Elizabeth Warren: Full Text of DNC Speech

Thank you! I'm Elizabeth Warren, and this is my first Democratic Convention. Never thought I'd run for senate. And I sure never dreamed that I'd get to be the warm-up act for President Bill Clinton—an amazing man, who had the good sense to marry one of the coolest women on the planet. I want to give a special shout out to the Massachusetts delegation. I'm counting on you to help me win and to help President Obama win. 

I'm here tonight to talk about hard-working people: people who get up early, stay up late, cook dinner and help out with homework; people who can be counted on to help their kids, their parents, their neighbors, and the lady down the street whose car broke down; people who work their hearts out but are up against a hard truth—the game is rigged against them. 

It wasn't always this way. Like a lot of you, I grew up in a family on the ragged edge of the middle class. My daddy sold carpeting and ended up as a maintenance man. After he had a heart attack, my mom worked the phones at Sears so we could hang on to our house. My three brothers all served in the military. One was career. The second worked a good union job in construction. The third started a small business. 

Me, I was waiting tables at 13 and married at 19. I graduated from public schools and taught elementary school. I have a wonderful husband, two great children, and three beautiful grandchildren. And I'm grateful, down to my toes, for every opportunity that America gave me. This is a great country. I grew up in an America that invested in its kids and built a strong middle class; that allowed millions of children to rise from poverty and establish secure lives. An America that created Social Security and Medicare so that seniors could live with dignity; an America in which each generation built something solid so that the next generation could build something better. 

But for many years now, our middle class has been chipped, squeezed, and hammered. Talk to the construction worker I met from Malden, Massachusetts, who went nine months without finding work. Talk to the head of a manufacturing company in Franklin trying to protect jobs but worried about rising costs. Talk to the student in Worcester who worked hard to finish his college degree, and now he's drowning in debt. Their fight is my fight, and it's Barack Obama's fight too. 

People feel like the system is rigged against them. And here's the painful part: they're right. The system is rigged. Look around. Oil companies guzzle down billions in subsidies. Billionaires pay lower tax rates than their secretaries. Wall Street CEOs—the same ones who wrecked our economy and destroyed millions of jobs—still strut around Congress, no shame, demanding favors, and acting like we should thank them. 

Anyone here have a problem with that? Well I do. I talk to small business owners all across Massachusetts. Not one of them—not one—made big bucks from the risky Wall Street bets that brought down our economy. I talk to nurses and programmers, salespeople and firefighters—people who bust their tails every day. Not one of them—not one—stashes their money in the Cayman Islands to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. 

These folks don't resent that someone else makes more money. We're Americans. We celebrate success. We just don't want the game to be rigged. We've fought to level the playing field before. About a century ago, when corrosive greed threatened our economy and our way of life, the American people came together under the leadership of Teddy Roosevelt and other progressives, to bring our nation back from the brink. 

We started to take children out of factories and put them in schools. We began to give meaning to the words "consumer protection" by making our food and medicine safe. And we gave the little guys a better chance to compete by preventing the big guys from rigging the markets. We turned adversity into progress because that's what we do. 

Americans are fighters. We are tough, resourceful and creative. If we have the chance to fight on a level playing field—where everyone pays a fair share and everyone has a real shot—then no one can stop us. President Obama gets it because he's spent his life fighting for the middle class. And now he's fighting to level that playing field—because we know that the economy doesn't grow from the top down, but from the middle class out and the bottom up. That's how we create jobs and reduce the debt. 

And Mitt Romney? He wants to give tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires. But for middle-class families who are hanging on by their fingernails? His plans will hammer them with a new tax hike of up to 2,000 dollars. Mitt Romney wants to give billions in breaks to big corporations—but he and Paul Ryan would pulverize financial reform, voucher-ize Medicare, and vaporize Obamacare. 

The Republican vision is clear: "I've got mine, the rest of you are on your own." Republicans say they don't believe in government. Sure they do. They believe in government to help themselves and their powerful friends. After all, Mitt Romney's the guy who said corporations are people. 

No, Governor Romney, corporations are not people. People have hearts, they have kids, they get jobs, they get sick, they cry, they dance. They live, they love, and they die. And that matters. That matters because we don't run this country for corporations, we run it for people. And that's why we need Barack Obama. 

