People Before Profit blog

Beyond South Dakota

Fri, 17 Nov 2006 09:36:00 +0000

With all the attention on Ohio, Virginia, Montana and a few other states, it would be easy to miss something very significant that happened in South Dakota on election night: a victory that just might point the way forward for progressives on a broad constellation of personal liberties.

The voters of South Dakota, 55 percent to 45 percent, rejected the draconian abortion ban that conservatives had succeeded in pushing through the state legislature, and the governor had signed earlier this year — a ban that had no exceptions to protect the health of the woman, or in cases of rape or incest; a ban that would have sent doctors to jail for protecting a woman’s health as they are trained to do; a ban based on “findings” that claimed that women by definition could not choose abortion freely, because it is against their nurturing natures.

In the course of this campaign, the people of South Dakota heard from their fellow-citizens — mothers, doctors, public officials — that their Legislature had gone far beyond its appropriate role. They agreed that government has no business getting between a doctor and patient, and denying them both the right to make their own medically-informed decisions.

What’s important about South Dakota is that, rather than rely only on court challenges, progressives decided to engage and stand with local citizens against the law. Some progressives had concerns about this strategy — but it worked for the voters of South Dakota. And standing our ground is a way to re-energize progressives for the task ahead.

There is no room for complacency. At least a dozen other state legislatures have considered similar laws in the past year. The organizers even pledged to try again in South Dakota.

And the election results weren’t even final Wednesday morning before the Supreme Court opened a hearing on the federal ban on so-called “partial birth abortion” passed by Congress in 2003.

Like the South Dakota law, the federal ban also egregiously substitutes politics for medical decision-making. It denies doctors’ authority to determine the safest procedure for women needing to terminate troubled pregnancies. It is so vague that doctors say they would have no idea what was permitted and what could subject them to prosecution and jail time.

As I listened to the arguments Wednesday morning, I found it so striking that this federal ban, like the South Dakota law, puts government in the business of interfering with the practice of medicine, taking decisions out of the hands of doctors and putting women’s health at risk.

It may well be the case that five justices are prepared to uphold this law. If they do, they will essentially have gutted Roe’s protections for many women without actually having to overturn it.

It’s time for a strong focus on persuading the public, on grassroots organizing and on political action — in addition to challenging bad laws in court. We must start from the recognition that Americans don’t want government in their bedrooms and doctors’ offices, and don’t believe government should be the one deciding which women control their own lives and which do not.

The win in South Dakota, as well as the defeat at the polls of proposed parental-notification laws in Oregon and California, shows that such a strategy can be successful. The South Dakota case, in addition to rolling back a very bad law, has galvanized a whole new — and in some cases unlikely — cohort of citizen activists in a way that court cases alone cannot do. It took the issue out of the abstract language of legal documents and into the real lives of real people who came forward to oppose the law.

It’s worth noting that we had this success without trying to hide what we were talking about, or pretend that abortion wasn’t the issue. In South Dakota, citizens who had never discussed these hard issues before were able to talk about them and conclude that they didn’t like what their elected officials had done. That should point the way forward for progressives who are debating among themselves what a progressive position on abortion should be.

That’s the kind of renewed grassroots energy we need across the country, because make no mistake, the challenge is not just one law. And the challenge is not just Roe v. Wade. The challenge is standing against the right wing’s cumulative efforts to strip away protections, choices and basic dignity from women. These efforts have especially hurt women who are effectively denied control over their reproductive decisions because they cannot reach a clinic or cannot pay for its services, or cannot even obtain contraceptive services, let alone an abortion.

That’s the level on which the progressive movement needs to re-engage. The first test of a larger commitment to this strategy will come in 2008 — and that is only two years away. Progressives depend — this year and every year — on mobilizing women voters and speaking to women’s issues.

To do this, we should craft a broad strategy that advances a constellation of issues that affect women’s ability to order their own lives: Reproductive rights, including abortion but also access to the contraception that prevents unwanted pregnancies; and the education and economic opportunities that empower women in fact, not just in name. Progressives can show that all those issues link back to a fundamental commitment to putting women and their families at the center of decision-making about their own lives — without government in the middle. But we need to start now.

Kate Michelman is former president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. This article is reprinted from TomPaine.com.

Carrying the victory forward

Fri, 17 Nov 2006 09:24:00 +0000

Voters made history Nov. 7. Exhausted and angered from a record number of deaths in Iraq, an economic recovery benefiting millionaires but not workers, and unchecked corruption, the voter upsurge rejected the Bush administration and its right-wing agenda.

Placing hope above fear, voters in all parts of the country stood up to defend democracy. The dramatic results present new opportunities for the grass roots to move forward a people’s agenda and oust the right wing from the White House in 2008.

After months of conversation with union brothers and sisters on the job, at their doors and on the phone, a resounding 74 percent of union members and their families, one in four voters, joined 88 percent of African Americans, 69 percent of Latinos and record numbers of women and youth voters to end right-wing Republican majority rule of Congress. The wave carried many state and local candidates to victory.

As voting day arrived across the country, electricity was in the air, with the sense that an upsurge “change” vote to end the war in Iraq and reject the Bush policies was about to sweep the nation.

It was an upsurge vote big enough and powerful enough to overcome long lines, faulty machines and dirty tricks meant to suppress the vote in many working-class precincts. It was made possible by shifts among independent voters and in some traditionally Republican areas.

Ten months earlier most analysts predicted that Democrats could not take the 15 seats needed to control the House and certainly not the six seats needed to win the Senate.

