionaires and billionaires at the expense of hurting Kentuckians."
Conservatives on the campaign trail and in the media attempted to downplay the significance of the tape, suggesting that McConnell was simply restating his fierce opposition to initiatives that Democrats have advanced to aid working Americans. But the tape's detailed discussion of using a Senate majority to prevent debate and votes on issues that polls say are of great concern to voters in Kentucky explained why it was being seen as a significant development by McConnell's foes.
The Grimes campaign was already incorporating references to the tape into the campaign's message, declaring that
Mitch McConnell revealed his true quest for power. In the secretive closed-door meeting with wealthy special interest backers, he outlined how he plans to hurt Kentucky families and pander to millionaires and billionaires. On issues like raising the minimum wage, extending unemployment insurance and helping Kentuckians with college affordability, McConnell promised his party's rich backers that he stands with them, no matter the cost to Kentuckians and this nation.
It is no secret that McConnell is a faithful servant of the economic elites that fund his campaigns—that's one of the primary reason he faces a tough re-election race this year—but he has historically tried to cloak the extent of his deference to the men who write all those checks to fund all those campaigns for McConnell and his preferred contenders.
Now the cloak is off. And the Grimes campaign is seizing on the opening, saying, "For the past 30 years, Kentuckians have questioned Mitch McConnell's priorities, and now we have the hard evidence that his allegiances lie with his millionaire and billionaire donors at the expense of hardworking Kentuckians."
The political fallout came amid widespread circulation of a tape of promises McConnell made to a California gathering of wealthy donors organized by Charles and David Koch.
The audio tape, which was obtained by The Nation and The Undercurrent, has been big news in Kentucky, where radio and television stations have aired the tape and newspapers featured headlines that included:
"McConnell 'secret' recording causes ruckus"
"McConnell vows to block minimum wage hike"
"Democrats pounce on recording of Mitch McConnell speaking at Koch brothers retreat"
The tape features McConnell announcing that "in the House and Senate, we own the budget. So what does that mean? That means that we can pass the spending bill. And I assure you that in the spending bill, we will be pushing back against this bureaucracy by doing what's called placing riders in the bill. No money can be spent to do this or to do that. We're going to go after them on healthcare, on financial services, on the Environmental Protection Agency, across the board.… All across the federal government, we're going to go after it."
In his remarks, McConnell griped about limits on campaign spending, hailed the US Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling and encouraged his audience of millionaires and billionaires "to give to Americans for Prosperity"—the Koch-fueled political operation that has become a primary vehicle for aiding McConnell in his quest to become Senate majority leader.
The senior senator from Kentucky, who will take charge of the Senate if Republicans win control of the chamber this fall, left no doubt about what he would do as majority leader. After thanking Charles and David Koch personally and talking about how he and the other 1 percenters were "rallying, uh, to the cause," McConnell pledged to use a Republican majority in the Senate to block progress on expanding healthcare, financial services reform and protecting the environment.
Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!
McConnell also promised to shut down debate on a host of economic issues, saying that "we're not going to be debating all these gosh darn proposals…things like raising the minimum wage…extending unemployment benefits…student loan [relief]."
That, argues the Grimes campaign, "reveals the lengths Mitch McConnell will go to please his deep-pocketed donors."
"Shockingly," says Grimes aide Charly Norton, "Mitch McConnell will do and say anything it takes to secure his grip on personal power, including promising to hurt Kentuckians to benefit billionaires. Kentuckians who are struggling with unemployment, low wages and the soaring costs of higher education are the furthest thing from McConnell's mind."
Read Next: Michelle Chen on the victory pregnant women won in Ilinois
When Gogebic Taconite LLC began moving in November 2010—the same month Scott Walker was elected governor of Wisconsin—to develop an open-pit iron mine in one of the most environmentally sensitive regions of northern Wisconsin, the Florida-based mining firm got a lot of pushback. Residents of the region objected, along with Native American tribes. So, too, did citizens from across Wisconsin, a state that has long treasured the wild beauty of the Penokee Range. Environmental and conservation groups voiced their concerns, as did local and state officials from across the political spectrum.
The outcry heightened as Gogebic Taconite and its allies promoted a radical rewrite of existing mining regulations in order to promote a project that could grow to be four miles long, more than a mile wide and 1,000 feet deep. Democratic and Republican legislators began to ask tough questions. Yet Governor Scott Walker -- who as a state legislator had supported strict mining regulations -- remained "eager to advance a mining bill."