After the financial crisis, President Obama knew that we had to clean up Wall Street. For years, families had been tricked by credit cards, fooled by student loans and cheated on mortgages. I had an idea for a consumer financial protection agency to stop the rip-offs. The big banks sure didn't like it, and they marshaled one of the biggest lobbying forces on earth to destroy the agency before it ever saw the light of day. American families didn't have an army of lobbyists on our side, but what we had was a president—President Obama leading the way. And when the lobbyists were closing in for the kill, Barack Obama squared his shoulders, planted his feet, and stood firm. And that's how we won.

By the way, just a few weeks ago, that little agency caught one of the biggest credit card companies cheating its customers and made it give people back every penny it took, plus millions of dollars in fines. That's what happens when you have a president on the side of the middle class. 

President Obama believes in a level playing field. He believes in a country where nobody gets a free ride or a golden parachute. A country where anyone who has a great idea and rolls up their sleeves has a chance to build a business, and anyone who works hard can build some security and raise a family. President Obama believes in a country where billionaires pay their taxes just like their secretaries do, and—I can't believe I have to say this in 2012—a country where women get equal pay for equal work.

He believes in a country where everyone is held accountable. Where no one can steal your purse on Main Street or your pension on Wall Street. President Obama believes in a country where we invest in education, in roads and bridges, in science, and in the future, so we can create new opportunities, so the next kid can make it big, and the kid after that, and the kid after that. That's what president Obama believes. And that's how we build the economy of the future. An economy with more jobs and less debt. We root it in fairness. We grow it with opportunity. And we build it together.

I grew up in the Methodist Church and taught Sunday school. One of my favorite passages of scripture is: "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." Matthew 25:40. The passage teaches about God in each of us, that we are bound to each other and called to act. Not to sit, not to wait, but to act—all of us together. 

Senator Kennedy understood that call. Four years ago, he addressed our convention for the last time. He said, "We have never lost our belief that we are all called to a better country and a newer world." Generation after generation, Americans have answered that call. And now we are called again. We are called to restore opportunity for every American. We are called to give America's working families a fighting chance. We are called to build something solid so the next generation can build something better. 

So let me ask you—let me ask you, America: are you ready to answer this call? Are you ready to fight for good jobs and a strong middle class? Are you ready to work for a level playing field? Are you ready to prove to another generation of Americans that we can build a better country and a newer world? 

Joe Biden is ready. Barack Obama is ready. I'm ready. You're ready. America's ready. Thank you! And God bless America!

Democratic Convention Chair Railroads Delegates on Jerusalem

At 5:00 pm this evening, the Democrats proved that they can be just as disingenuous as Republicans.

In response to a media storm over the 2012 Democratic Party Platform - which had removed references to God as well as a standing platform plank recognizing Jerusalem to be the capital of Israel -  the Convention voted to suspend the rules to amend the Platform.  The Chair of the Platform Committee then offered the amendments to restore the "Jerusalem-is-Capital" plank and the acknowledgment of God in the Platform.  There was no further debate, and a voice vote was called.  The vote required a 2/3 affirmative to change.

The Chair called for the ayes and nays. 

The Chair appeared stunned at the response.

The Nays were as loud as, if not louder than, the Ayes.

The Chair looked around and smiled in an embarassed-sort-of-way.

In an effort to find an easy way out, he called for the vote again.

This time the nays were clearly louder than the ayes.

This was not the expected outcome.  Democrats had huddled for 48 hours in an effort to insure that the rejection of the Jerusalem plank would not cost them the electoral votes of Florida, with its heavy Jewish  electorate.

The only appropriate move - as it was broadcast on national television - would have been to call for a roll call vote of the delegates in attendance.

Appallingly, the chair then called for the vote for the third time - and again, the convention delegates clearly voted 'no' on the changes on a passionate voice vote.

The Chair then declared that a 2/3 affirmative vote had been achieved, declared the platform amended, and went on to the opening ceremonies.

The Platform is now a shameful Lie, and does not reflect the vote of the Delegates.  

Parti Québécois Victory Marred by Assassination Attempt

Pauline Marois, leader of the Parti Québécois, is set to become the Province’s first female Premier.  Just before midnight, she was giving a victory speech to an electrified audience when a would-be assassin begin shooting near the back door of the hall where they were gathered.

Wearing a balaclava over his face and wielding a rifle, the man got within 20 feet of the stage and opened fire.  While Marois and those inside were not injured, one supporter outside in his 40s was killed, and two others were hospitalized. Before the shooting, the gunman managed to set a fire blocking the rear door.