In the end, Democrats picked up at least 28 seats in the House plus the six Senate seats. No Democratic incumbents were defeated. Overall, those Democrats who took strong stands against the war and for universal health care and raising the minimum wage won the biggest confidence of voters.

When peace candidate Ned Lamont defeated Joe Lieberman in Connecticut’s Democratic primary, it sent a signal to candidates across the country that withdrawal from Iraq was a winning issue. Lieberman, who formed his own party to run in the general election, got 70 percent of the Republican vote by quietly sticking with Bush, but had to claim to favor ending the war in order to win by garnering some Democratic votes (30 percent).

Republicans in close races were forced to distance themselves from Bush. Some joined in the Democratic chorus for Rumsfeld to resign. With some exceptions, the most extreme anti-immigrant and terrorist-baiting attack ads, the ugliest ever seen, lost votes for the Republicans.

Prominent Republicans mired in corruption scandals went down to defeat while others held on by only razor-thin margins. Some of the most right-wing Republicans will not be returning to Congress, including Rep. J.D. Hayworth (Ariz.) and nine other members of the anti-immigrant caucus in the House, plus Sens. Rick Santorum, James Talent and George Allen.

The media are attempting to minimize the people’s election victory, continuing the biased role they played throughout the election. Claiming there has not been a real shift in public opinion on the issues, they dismiss the election results as a momentary reaction to scandals. Their spotlight on conservative Democrats who won election is an effort to undermine the ability of Nancy Pelosi, who will become the first woman speaker of the House, to advance a progressive agenda.

To the contrary, this election was a far-reaching rejection of the policies of Bush, whose performance ratings plummeted to 31 percent post-election (Newsweek). This election was a call for a change in direction. The victory gives hope to minimum wage workers, military families, students, seniors, immigrants and all democratic-minded people.

But the war in Iraq will not end, health care will not become universal, and workers will not achieve the right to organize just because Democrats won control of Congress.

Their majority in Congress is not large enough or united enough to be veto-proof. There is an ongoing struggle between the conservative and progressive sections of the Democratic Party. The Republican presence remains sizeable, and George W. Bush remains in the White House.

Yet the new Congress should be greeted because it greatly improves the playing field on which labor and allies can fight.

In large part it will be up to labor and allies, the core forces of the alliance against the ultra-right that delivered the election, to build grassroots pressure for Congress to be partisan to the needs of working families. Expanding the shift of independent voters in a progressive direction to win on the issues will require a strong rejection of the divisive anti-affirmative-action, anti-immigrant, anti-abortion, anti-GLBT tactics of the ultra-right.

Inspired by the election results, the union movement and women’s, youth, civil rights and peace groups who pulled out the winning vote in this election are already in motion.

Military Families Speak Out has called on the new Congress to support withdrawal of troops from Iraq as soon as possible. In response to voter turnout against the war and 162 ballot measures for withdrawal which passed overwhelmingly, Senate Democrats have come out for phased troop withdrawal beginning in a few months. The Bush administration says no. This will be the first big test of the new Congress and the ability of the peace and people’s movements to mobilize support.

For six years in the Republican-controlled House, it was impossible to get debate on any issue that did not have the support of the right-wing “majority of the majority.” The change in leadership opens new possibilities.

The largest ideological caucus in the new Congress will be the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Over half of all House committees and subcommittees will be chaired by members of the Progressive, Black, Hispanic or Asian Pacific Caucuses.

Progressive Caucus Co-Chair Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), who helped found the Out of Iraq Caucus, says this election is “a vindication of our work … to change the direction of our Iraq policy and bring our troops home.”

In a message the day after the election, she emphasized that oversight of the executive branch will be restored. “The administration will now have to answer some tough questions on its rush to war, its failed arms control and broader foreign policies, its abuse of our constitutional rights and its failed economic and budgetary policies.”

Lee said the Progressive and Black Caucuses will prioritize “helping Katrina survivors return home and rebuild their community and their lives and insisting on a national plan to eradicate poverty ... and creating a government that works for all Americans, not just the privileged few.”

The emergency agenda projected by Pelosi for the first 100 hours of the new Congress includes modest proposals that impact people’s lives. It has strong support from labor and allies, from Democrats across the board, and from some Republicans.

The six points include breaking the link between lobbyists and legislation, passing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, raising the minimum wage, cutting the interest rate on student loans in half, lowering drug prices for Medicare patients, and rolling back the multibillion-dollar subsidies for Big Oil companies and investing instead in energy independence.

If enacted, this modest beginning can provide the momentum for demanding more far-reaching measures. At the top of the agenda is the Employee Free Choice Act, which would remove barriers for workers to form a union.

The high union member turnout to elect pro-labor candidates makes labor a key force not only in significantly raising workers’ living standards, but in completing the task of defeating the ultra-right.

This historic election is just the beginning. The struggle now is to organize a grassroots groundswell for a people’s needs agenda, and develop tactics in collaboration with the progressives in Congress to pass legislation that is partisan to working people. Winning victories for the people is the best way to assure defeat of the Republican ultra-right in 2008.

Joelle Fishman (joelle.fishman @ pobox.com) is chair of the Communist Party USA’s Political Action Commission. She lives in New Haven, Conn.

Pace of change in Bolivia picks up

Fri, 17 Nov 2006 08:05:00 +0000

News Analysis

The Bolivian government of President Evo Morales has dealt with recent challenges handily. As a result, popular support for his policies is growing, and the prospects for further advances in a progressive and revolutionary direction are strong.

