One of the most interesting developments in labor has been the AFL-CIO’s schism. I am very interested in what the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) will do in the next couple of years. The SEIU defines the union movement two fold: the first reason is that John Sweeney was the president of SEIU before he became the current president of the umbrella group AFL-CIO. It was his promise of reforms that brought a new hope for unions in the 90’s. Furthermore, the SEIU defines labor because Andy Stern, the president of the SEIU, was one of the main reasons why some unions broke away from the AFL-CIO recently.

Unions still play a role in politics; however, they have become largely an interest group in the mindset of both major parties. This is large difference from the days of John L. Lewis, the president of the CIO, who put up his presidency to try to get America and union members not to vote for FDR.

As the Washington Post article points out, labor unions have the possibility of changing the United States’ economic structure. The article also highlights why business needs to be held accountable when dealing with immigration and opportunity.

The Political State Report talks about how Lieberman’s endorsement from the AFL-CIO may help him win against Lamont. The conclusion is largely reached because the “AFL-CIO represents approximately 200-thousand Connecticut residents, mostly democrats who actively participate in politics.” This is very good point and one Lamont needs to focus on.

But the AFL-CIO’s endorsement becomes a little grey when we look at Pennsylvania’s 06 primary. Bob Casey’s opponents Chuck Pennacchio and Alan Sandals largely trailed him because the lack of name recognition.

The AFL-CIO endorsed Bob Casey from the start.

But what help did this have? You heard a lot less from the AFL-CIO about Chuck and Alan, not much beyond that.

One thing overlooked in the election was the fact that Alan Sandals and Chuck Pennacchio received double the votes predicted in the polls. This says a lot about the race between Lieberman and Lamont because both candidates are getting plenty of media attention, the issues will count far more than endorsements.

The reason Lieberman, the 2000 vice president, is in trouble doesn’t come down to the Iraq war simply but rather his defense of Bush’s policies. Polls everywhere are reporting that people do not think Bush’s policies are the answer! The 2006 election has the potential of changing gears among parties and perhaps political ideas. Lieberman, however, has offered nothing new in ideas for the Democrats. Does Lamont offer something better? This will be the deciding factor for union members and Democrats in Connecticut. That is why Lieberman should be cautious of the AFL-CIO’s endorsement.

Someone on Ted Stevens’s staff, please brief the Senate’s president pro tempore on the internet. Ted, your staff may know more about it, but they certainly don’t “send internets.”

An excerpt for those who don’t click links:

“I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o’clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why?

Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the internet commercially.”

Ohhhhh, is that why?

A new report by the Citizens for Tax Justice came out today. It demonstrates in a simple 2-3 page chart, how the tax cuts are spread among the population and it actually affects most Americans negatively. The most important part of the formula is that the money cuts into important social services*. In result, Bush’s generation passes the burden of debt onto generations younger and not yet born. Birth Tax!

*Many of the tax cut measures actually affect middle class more than others. For example, the Parent Plus Loan which is given to parents that exceed a certain income level has just risen pass the 8% borrowoing rate, squeezing the middle class.

I was recently browsing campaign sites in various races for the gubernational races in several states. The latest on campaign sites, by the way, are that they are as they have been–filled with soundbites, with audio and video, with favorable news. I came upon a news story that a Republican challenger was particularly excited about: the incumbent did not manage to come through on a campaign promise. The challenger’s response was to put up a video of the incumbent pledging to get something done. On repeat. It repeated itself roughly five times.

So that’s what I think about as I write about Bush’s pledge to have 2,500 national guard troops on the border by the end of business today. Unless he more than doubles the number from yesterday, he will have failed to deliver–or rather the states will have failed–on what sounded good then but proved politically difficult for eighty percent of states to send even one man or woman to the border. With troops in Afghanistan, Iraq, and with floods in my region, the storm season in the Gulf, and the fires in the West, I expect to report that the deadline for 6,000 troops to be there will come and go with less than sufficient support. The immigration debate is a mess.

The Lamont camp and their supporters have concluded that Lieberman will run as an Independent candidate this fall against who seems more and more likely to be the Democratic nominee, challenger Ned Lamont, and Republican Alan Schlesinger. Lamont’s official campaign blog notes that the Cook Political Report says Lieberman has “vowed to run as an Independent,” and supporters at another blog–this one unofficial–have noted push polling apparently being done by the Lieberman campaign.  The pollsters are said to imply Lieberman will run as an Independent. The cited blog originates from dailykos, but the link provided has a number of people chiming in and noting their experience with similar tactics.

Lieberman has noted that he will announce if he’s running as an Independent–and there are now 39 days until the primary. My best guess is that it’s only a matter of time.  He looks scared.  If Joe wants to win anything this year, he had better stop hesitating.  He’s losing ground very quickly.  Ultimately, it looks more and more promising for the progressive, though.

When the dust settles from Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Bush and his administration will be looking hard at what it means for the unspent duration of his term. This Washington Post analysis takes a look at how Bush may have to govern differently as a result of the decision.

This comes after continued pressure from the ego-dominated Senate, who have actually come together in a bipartisan way to criticize the President for signing statements.

There is a very big debate brewing in Washington with regards to the powers of the President, and it’s finally coming from more than one branch of government.

Mr. President, you’re outnumbered.

Senate is lined up to vote on the stem cell bill, passed in the House last year, in July. The bill is expected to have vast bipartisan support with even Bill Frist jumping on board to support it. However, President Bush has threatened a veto. It is almost a sure bet that the bill will pass in the Senate, but the big question is: does Congress have the votes to override the veto?

