Democrats and white working class voters

Ruy Teixerira writes in the Emerging Democratic Majority Weblog about his discovery concerning the percentage of working class white voters among the electorate. As more complete demographic data about the 2004 Presidential election has become available, Teixerira discovered that white voters lacking a college education made up 51.5 percent of the total voters instead of the 43.3 percent of voters previously categorized as white working class types. Among this group, Teixerira who is a Senior Fellow with the Center for American Progress, points out voters went for Bush over Kerry by 23 percentage points. Gore lost working class whites to Bush by 17 percentage points in 2000. Bill Clinton had narrowly won a majority of these voters in 1992 and 1996 even though he won only a plurality of the wide among the total electorate. Below is an a link to the article which has highlighted links to other articles that are also quite informative.
http://tinyurl.com/8xzeq

Democrats must defend private property rights

The Hill newspaper http://www.thehill.com reports that Congressional Democrats have yet to form a "cohesive position" in reposnse to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling which granted local goverments the right to seize private property for economic development purposes. To this credit, Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) has come out strongly against the court ruling which is a clear threat to homeowners. I cannot think of a better issue that puts Democrats on the side of championing the average citizen over big business than supporting legislation which would reverse this outrageous decision. Why should a working class or middle class homeowner have to leave their home so that a big box store can be built under the guise of economic development ? A house resolution expressing "grave disapproval" of the Kelo v. City of New London decision won 144 Democratic votes in the U.S. House. 42 Democrats bravely supported legislation to withhold federal funds from govermens who seize private homes in the name of economic growth. House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California opposed the legislation on the basis that it amounted to interference with a federal court ruling and failed to vote on the House resolution expressing disapproval of the Supreme Court decision. We are talking about protecting private property rights and nation's highest court is simply wrong about this matter. Democrats have traditionally been the party of the people - not the federal judiciary. Let's make it clear which side we are on.

Democrats and illegal immigration

An article which appeared last month in the Christian Science Monitor tells how Democrats could gain politically and protect American workers by taking a decisive stand against illegal immigration - something that the Bush White House refuses to do. As proponents of cheap labor policies, most Republicans are naturally tolerant of illegal immigration. The article asks what went wrong with Democrats who have traditionally supported control of our borders. Both parties have failed to protect our borders and Democrats should demand that our party return to its tradition of fighting for the interests of American workers as we know that the Republicans are the party of big business will continue to tolerate illegal immigration.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0516/p09s01-coop.html

Republican Congress gives itself a pay raise

Despite a valiant effort by U.S. Congressman Jim Matheson (D-Utah), our Republican Congress. Matheson has waged a lonely battle every year to rescind the automatic pay raises that Congress has given to themselves. A member of the Blue Dog Democratic caucus and a champion of fiscal conservatism, Matheson has forced members to go on record on the Congressional pay raise which probably has endeared him to many colleagues. Matheson stubbornly refuses to accept the pay raise instead giving it away to charities in his Salt Lake City area district.

Matheson told the Salt Lake Tribune that reducing the federal debt and funding education, health care and the war on terror are among the vital priorities that should take priority over a Congressional pay increase. “We need to be willing to make sacrifices,” Matheson said in a floor speech. “We need to behave like American families who make tough choices every day. We need to budget, live within our means and make careful spending decisions based on our most pressing priorities.” The U.S. House voted 263 to 152 to block a procedural move to get a direct vote on the pay raise.

Senate backs CAFTA sellout

Ten Democrats and one Independent Senator again betrayed American workers by voting for CAFTA. If just five more Democrats had stood up to protect Americans and opposed CAFTA, the Bush administration's free trade at all costs policies would have been dealt a major setback. Opposing one sided "free trade" isn't an ideological issue - it is a matter of common sense. We cannot continue to export our industries and destroy our jobs. If Democrats are to be the champions of working families, then we must oppose destructive "free trade" policies and support fair trade. A Democrat voting for CAFTA is a good example of "Republican lite" in my view although twelve Republicans had the courage to stand up to the White House and vote no on CAFTA. Democrats voting for CAFTA went across the political spectrum. Liberals such as Diane Fienstein of California and Ron Wyden of Oregon, moderates like Florida's Bill Nelson and conservatives like Nebraska's Ben Nelson all backed CAFTA. Contact your U.S. Representative and urge them to vote no on CAFTA.

Conservative Democrat to run for Alabama Supreme Court seat

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/ reports that Russell County Circuit Court Judge Albert Johnson will be a Democratic candidate for the Alabama Supreme Court in 2006. As a judge on the District and Circuit Court benches in Russell County since 1984, Johnson said he has considered a Court bid in past years after receiving enouragement to do so from friends and colleagues.
He'll run as a proud Democrat in a state now dominated by GOP office holders, including an all-Republican Supreme Court, he said, because he's going to define what an Alabama Democrat rather than being defined by his opposition.
"I'm going to get a bumper sticker that says: 'I'm a Christian. I own a gun. I'm a Democrat,' " Johnson said. I'm going to remind most of the voters that their granddaddy was a Democrat, and there was nothing wrong with his values," he said.

What Next for the Supreme Court

With the resignation of Justice O'Connor, Bush will probably try to pick a staunch conservative in the mold of Scalia or Thomas but without much of a paper trail. There will be extensive fund raising efforts and media advertising from ideological pressure groups on the both sides opposing and promoting confirmation of the nominee. I think that they will make a careful choice and you will not see another Bork or Ginsberg scenario.As a generally pro-life Democrat, I am hoping that Roe v. Wade will be overturned. I would like to see abortion policy returned to the State Legislatures where it belongs. If Roe v. Wade is overturned though, the hard-line pro-lifers are likely to be disappointed. Many states may pass more restrictive abortion laws, but none will pass a law with no exceptions and most will continue to permit first trimester abortion. One great positive is that abortion will be eliminated as a major issue on the federal level. Democrats will benefit as more single issue voters were pro-life and working class voters return to the Democratic fold.While I am not losing sleep over the possibility of a very likely reversal of Roe v. Wade or a law and order stance on criminal justice issues by a more right leaning Court, it is a frightening possiblility that the new Justice could be a staunch economic libertarian who believes that labor laws and other forms of governmental regulation of economic activity are un-Constitutional. Justices Thomas and Scalia already have strong economic libertarian leanings and we could eventually with the prospect of other vacancies see a court that declares government programs that benefit the less fortunate and basic regulatory actions by government declared un-Consitutional (as the Supreme Court tried to do during the New Deal era). If that happens, we could enter an era of right-wing judicial activism that could attain what was impossible to acheive at the ballot box.As a rightist by Democratic standards, I would welcome many of the socially conservative decisions from a right leaning court relating to life, the family unit and the criminal justice system. I part company with the right when they advocate laissez faire capitalism, bash labor unions and eliminate the social safety net for workers. I hope that despite the cynical selection process geared to acheiving ideological goals that we find justices who not only have great intellect but compassion and practicality as well.