Despite persisting separatist agitation in Bolivia’s wealthy eastern states, procedural conflicts plaguing the country’s Constituent Assembly, and a short-lived coup attempt in mid-October, approval ratings for Morales are up.

Polling carried out over Oct. 31-Nov. 1 gave him a 63 percent level of support, with 55 percent of potential voters confident that the country “is heading in the right direction.” Morales won the presidency a year ago with a 54 percent plurality.

The boost in public approval stems from at least two recent successes, observers say.

In September, an armed conflict developed in Huanuni, in Bolivia’s south, between state-employed tin miners and those working for private mining cooperatives. The death toll was 16; many more were wounded.

Government representatives met with the combatants and made plans to nationalize the tin, gold, and silver mines gradually over two years. Speaking Oct. 31 in the mining district, Morales announced plans to form the Mining Corporation of Bolivia, provide immediate social services for the miners, and recruit up to 4,000 Huanuni miners into the union of state-employed miners.

The second success took place on Oct. 28-29, when Morales signed agreements with 10 foreign oil and gas companies to nationalize the nation’s hydrocarbon resources, thereby making good on his May Day promise. Since then, polling estimates of popular approval for Morales’ program for nationalizing natural gas and oil have ranged from 83 percent to 87 percent.

Buoyed by popular backing, the government, identified with the Movement toward Socialism Party, seems to have enough breathing space to allow for the review of longer-term issues and political strategy.

The revolutionary content of the process unfolding in Bolivia became clear at the “First Meeting of Peoples and States for Liberation of the Great Country” held Oct. 27-29 in Sucre, Bolivia’s historic capital city. The “Great Country” refers to a unified and sovereign South America, the vision of 19th-century independence leader Simon Bolivar.

Over 1,000 delegates from 14 countries were on hand as representatives of social, cultural, indigenous and political movements. Their job, according to a government spokesperson, was to establish the means of communication needed for reaching three basic goals: Latin American integration, unification of the social movements into a “regional block of popular power,” and the enhancement of participatory democracy.

The conference included panels on agrarian reform, financial institutions, state backing for small businesses, environmental protection, education, health care and respect for cultural traditions.

The meeting was seen as a forerunner for two other gatherings, each set to run simultaneously in Cochabamba, Bolivia, on Dec. 8-9. One will be the South American Summit of Presidents. The other will be the Social Summit for the Integration of the Peoples, which will likely play out as a continuation of the October meeting in Sucre.

The conference-goers in Sucre urged that the 12 presidents attending the Cochabamba summit discuss foreign debt repayments, the proliferation of U.S. military bases, planning for industrial and rural revitalization, and “civic-military defense of the Great Country.”

Additional topics of both conferences will include energy, migration, social and labor rights, food sovereignty, water, biodiversity, indigenous peoples and intellectual property.

Some organizers envision an overlap between the two meetings that will strengthen working alliances between political officials and social movements. That confluence, one observer hopefully suggested, may add up to a “new Latin American vanguard” for liberating the oppressed from “homegrown oligarchs and imperialism.”

Bolivian Vice President Alvaro Garcia Linera closed the gathering at Sucre Oct. 29 with a remarkable speech. To fight the “free trade” and privatization policies associated with neoliberalism, he said, is to build socialism, 21st-century style. That process involves also the consolidation of social movements, peasant-indigenous unity, re-appropriation of collective wealth and organizing workers where they live.

Latin America, Garcia suggested, is the prime locus for fashioning the alternative to neoliberalism.

atwhit @ megalink.net

Unbridled anti-immigrant racism in Texas

Thu, 16 Nov 2006 14:59:00 +0000

News Analysis

DALLAS — Unable to wait a full week after their shellacking in national elections, the far right in Texas unmasked its fanatical racism on Nov. 13. While state legislators amassed anti-immigrant bills for the coming year’s session, the City Council of Farmers Branch, a town located just north of Dallas, unanimously approved some of the most anti-immigrant measures in the nation.

Progressive activists in North Texas had scarcely a day’s warning about the plan to impose the harshly punitive proposals, which had been quietly shelved during the pre-election period.

When word leaked out that the proposals were going to be reconsidered, civil rights activist Diana Flores sent out e-mail messages on Nov. 12, calling for immigrant rights supporters to step forward “to say no to the anti-immigrant initiatives that are labeled by many as anti-American, anti-family, and anti-Christian.”

About 200 people, including state Reps. Roberto Alonzo and Rafael Anchia, gathered both inside and outside the City Council meeting room to protest the proposed ordinances, which include making English the town’s “official language,” fining landlords for renting to undocumented workers, and directing local police to enforce immigration laws.

Despite the protest, the council adopted the measures. It graciously decided not to enact anything against employers.

Similar bills in the state legislative hopper would, among other things, push the children of undocumented workers out of school and cut off emergency health care.

The American Civil Liberties Union and Mexican American Legal Defense Fund are expected to contest the Farmers Branch ordinance.

flittle7 @ yahoo.com

Chicago gentrification is a global issue

Wed, 15 Nov 2006 17:38:00 +0000

CHICAGO — “This is a global issue, part of globalization and capitalism,” said Alejandra Ibanez on Nov. 10 at the opening night of an exhibition about the effects of gentrification in the Pilsen community on the city’s lower west side.

The exhibit, “Contested Chicago: Pilsen and Gentrification,” is being displayed at Café Mestizo, in the Pilsen neighborhood, a working-class, predominantly Mexican American and immigrant community.