Just when you think it cannot get worse, it does. The House Republicans think they have solved the energy problem. The plan started with last years energy bill (the energy bill that gave big oil tax cuts and did little for long term solvency). The House GOP has done little to encourage motor companies to manufacture more fuel efficient vehicles or to help make hybrid vehicles affordable for the working class.

Instead they come up with a retroactive plan. To solve the problem of ruining our environment for future generations by consuming too much oil, why not drill for oil and ruin it even more? Thank God Democratic Senator Bill Nelson of Florida has vowed to filibuster this bill when it reaches the Senate.

Santorum really, really, really wants to debate Bob Casey with little-known Green Party candidate Carl Romanelli. Ten times, even.

Santorum is more interested in playing political games like the one he played with Alan Sandals in the primary. Rick proposed debates to the three Democratic primary candidates; Sandals says, “Sure, let’s go.” Santorum then refused to debate him unless he won; Santorum’s aide went as far as saying that the Casey opponents had barely raised $5,000 apiece (when in fact they had combined receipts totalling $831,980).

This is continuing Santorum’s continued spree of desperation. Just a week ago, Santorum announced “we have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq” when they had actually found “a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions” and that “Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there.” That was almost definitely tip of the iceberg desperation tactics–the White House probably would have announced it if it could give more than just a rash.

G. Terry Madonna, a pollster and political analyst from at Franklin & Marshall, said before the primary that Casey’s best strategy might be “to go to the Caribbean and stay away” with regards to Santorum. It’s still true today–even as, just like everyone expected, the race is tightening. Rasmussen’s numbers have Casey leading Santorum by 15 points this month, whereas the month before Casey had a 23 point edge. But the three month average has Casey ahead by 17. So, yes, as Santorum Blog was so quick to point out, there’s differences month to month between the polls (seriously, bravo!). But this fact remains, and it doesn’t take a pollster and political analyst to tell you this: Casey is acting like an incumbent because he has name recognition and an unpopular opponent. In fact, he’s the most unpopular incumbent in the Senate (his approval rating is actually tied with Conrad Burns, but still), as Survey USA’s newest poll shows.

The Pennsylvania Senate incumbent in 2004 Arlen Specter, a moderate whose support from Santorum was integral to his success against a more conservative opponent Pat Toomey, was very reluctant to debate. And he didn’t even debate Hoeffel, his Democratic opponent, nearly as many times as Santorum proposes. Furthermore, anybody could guess what his reaction to debating Clymer was: “who?” Specter aides said they didn’t think Clymer’s campaign had a pulse. Casey is doing the same thing that Republicans had no problem with in 2004 — he’s trying to win an election. Nobody is going to base their decision this fall, after Santorum and Casey sit down for a couple debates, on the fact that Santorum offered so many debates. Nobody from the Specter camp eagerly helped Clymer get on the ballot, and nobody should expect the Casey camp to do so either.

Back to Santorum Blog: they were also quick to point out something else (in reference to my earlier post): Santorum won’t stop raising money.

Thanks.

What I said was if Rick Santorum continues to spend more money than Casey in an attempt to bring his image out of the basement, to act as if Bob Casey is 5-years-old (come on, Ricky, calling him Bobby is childish), to tackle his Republican Senate’s favorite issues (gays and flags) while almost undoubtedly forgetting about bread-and-butter issues that actually matter, Santorum’s fundraising advantage will evaporate.

Bob Casey, Jr. is raising money, too. And to be sure he does, I’m donating money to him upon completion of this entry.

Media Bias Watch has posted a piece about Planned Parenthood’s support of Casey; however, the article has a myopic understanding of Casey’s stance. The main argument, a premise that I guarantee will be used often by staunch Santorum fans, is that Casey has a double standard on abortion. Indeed, I feel Pennsylvania will hear about this a lot because Santorum isn’t doing as well with his own base (look at the primary results in which Swann received more votes).

Beyond Santorum’s Republican problems, the reason why the endorsement shouldn’t be rejected is simple: Casey’s stance on contraceptives differs largely with Santorum; though Santorum and Casey are both pro-life, Casey’s position on reproductive health is closer, and sometimes agrees, with that of Planned Parenthood .

Furthermore, I can remember a time when Santorum was standing smile-and-all with pro-choice candidate Specter against pro-life Toomey.

Moral of story: Casey will fund programs that deal with reproductive health including birth control and condoms. Thus, Planned Parenthood endorses Casey.

The reason why the Supreme Court’s ruling is so important is because it suggests that beyond the prisoners, Bush doesn’t have a “blank check” and needs approval from the other branches of government. This is a severe blow to an administration that has argued that the legislative branch has given it as much power as necessary to fight terrorism.

Supreme Court has ruled Bush stepped over the line at Guantanamo Bay.

Update:

PPG in Evansville, IN voted and approved UAW representation Wednesday. The results were 54-46 percent. This is the second PPG plant to vote in favor of unionization in a month. The reason why they voted yes? — Job security and benefits. Lately at PPG, there has been a threat of temp workers replacing full-time employees with benefits.

Clinton has come out against changing the presidential primary voting order, but his reasoning is wrong.

“I worry about the continued compressing of the calendar robbing the candidates of the opportunity to do what they have to do.'’

What is he talking about? The system is already robbing the candidates of opportunity. Look at 2004, by the time Pennsylvania voted the election was over! This is a perfect example of Clinton’s DLC mind set. By having a state between Iowa and New Hampshire, the process will be more diverse and representative of the Democratic Party.