Police captured the man, who screamed “The English are waking up!” in broken French. After being hustled out of the venue, Marois returned to the stage and requested that the victory crowd calmly leave the building before concluding with a few more lines of thanks.

This was the first time the Separatist Parti Québécois had won a Provincial election in 15 years, although they won just shy of the 63 seats necessary for an absolute majority.  This summer’s student protests and an unpopular anti-protest law (Bill 78) enacted by the scandal-plagued governing Liberals, hastened elections and the choice of the new Premier.  The election was further complicated by emergence of a new party, the Coalition Avenir Québec (Coalition for Québec’s Future, or CAQ), which took almost 30% of the vote across the province and won 19 seats.

This morning it appears that the Parti Québécois (PQ) won  54 seats (DARK BLUE), the Liberals (who are not liberal by US standards) won 50 seats RED), the new CAQ took 19 seats (LIGHT BLUE), and the ultra—hard-line Separtists Québec Solidaire took 2 seats ORANGE).  The PQ will need to have the support of legislators from some other party in order to pass legislation.

Within her own party, Marois is largely seen as a moderate who is ‘soft’ on the independence issue, and who would actually take small steps to move towards a more autonomous Québec rather than demand independence.  Some Parti members actually quit the party under her leadership because they thought she was too wishy-washy on the independence issue.

Among Anglophones, however, she is painted in much harsher tones. In an English language chat room sponsored by the Canadian Broadcast Company in Montréal last night, some writers were accusing her of hate, racism, and of being ‘a lizard in human form.”

                                                                                         

.

Green Party's Jill Stein: "Winning Labor’s Battles Requires Independent Politics"

I welcome and endorse the AFL-CIO’s campaign to finally fulfill President Roosevelt’s 1944 call for a second, Economic Bill of Rights, including the rights to jobs, living wages, labor unions, voting rights, health care, education, and retirement security.

As the Green Party candidate for President, my Green New Deal platform already has specific proposals to secure these rights.

● Jobs: Employ the unemployed in public works projects and federallysupported community-controlled cooperatives and other enterprises; create 25 million green and pink jobs.
 
● Living Wages: Raise the federal minimum wage to a living wage.

● Labor Law Reforms: Repeal the anti-labor Taft-Hartley Act, outlaw permanent striker replacements, and authorize majority card check union recognition.

● Voting Rights: Pass the Right To Vote Amendment to establish an affirmative constitutional right to vote and accurate vote counting.

● Corporate Power: Pass a constitutional amendment to repeal the corrupting court-ordered doctrines that corporations are people and money is speech and establish that corporations and election campaign finance can be regulated.

● Health Care: Enact single-payer Medicare for All.

● Education: Forgive student debt and provide tuition-free public education from pre-school through graduate school.

● Retirement Security: Eliminate the cap on Social Security taxes for high incomes in order to secure Social Security’s indefinite fiscal sustainability.

The AFL-CIO leadership are demanding that the two corporate-financed parties, the Democrats and Republicans, adopt the Economic Bill of Rights in their platforms at their conventions this year.

They must know this a lost cause with the openly anti-union Republicans. They should know that a real commitment to an Economic Bill of Rights is as much a lost cause with the Democrats, who have taken labor’s political support for granted for many decades with no significant pro-labor reforms to show for it.

If they didn’t know that, it should have been clear on August 11 when a 40,000-strong AFL-CIO sponsored rally in Philadelphia called for the Economic Bill of Rights. The rally heard by video from President Obama, who made no mention of the Economic Bill of Rights. Meanwhile, in Detroit, the platform committee of the Democratic National Convention put the final touches on the platform to be adopted over Labor Day week that has no planks to secure any of these economic rights.

The great victories of labor have always been won by independent actions that pressured the political establishment to make concessions. The landmark National Labor Relations Act, which finally established workers’ right to collectively bargain, was adopted in 1935 under the pressure of independent labor political action in the factories, shops, and streets by the ascendant union movement and in the electoral arena in the form of many union resolutions calling for a labor party. The labor party resolutions had credibility because the labor-backed Farmer-Labor and Progressive parties in the Upper Midwest already had two governors, three Senators, and 12 Representatives in their camp in 1935 and they were considering an independent presidential campaign in 1936.