Gentrification, said Ibanez, is “not a Latino or a Black thing; it creates economic challenges on the working poor and we need to engage people in cross-neighborhood dialogue to come together to work for citywide solutions.”

Ibanez is executive director of Pilsen Alliance, which formed in 1998 “to improve the quality of life and preserve the rich Mexican culture of the Pilsen community,” according to its literature. It also promotes grassroots leadership development, neighborhood initiative, self-determination, accountability and inclusiveness.

Buildings in Pilsen date from the late-19th century, when it served as a port of entry for Central and Eastern European immigrants. The name Pilsen comes from Western Bohemia, now part of the Czech Republic. Since the 1950s, Pilsen has become a major center of Chicago’s Mexican American population.

The 2000 U.S. Census showed the population of Pilsen was 44,031, of which 89 percent of residents are Hispanic and 49 percent are foreign-born. The median income is $27,763, more than $10,000 below the city of Chicago median of $38,625.

In the past decade, Chicago has seen a real estate upsurge with the construction of high priced condominium developments causing the gentrification of many Chicago working-class communities, including Pilsen.

Sociologist Ruth Glass first coined the term “gentrification” in the 1960s to describe the process of middle-class people moving into working-class urban neighborhoods, causing an increase in property values. Ultimately this trend leads to the displacement of existing residents who cannot afford to live there anymore.

The exhibit also points out how Pilsen’s zoning, which regulates both land use and building density, has made it a target for developers who buy single family homes, demolish them, and rebuild three to four story condominiums in its place without any community or city zoning board approval. This results in condo units that sell for $150,000 to $375,000 each.

Increasing property values and taxes soon follow therefore making it very expensive to both buy and stay in Pilsen. Often working-class homeowners cannot afford to pay these increasing property taxes. The costs are raised and passed on to tenants, who may be forced to move because of increased rents. Homeowners without tenants may also be forced to sell their homes just to pay their tax bills.

In March of 2006, a downsizing referendum was placed on the ballot in Pilsen, spearheaded by Pilsen Alliance with 75 percent of vote approval, indicating that gentrification is a major concern for residents. Soon after, Alderman Danny Solis of the 25th Ward, which includes Pilsen, said he would not enact the measure against the wishes of the majority who voted for it.

The exhibit was a collaboration put together by students of DePaul University’s Geography Department, the Steans Center for Community based Service Learning and Pilsen Alliance. Pilsen Alliance has been working with both groups since 2004.

Professor Winifred Curran from DePaul helped with the project and highlighted that “academic research and community activism could make a difference.”

The display features maps, photographs and information about Pilsen’s recent transformation due to a lack of affordable housing, the struggle against displacement, community activism and the fight against the building of high priced condominiums.

Marcela Gallo, 31, is the owner of Café Mestizo, where the exhibit is being showcased. Gallo went to high school in Pilsen and has lived there for 10 years. Gallo said that “Pilsen is a very vibrant, cultural community,” but issues of gentrification “affects us all, especially with property taxes going up.” Gallo feels Pilsen is changing for the wrong reasons and benefiting the middle class only.

“People need to educate themselves on the issue,” she said. “Working people don’t know what’s happening in their neighborhood.”

Ibanez believes gentrification affects all working-class neighborhoods in Chicago and hopes to bring community forces together to fight for social justice in a very segregated city.

“We want to make this citywide,” said Ibanez, “so people can come and inform themselves, educate and motivate, to see that something is being done.”

plozano @ pww.org

Sandinistas claim election victory in Nicaragua

Fri, 10 Nov 2006 07:12:00 +0000

NewsAnalysis

At press time, with 91 percent of the vote tallied, former Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega of the Sandinista National Liberation Front claimed victory over his closest rival, U.S. favorite Eduardo Montealegre of the National Liberal Alliance, in the Nov. 5 presidential election. The official count showed Ortega with 38 percent of the vote compared to Montealegre’s 29 percent.

Nicaraguan law states that a candidate must have 35 percent of the vote and a lead of 5 percentage points to win the election outright and avoid a runoff. As early as Nov. 7, it was clear that Ortega was poised to become Nicaragua’s next president, 16 years after losing office. Monteleagre conceded the election that same day.

The Organization of American States (OAS) and Ethics and Transparency International, an independent electoral watchdog group, along with numerous other European and Latin American observers, commended the electoral process for its peacefulness, lawfulness and orderliness. Chief Nicaraguan election official Roberto Rivas noted, “We have promised the Nicaraguan people transparent elections, and that’s what we’ve done.”

However, the U.S. government, which has clearly signaled its opposition to a Sandinista return, attempted to present the election as “non-transparent” and fraught with “anomalies.” Together with Harvard-educated banker Montealegre, who said, “No one has won here — we are going to a second round,” the U.S. is trying to invalidate the proceedings or undermine the results through drawn-out legal battles.

Nicaragua has historically been a victim of U.S. imperial ambitions, from the neocolonialism of the Monroe Doctrine in the 19th century to the Bush administration’s “war on terror” and “free trade” agreements. It occupies a strategic position at the center of the hemisphere, extending out into the Caribbean Sea.

Notes Duncan Kennedy of the BBC, “From being a source of slaves in the 19th century, [to] the days they occupied Nicaragua in the 1930s, to the years of secretly helping the Contra rebels in the 1980s, they [the U.S.] cannot seem to take their minds off this tiny country.”