Wisconsin media outlets reported extensively during the 2011 and 2012 on the governor's determination to overrule objections to the grand schemes of an out-of-state corporation. Now, those same media outlets are reporting on newly released documents that show the mining firm secretly steered $700,000 into "independent" efforts to provide political cover for the embattled governor.
The documents, released as part of legal wrangling over a "John Doe" investigation into alleged fund-raising abuses during the recall elections of 2011 and 2012, have revealed both big contributions and big concerns on the part of a key investigator about "an appearance of corruption."
Walker, of course, denies any wrongdoing, as does Gogebic and the group that managed the money.
Yet there is no question that the governor provided substantial support for the mining company. During a long, high-profile battle, he dismissed and denied a broad array of objections to Gogebic's plans.
The Nature Conservancy argued that the proposed changes to Wisconsin mining regulations would "pose serious risks to the rivers, lakes, wetlands, groundwater and other natural resources."
The Sierra Club announced that "the largest ever mine proposed in Wisconsin presents unacceptable risks to Lake Superior and the sensitive and exceptional Bad River Watershed which includes…the largest freshwater estuary on Lake Superior."
"It's devastating," said Annie Maday, a member of the tribal council of the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, which argued that the mine could destroy wild rice beds and pollute waters on its nearby reservation. "They're going to destroy my home."
When the state Senate took up the bill, it was opposed by Bob Jauch, the Poplar Democrat who represents northwest Wisconsin. "Our job is not to be Santa Claus to the mining company and Scrooge to the taxpayers," Jauch said. "This is a bill that offers a sweetheart deal for the mining company and shortchanges the taxpayer."
State Senator Dale Schultz, a Republican who broke with his party to oppose the mining legislation at several key points, said, "My conscience simply won't allow me to surrender the existing environmental protections without a full and open debate."
When the controversial rule changes were approved by the legislature in 2013, Walker announced that he was "thrilled" to sign the bill.
What went unmentioned at the time was the extent to which Gogebic Taconite was "thrilled" with Walker.
The documents that were briefly unsealed last week by the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit—which is weighing whether to permit the continuation of the "John Doe" probe into alleged illegal coordination between Walker's campaign and so-called "independent" groups that supported the governor—shined light on the shadowy political networks that developed to aid Walker. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel noted that the "hundreds of pages of documents that… showed Walker's team sought to solicit funds for the Wisconsin Club for Growth from an array of nationally known donors to fend off his 2012 recall. Real estate developer Donald Trump, industrialist billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, and casino mogul Sheldon Adelson were all targets."
The documents reinforce the image of the governor, who is seeking re-election this fall and preparing a 2016 Republican presidential run, as a master political operative who worked every angle to secure record amounts of money for his own campaign and for "independent" groups that were supportive of it. In one of the unsealed documents, a fund-raising aide consulting with Walker before he met with wealthy donors advised: "Let them know that you can accept corporate contributions and it is not reported."
The documents reveal details of a number of huge and previously unreported donations. Yet the one that raised the most eyebrows had to do with the mine project.
As the recall fights heated up, Gogebic Taconite moved $700,000 to the Wisconsin Club for Growth, which in turn steered resources to other groups that cheered on Walker and his Republican allies.
"Because Wisconsin Club for Growth's fundraising and expenditures were being coordinated with Scott Walker's agents at the time of Gogebic's donation, there is certainly an appearance of corruption in light of the resulting legislation from which it benefited," argued Dean Nickel, the former head of the state Department of Justice's Public Integrity Unit who investigated the fund-raising scheme for the state Government Accountability Board.
Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!
Walker has admitted that he helped steer money to the Wisconsin Club for Growth, but when asked whether he knew of the Gogebic money, he answered vaguely, "Not to my knowledge." Pressed by reporters on whether "the previously undisclosed funds and subsequent legislation were part of some pay-to-play scheme," the governor replied, "That's a ridiculous argument."
The governor has every right to make that claim, as do his most ardent apologists.
But in Wisconsin, a state that historically took great pride in its clean elections and high ethical standards, voters have a right to ask, based on records and revelations, whether it really is all that ridiculous to find in them "an appearance of corruption."
Read Next: Deepa Iyer on why all communities of color must work to put an end to police brutality.