The January 21 Supreme Court decision [.pdf] in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case lifted bans on corporate spending for campaign finance, drawing heavy criticism from across the country for the ruling's potential to undermine the American democratic process.

Now with that ruling in their back pockets, "[a]t least half a dozen leaders of the Republican Party have joined forces to create a new political group with the goal of organizing grass-roots support and raising funds ahead of the 2010 midterm elections, according to people familiar with the effort", says the Wall Street Journal in an article January 30.

The Supreme Court ruling could potentially allow the group, called the American Action Network, to take unlimited contributions from corporations for use in political campaigns.

The New York Times reports that the group aims to “develop and market conservative ideas…hoping to capitalize on the fundraising and electioneering possibilities opened up by a recent Supreme Court ruling.”

“This administration as well as Citizens United — when you combine the two the prospects for funding these types of efforts are greatly enhanced,” said former senator Norm Coleman, one of the group’s organizers.

RawStory lists the intitial members of the group as:

           Read more... 

There's no doubt that there's an awakening. What concerns me is that the liberal base, the Democratic Party base, has never been more educated, in my view, and that's because of the independent media. The democratic base is against an imperial foreign policy. The democratic base is for real medicare for all, or at least the strongest public option that would really hurt private insurance. There's an understanding of history, and again it's largely because the independent media is giving us the news in real time, every day when we click on the computer and we watch Real News, we watch Democracy Now.

What hasn't translated is while we have this boom in independent media on the Internet, we don't have a boom of independent politics.

What I believe are needed are new groups, that will be on the Internet, mobilizing the millions to make the kinds of demands of the Democrats that the right wing base, which has clearly transformed the country, the right wing base in the Republican Party not only took over a major party, they haven't let up on that party until their agenda is put in place, whereas on our side we don't have that.

What needs to happen, this is what a few groups are doing, Progressive Democrats of America is one, the idea is we need to take over that major political party.

When people talk about change, and then they deliver only for insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and Wall Street, you vote them out. You primary them. You know this is what the right wing has done for decades. It's what they're doing now.

What we get from MoveOn historically and other groups is apologies for democratic office holders who have faked left with their rhetoric and then governed for big business. And what we need is to primary these people.

Frankly... I would love to see a primary challenge to Obama when he's up for re-election.

Because unless you build a base through elections and then you hold the officials accountable, then you'll never get anywhere.

Real News Network - February 6, 2010

A party whose titular head appears to be Rush Limbaugh with strong competition from Roger Ailes’ Fox News could be expected to be disturbed over the recent proposal to scrap the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” rule regarding the service of homosexuals in the military invoked when President Bill Clinton was in office.

A party moving perpetually backwards while heating up the forces of hate in a manner consistent with Limbaugh and his radio broadcasts would be expected to launch the same parade of horribles rationale so popular when Republicans are confronted with policy changes that reflect modern reality.

On the issue of gays it is particularly appealing to conjure up fear with a tinge of hatred since the most rightward and antagonistic element of the base can be more easily rallied by such an appeal.

The accusation of an appeal to prejudicial hatred will always be denied with the angry retort being that the interest of America is the ultimate barometer but it has been easy to see for some time where the party’s dominant right flank, which has been in control for so long, stands on gay issues and conclude why such a posture is being taken.

           Read more... 

There is a tendency in politics to see everything in a small time horizon. The fight in front of you is the one that is most important one there is. The problem with this approach is that it lets the clock run out on issues that you should be able to see coming and address before they become a catastrophe. In the late winter and early spring of 2008 everyone knew there was something very rotten in the housing market. Prices were falling and the number of loans in default or foreclosure was growing every month. This would have been a good time take action to address it, but there was a presidential primary race and a big election coming up, so it went on, basically ignored until the weakness in housing caused the financial system to collapse.

Originally posted at Squarestate.net

The wins that the President and the Democratic Party enjoyed in 2008 were due, in part, to the correct assessment by the public that the Republican Party did were to blame for the crisis and would not really do anything to fix it or prevent it from happening again.

           Read more... 

Over at Mindfully.org you can find hundreds of big and small literary and informational treasures for those interested in peering through the veils of darkness that the media does it's best to pull over our eyes with all of their well practiced smoke and mirrors.

One such is in the Political/Social category. An article titled Beyond Voting about the limits of electoral politics, that is particularly relevant this year.

Here's an excerpt, but the entire thing is worth a close read, and some intense discussion or at least much thought, imo...

Roughly speaking we can distinguish five degrees of "government":

       (1) Unrestricted freedom
       (2) Direct democracy
       (3) Delegate democracy
       (4) Representative democracy
       (5) Overt minority dictatorship

The present society oscillates between (4) and (5), i.e. between overt minority rule and covert minority rule camouflaged by a facade of token democracy. A liberated society would eliminate (4) and (5) and would progressively reduce the need for (2) and (3). . . .
...
In representative democracy people abdicate their power to elected officials.

The candidates' stated policies are limited to a few vague generalities, and once they are elected there is little control over their actual decisions on hundreds of issues - apart from the feeble threat of changing one's vote, a few years later, to some equally uncontrollable rival politician.

Representatives are dependent on the wealthy for bribes and campaign contributions; they are subordinate to the owners of the mass media, who decide which issues get the publicity; and they are almost as ignorant and powerless as the general public regarding many important matters that are determined by unelected bureaucrats and independent secret agencies. Overt dictators may sometimes be overthrown, but the real rulers in "democratic" regimes, the tiny minority who own or control virtually everything, are never voted in and never voted out. Most people don't even know who they are. . . .

In itself, voting is of no great significance one way or the other (those who make a big deal about refusing to vote are only revealing their own fetishism). The problem is that it tends to lull people into relying on others to act for them, distracting them from more significant possibilities. A few people who take some creative initiative (think of the first civil rights sit-ins) may ultimately have a far greater effect than if they had put their energy into campaigning for lesser-evil politicians. At best, legislators rarely do more than what they have been forced to do by popular movements. A conservative regime under pressure from independent radical movements often concedes more than a liberal regime that knows it can count on radical support. (The Vietnam war, for example, was not ended by electing antiwar politicians, but because there was so much pressure from so many different directions that the prowar president Nixon was forced to withdraw.) If people invariably rally to lesser evils, all the rulers have to do in any situation that threatens their power is to conjure up a threat of some greater evil.

RT, Feb. 02, 2010...

For the first time in recent history, the lobbying, grassroots and advertising budget of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has surpassed the spending of both the RNC and DNC. Does this mean corporate money is going to even further weaken the power of political parties and candidates? Will political parties cease to be important? How will this affect issues? Remember that six of the largest health insurers in the US funded TV ads that attacked the healthcare reform bills in Congress --and the ads were reportedly placed by the US Chamber of Commerce.