Weary of U.S. interference in Nicaragua’s affairs, interventions that have cost the country over 90,000 lives in the 20th century alone, Nicaraguans have turned out en masse to the ballot box, seeking change. Since the Sandinistas’ loss of power 16 years ago, the effects of what Ortega calls “savage capitalism” have been ominous.

With 80 percent of Nicaraguans living on less than $2 a day, this resource-rich land is now the second poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, after Haiti. The country’s greatest source of income is remittances sent from economic exiles forced abroad by a decade and a half of failed neoliberal policies.

Ortega, “El Comandante,” has been viewed both at home and abroad as a fighter for democracy and sovereignty in the face of the ravages of economic neoliberalism in Latin America. “He is the only one who looks out for the poor,” William Medina told reporters at a Managua polling station. “All the others are just for the rich.”

The Sandinista revolution of 1979, which Ortega helped lead, fought poverty and foreign dependency by redistributing property, fighting illiteracy, promoting gender equality and raising health standards for Nicaragua’s population, while fighting CIA-supported Contra terrorists in a civil war which severely damaged the economy and cost over 50,000 lives.

Those heroic days have not been forgotten. “He led us well in the 1980s and he will do so again,” noted Nora Ramirez of Managua. “Daniel gave us milk, cheap schools and good hospitals,” she said. “But now everything is so expensive and we eat refried beans and rice.”

It is clear that the election, which has experienced record voter turnout, is a referendum on “savage capitalism” and its failure in Nicaragua. Dispossessed in a resource-rich land, bloodied by foreign invasion and neocolonial dependency, Nicaraguans hope that with Ortega the country will enter a realm of new possibilities.

As Ohio goes, so goes the nation

Fri, 10 Nov 2006 06:46:00 +0000

Ohio, Indiana, Missouri and Pennsylvania were big players in the national tidal wave for change Nov. 7. Below are quick highlights from some of our volunteer correspondents on the ground in those and other states. Look for more analysis next week.

Ohio: ‘Victory for progressive values’

“This is a victory for mainstream progressive values,” a jubilant Sherrod Brown told hundreds of supporters celebrating his unseating of incumbent Republican Mike DeWine in the race for U.S. Senate. “It is a defeat for the politics of fear and smear.”

Fellow Democrat Ted Strickland easily defeated Republican Secretary of State Ken Blackwell to become the first Democrat elected governor in 16 years. His slate won all but one of the statewide offices. Democrats also gained one House seat as Zack Space won in the 18th Congressional District previously represented by corruption-tarnished Bob Ney.

Democrats made gains in the state Legislature, although Republicans kept control of both houses, as well as the Supreme Court.

Brown said the progressive values that voters embraced included raising the minimum wage, affordable health care for all Americans, promoting alternative energy, ending job-killing trade agreements and ending the war in Iraq.

“Today in Ohio, in the middle of America, the middle class won,” he told a cheering crowd in Cleveland. “And because of progressive principles, mainstream progressive values, as Ohio goes in ’06, so goes the nation in ’08.”

The progressive working-class sentiments of the voters were also reflected in the passage of a constitutional amendment to raise the minimum wage to $6.85 an hour with annual cost of living increases, and in the election of pro-evolution candidates to the state Board of Education.

Ohio voters also enacted a ban on smoking in all public places, including bars and restaurants, and rejected an effort by gambling interests to legalize slot machines. — Rick Nagin

Indiana: Labor creates big win

Workers in union halls were rejoicing as U.S. House seats in three key districts changed hands from Republican to Democratic and the Republicans conceded the majority of the Statehouse seats to the Democrats.

Joe Donnelly defeated incumbent and Bush favorite Chris Chocola in the South Bend area. Down in the Indiana University area of Bloomington, former Democratic Congressman Baron Hill defeated incumbent Republican Michael Sodrel. In the southwestern corner of Indiana, Democrat Brad Ellsworth easily defeated six-term incumbent Republican John Hostettler.

Labor insiders credit the strong campaigning by union workers across the state, including 30,000 calls made for the 2nd CD race the weekend before the Election Day, for the vote that gave Donnelly the win.

Labor had pushed hard for the Democrats to take back control of the Statehouse in order to block the Republicans’ announced plans to pass “right to work” legislation. Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels, whose first act in office was to strip 35,000 state workers of their union rights, has made an anti-union “right to work” law his goal. The six Republicans in the state Legislature who voted with the Democrats to defeat an earlier attempt to pass the legislation were run out of office by the Republican Party before or during the primary. — Paul S. Kaczocha

Missouri: ‘We made history’

“We made history,” state Rep. John Bowman told the World shortly after Claire McCaskill announced she had defeated right-wing Republican incumbent Jim Talent in the hotly contested U.S. Senate race. Voters also OK’d measures to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $6.50 and index it to inflation, and to advance stem cell research.

“We’ve sent a clear message: ‘Enough is enough! It is time for a change!’“ Bowman said.

Grassroots mobilization and door-to-door voter turnout was key. For example, Jobs with Justice, a member of the Give Missourians a Raise Coalition, spent Election Day “knocking and dragging” voters to the polls.

In Jefferson County, union members Mike Frame (SEIU) and Sam Komo (UAW) won Statehouse races. — Tony Pecinovsky

Pennsylvania: Putting the smile back

A multiracial army of union volunteers and their allies in “Working America” played a key role in Bob Casey’s convincing victory over pro-Bush Sen. Rick Santorum, as well as in key House races in Philadelphia suburbs. In one of the highest profile races, retired admiral Joe Sestak ousted pro-war 10-term Republican Rep. Curt Weldon, 57-43 percent. Sestak’s message that “national security begins at home” with jobs, education and health care clearly resonated with voters in suburban Delaware County. Sestak said his special focus on affordable health care was a result of his daughter’s battle with brain cancer, during which he met other parents who did not have the benefit of the military’s health coverage.

Pennsylvania AFL-CIO President Bill George appeared at numerous rallies during the final days calling on union members and all Pennsylvanians to “put the smile back” on his 101-year-old father’s face and begin to “lift the country up” with a big Democratic victory.

— Ben Sears

Arizona

In what may be a historic result Arizona voters rejected a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and prohibit “domestic partnership” ordinances. Democrats gained two congressional seats: former Tempe Mayor Harry Mitchell defeated Christian right Republican Rep. J. D. Hayworth, and state Sen. Gabrielle Giffords routed extreme anti-immigrant Republican Randy Graff for the seat being vacated by retiring Republican Jim Kolbe.

Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano and liberal Attorney General Terry Goddard won landslide victories against ultra-right opponents. But Democrat Jim Pederson failed to unseat incumbent ultra-right U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl.

Arizona, one of only nine states with no minimum wage law, voted to establish a $6.75 minimum wage with yearly cost of living adjustments. The measure passed by large margins in all 15 counties.

Voters did succumb to anti-immigrant hysteria and passed several propositions targeting immigrants and making English the official state language.

— Joe Bernick

California

In a major upset, Democrat Jerry McNerney ousted seven-term Congressman Richard Pombo, 53-47 percent. McNerney won despite major Republican efforts to protect Pombo, who chaired the powerful House Resources Committee. McNerney emphasized clean government, a timetable to leave Iraq and environmental issues. With McNerney’s victory, 32 of the state’s 53 members of Congress are Democrats.

In Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s win over State Treasurer Phil Angelides, immigration was an issue. Last-minute Schwarzenegger campaign phone messages hammered Angelides for opposing National Guard troops on the border and backing driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants.

Schwarzenegger has cast himself as a moderate able to cooperate with the Democratic-dominated Legislature. But observers predict sharp clashes ahead on health care, prison reform and water issues. Three leading Bush staffers served on Schwarzenegger’s campaign team.

Democrat Debra Bowen, who vowed to get rid of Diebold voting machines, beat her Republican opponent — a Schwarzenegger appointee — for secretary of state. But a racist campaign defeated Democrat Cruz Bustamente for insurance commissioner.

— Marilyn Bechtel and Rosalio Muñoz

Connecticut

Democratic state Sen. Chris Murphy delivered a stunning defeat to 12-term Rep. Nancy Johnson, the longest serving member of Congress in Connecticut history, in the 5th CD. Johnson, architect of the infamous Medicare D bill that has benefited the pharmaceutical industry at the expense of seniors, used vicious attack ads, robo-calls and other negative tactics. Murphy emphasized universal health care including prescription drugs, and opposition to the Iraq war, with an incredible voter-to-voter mobilization by labor and other forces. He also appeared on the Working Families ballot line.

In the internationally watched U.S. Senate race, Joe Lieberman retained his seat running as an independent after losing to Ned Lamont in the Democratic primary. Lamont challenged Lieberman’s support for the Iraq war and Bush policies, emboldening Democrats across the country to make the war and the Bush administration a main campaign issue.

Lieberman continued to pose as a Democrat while positioning himself as the de facto Republican, campaigning with Republican House candidates and accepting support from Bush and Cheney. Lieberman drew upon loyalties built up over years in elected office, moderated his rhetoric and spent huge sums on attack ads. In difficult circumstances, Lamont finished with a credible 40 percent of the vote, losing by 9 points.

— Joelle Fishman

Illinois

Democrat Tammy Duckworth came up short after a courageous effort to capture the 6th CD seat in Chicago’s western suburbs. State Sen. Peter Roskam won narrowly, 51-49 percent, after Republicans nationally became alarmed by the threat of an embarrassing defeat in the home of the state Republican machine and poured massive resources into the race. Roskam relied on the machine and anti-immigrant racism to win.

Duckworth, a disabled Iraq vet, and the coalition backing her made strides in building a serious political infrastructure in the district and winning a significant share of independent voters.

In Chicago’s northwest suburbs, Democrat Rep. Melissa Bean, targeted nationally by the Republicans, defeated reactionary millionaire David McSweeney. Bean had lost support among labor and others by moving to the right. A third candidate, Bill Scheurer, got 5 percent of the vote running on a peace platform.

Democrats made inroads in other traditional Republican suburban districts. Political newcomer Dan Seals, an African American, narrowly lost to incumbent Rep. Mark Kirk.

Democrats swept all statewide offices and expanded their majorities in the Legislature. Gov. Rod Blagojevich won re-election despite scandals around his administration. Green Party gubernatorial candidate Rich Whitney tapped into disillusionment with the two major parties, garnering 11 percent of the vote. It assured permanent state ballot status for the Green Party.

— John Bachtell

Michigan

Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm overcame July polls showing her 5 points behind and soundly defeated far-right Republican Dick DeVos by a 14-point margin. When DeVos’s arch-conservative views on taxes, abortion and other issues became known, not even his personal wealth (he spent almost $40 million of his own money) could help him.

The Republicans also targeted Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow, sending in President Bush, Laura Bush and Vice-President Cheney. However, Stabenow trounced opponent Mike Bouchard by 16 points.

Although Republicans were able to hold on to the state Senate, the state House, which previously had a 58-49 Republican majority, will now see the Democrats hold a five or six seat advantage.

Unfortunately, the anti-Republican wave did not prevent passage of Proposal 2, outlawing affirmative action, by a 58-42 margin. It effectively overhauls the University of Michigan’s selective admissions process and jeopardizes all state outreach, recruitment and financial aid programs for minorities and women.

University of Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman said in a statement the university remains committed to diversity. “We defended affirmative action all the way to the Supreme Court because diversity is essential to our mission as educators,” she said. “We must keep the doors of opportunity open to all.”

— John Rummel

Texas

Although Republicans continued to dominate all major Texas offices, they took some bitter lumps. The most satisfying election result was Democrat Nick Lampson’s victory in the 22nd CD, the “safe” Republican district formerly dominated by GOP “mastermind” Tom DeLay. Rep. Chet Edwards of Waco, the only Democrat to stay in office of the six targeted by DeLay’s now-discredited redistricting plan, defeated his opponent in a nominally GOP district. Eight-term Republican Henry Bonilla of San Antonio was forced into a runoff by longtime labor ally Ciro Rodriguez, one of DeLay’s earlier victims, leading seven challengers.

Incumbent GOP Gov. Rick Perry scraped by with 40 percent of the vote. Two “independent” candidates, one pretending to be “leftish,” divided the vote sufficiently to block labor’s favorite, Democrat Chris Bell.

Dallas Republicans were shocked to lose 41 of 42 contested local races. Voters elected Dallas’ first-ever African American district attorney, Craig Watkins.

— Jim Lane

Washington state

Despite record rainfall and flooding, voter turnout was the largest in decades for a non-presidential election.

Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell, nationally targeted by Republicans as their best shot at stealing a Democratic Senate seat, won re-election by about 56 percent. She successfully discredited opponent Mike McGavick over his actions as CEO of regional insurance giant Safeco, where he laid off 1,700 workers and then took many millions in bonuses and a $28 million golden parachute of when he quit to run for the Senate. Cantwell also moved from earlier support for the Iraq war to calling for a change in direction there. Libertarian and Green candidates each won about 1 percent of the vote.

The 8th CD, thought to be a safe Republican re-election bet, turned into an apparent razor-thin margin for incumbent Republican Dave Reichert over challenger Darcy Burner in the most expensive House race ever in the state. In the 5th CD (Spokane), Democratic challenger Peter Goldmark lost, but came much closer to unseating Republican Cathy McMorris than expected.

Two phony Republican-supported initiatives went down to defeat: an “Eliminate the Death Tax” proposal which would have helped no more than 200 multimillionaires each year, and a “property rights” measure which would have made the state pay private landowners for any restrictions on the sale or development of their land — a similar measure passed in Oregon has resulted in billions of dollars of claims against the state and huge legal bills.

Democrats increased their majorities in the state Legislature.

— Marc Brodine

Texas struggle at fever pitch

Fri, 03 Nov 2006 08:19:00 +0000

Commentary

HOUSTON — Texas is known for hot weather, but the heat of struggles is exceptional this fall. We progressives in Houston find ourselves literally running from one event to another without time to catch our breath.

Race for DeLay’s seat

The resignation of disgraced U.S. Rep Tom DeLay has left a major stumbling block for the right wing. Because of DeLay’s jockeying for power and position, courts ruled that only his name or no name could be placed on the ballot for the Republican Party. They wisely chose to have no Republican on the ballot. The GOP selected Shelley Sekula-Gibbs, a physician and Houston City Council member, to be the endorsed write-in candidate in Texas’ 22nd Congressional District. There are only two names on the ballot, Nick Lampson for the Democratic Party and Bob Smithers for the Libertarians. Smithers is not considered to have a chance of winning. Lampson’s ads blast Sekula-Gibbs for voting to reduce police and firemen’s wages while shamelessly voting to increase her own salary on the City Council.

Lampson has been endorsed by the AFL-CIO. The powerful union federation has 15,000 members in CD 22 and is going all out to get him elected. Teams of union members are visiting and phoning union households. Union members are much more likely to vote than other sectors of the population, so their voices will be heard in this election. One volunteer said that out of over 120 union households visited, only two expressed support for Sekula-Gibbs. The volunteer also said most union members were excited about the possibility of getting representation for working people in the district.

Working people’s issues have been ignored by DeLay and his minions since he first took office in 1994. It looks like the chickens will come home to roost in November.

Texans and the war

Meanwhile, a Houston Chronicle poll indicates 52 percent of Texans state that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are the most important issues facing the nation. This number is nearly double the percent of Americans who rate the wars as their top issue of concern in nationwide polls. The Chronicle quotes David Gates, 75, a retired engineer from Beaumont who called the war “a horrible disaster, and entirely unwarranted” and said it puts a strain on national resources.

Janitors take to the streets

Janitors affiliated with SEIU walked off the job Oct. 23. Currently, janitors in Houston make a little over $5 an hour, are not allowed to work full time and have no health insurance. Janitors in other cities working for the same companies make $8 to $10 an hour, are allowed to work 40 hours and have health care coverage.

The strikers were joined by elected officials on picket lines downtown during rush hour last week. Hundreds of janitors held a march in the Galleria shopping area Oct. 28 to highlight their struggle.

The Houston Chronicle has been running daily articles about the inhumane treatment janitors in Houston receive. A huge front-page story in Rumbo, a local Spanish language publication, read “Huelga!” which in English is “Strike!”

Even in Houston, home of George Bush and considered safe territory for right wingers, the struggle for working people’s issues is undeniable.

phill2@houston.rr.com

Brazil celebrates Lulas re-election

Fri, 03 Nov 2006 07:58:00 +0000

News Analysis

SÃO PAOLO, Brazil — The Brazilian people have rejected a right-wing onslaught and handed Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva a decisive re-election as president. In one of the most contentious presidential elections in Brazilian history, the right wing and its media system furiously pushed its candidate, Geraldo Alckmin, hoping to regain the power it lost in 2002.

However, the Brazilian people, showing political determination, depth and sophistication, stopped this conservative blitzkrieg and emerged as the biggest winners.

It was a stunning victory. Lula received 61 percent of the vote in the Oct. 29 runoff — 58 million votes, 20 million more than Alckmin. In the first round of voting, Oct. 1, Lula had fallen just short of the majority needed to avoid a runoff.

Lula, a former factory worker, heads the left-wing Workers Party. First elected in 2002, his administration has sought economic policies that encouraged growth while limiting privatization of the public sector and other neoliberal measures.

In fact, the election at its essence was a contest between two different visions for Brazil. One, represented by Alckmin, embraces the neoliberal program (better-known in the U.S. as “free trade”), which places government firmly on the side of business interests to maximize profit at the expense of the poor, workers, the environment, public regulation and accountability. Lula represents another vision, fueled by the majority of the poor, landless peasants, workers, farmers, small business people and students — in short, a left-center coalition opposed to economic and social policies imposed by free-trade deals like NAFTA and CAFTA and for policies and government programs that alleviate crushing poverty.

More than 60 percent of the voters approved of Lula’s vision and expressed confidence that his second term will take bolder steps to fulfill the social justice economic program of increasing income for the poor.

Voters thoroughly rejected privatization — the handing over of tax dollars, government-run companies and public agencies to the private sector — a hallmark of neo-liberalism.

The free-trade or neoliberal outlook represented by Alckmin affects foreign policy as well, and this was also part of the election debate. Alckmin made clear that he prefers a Brazil that is dependent and subservient to the demands of the U.S. Lula’s campaign reaffirmed his commitment to strengthen Brazil’s sovereignty and the economic and social development of Latin America. Lula’s re-election is thus important beyond Brazil’s borders.

With their votes, the Brazilian people said “stop” to the right-wing coup attempt in the media, which abused the public with its manipulations and lies. The election should be a lesson to the arrogant editors and columnists of the national press who have said they know better than the people do.

The election runoff radicalized and energized the voters. Lula’s re-election means an explicit mandate to accelerate reforms, and his administration carries a strong majority to guarantee that the reform projects succeed.

The border wall: who will build it?

Fri, 03 Nov 2006 07:18:00 +0000

NewsAnalysis

DALLAS — All over Texas, people are incredulous about the Republican election ploy to build a 700-mile fence along the U.S.-Mexico border — from Columbus, N.M., to El Paso, Texas.

President George W. Bush signed a bill Oct. 26 authorizing construction of the fence.

That same day, Texas Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson (D) said in a press statement, “The issue of immigration and border security cannot simply be resolved by building a fence. We need comprehensive legislation that will reform our immigration laws and bring sustainable security to our borders and not unfunded legislation that plays on people’s fears, and trepidations and delivers a phony sense of security.

“The American people should know that the bill to construct the 700 mile border fence is unfunded,” she continued. “At present, the GOP has authorized a construction project that is estimated to cost the American people from $2.1 billion to $7 billion dollars without indicating a source of funding.”

Juan Gomez, an immigrant rights activist and vice president of Voices for Immigrants said, “It’s just a political election decision, because Bush and company are going down. They believe that people are putting a priority on security. They are only considering the politics.”

Gomez said Texas alone has a 1,500-mile border with Mexico and with California, Arizona, and New Mexico’s borders, a 700-mile fence isn’t even a serious project. “I don’t think they will actually build it,” he said.

But, Gomez asks with tongue-in-cheek, if they do build it, what construction workers would they hire? “The big construction jobs in the United States, especially in the border states, use cheap immigrant labor.”

“If they are going to try to stop immigrants with a construction project, they are living in a world of fantasy!” he said.

In Mexico, politicians, religious leaders and others reacted with swift criticism. Building a fence along the U.S.-Mexican border is a shortsighted move that may hurt the U.S. economy and shows a serious lack of respect for the dignity of Mexican workers, said Mexican Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan.

Cardinal Lozano said the bill’s passage and signing were a sign of a “lack of intelligence” in U.S. efforts to find solutions to its border problems as well as a lack of political courage to take a moral stand just before the November elections.

He said the fence is unlikely to stop illegal entry into the United States, but is likely to lead people “to try to cross the border in increasingly risky ways or by putting themselves into the hands of unscrupulous traffickers.”

In New Mexico, the Albuquerque Tribune editorialized that the wall would turn out to be “a big, empty political show” by posturing Republicans. They said the fence — if it were ever built — would be “doomed to fail as a porous, incomplete and ineffective security measure.”

Calling it an almost certain “boondoggle,” the editorial warned, “Maintenance costs alone would be astronomical, and sooner or later the United States would have to abandon the fence.”

“History has shown that border fences and walls, from the Berlin Wall to the Great Wall of China, have done little to improve relations or security between nations,” the editorial continued. “That is best done not by building walls but by building trust and respect through diplomacy, economic development and common labor, environmental and social agreements.”

Jim Lane contributed to this story.