But after the AFL rejected the labor party and went into the Democratic Party in 1936, labor lost its independent vision and its leverage in the political system. It was now part of a coalition dominated by big business.

The anti-labor Taft-Hartley Act passed in 1947 with majority support of the Democratic majority in Congress. Every attempt labor law reform since then has failed when there was a Democratic President with Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress.

● Under Truman in 1949, the Democrats failed to repeal Taft-Hartley in 1949. 

● Under Johnson in 1965 and 1966, the Democrats twice failed to repeal Section 14b of Taft-Hartley, the section that enabled states to outlaw union shops (so-called “right-to-work” laws).

● Under Carter in 1977 and 1978, the Democrats failed to pass one bill that would have repealed the Taft-Hartley prohibition on solidarity picketing at construction sites and another bill to reform
the National Labor Relations Board whose long delays and inconsequential employer sanctions had made it a shield for union-busting.

● Under Clinton in 1993, the Democrats failed to pass a ban on permanent striker replacements.

● Under Obama in 2009-2010, the Democrats failed to pass the Employee Free Choice Act for majority card check union recognition. Worse, unlike any previous period of Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, the Democrats failed to even bring the bill to a vote.

The AFL-CIO leadership has taken a small step toward independence by saying they will not give money directly to Democratic committees and candidates but instead spend it “independently” on their behalf. Unfortunately, this often means supporting the very same Democrats who are collaborating with the anti-worker forces that dominate Washington. The words “political independence” are just that --words-- that have no power unless it involves running labor candidates who can challenge both corporate parties. Imagine if labor had spent the over $15 billion they spent on the Democrats over the last 40 years instead building an independent labor party and movement. Today we would have scores of labor party organizers in every state supporting a broadly based party of the working class majority. We would have blocks of independent labor representatives in municipal, county, state, and the national legislatures. We would have a national labor daily newspaper and labor networks on radio and cable. The two corporate financed parties would no longer monopolize U.S. politics. Democrats like Obama would not dare to force new free trade treaties upon workers. Badly needed labor reforms would be back on the table. And halting the decline of real wages and living standards would suddenly be more of a priority than protecting the big Wall Street banks.

The labor movement in every other industrial nation has formed its own party that is independent of corporate money and control. They have been able to organize the working class majority to take
political power, exercise it for the benefit of the working class majority, and secure economic rights, including universal health care, affordable public transit, free public college education, secure pensions, four to six weeks of paid vacation for all workers, paid maternity and family sick leave, and labor laws that protect their rights to organize and strike.

Labor has suffered a crushing series of political defeats in recent years and continuing a losing strategy is clearly unthinkable. It is time to practice the politics of courage rather than the politics of
appeasement. Labor unions must offer reliable support to labor candidates running against both the corporate parties. And rank-and-file workers do not have to wait for the leadership to disentangle themselves from establishment politics. They can vote this year for Green Party candidates who refuse corporate funding and are campaigning for a Green New Deal that already incorporates the Economic Bill of Rights. Vote by vote, we can raise the voices of working people until we have overcome
the corporate domination of politics, and set our country on a progressive course.

JILL STEIN FOR PRESIDENT 
www.JillStein.org
PO BOX 260217 - MADISON - WISCONSIN - 53726-0217

.

Bain Capital Subpoenaed on Taxes

Bain Capital, the Venture Capital Firm that has become synonymous with Mitt Romney’s personal fortune, has been subpoenaed by NY Attorney General Eric Schneiderman for possible rampant tax evasion practices.

This blog has been critical over the years of the special tax treatment afforded to profits made from Capital Gains – profit made as an increase on investments - which is only taxed at rates of about 15%. Common wage labor is taxed at rates up to 38%. This creates a tax system that rewards stock and investment trading – which amasses wealth but creates no products or jobs - and punishes the actual creation of goods and services.

This is the legal tax code of course, but Bain is being investigating for making Management Fees charged to clients ‘appear’ to be investment income, rather than the fees they actually are.

Bain (and other firms) have a history of “waiving” the actual Management Fees they charge their clients; but in the place of these fees, they require the clients to place some of their investments in a fund for Bain, so that Bain receives the income from the investment; hence, the money Bain receives is taxed at 15% for capital gains rather than being taxed at 38% for the raw income from a fee.

I will remain a broken record on this issue, especially on Labor Day weekend: income from gambling with financial instruments must not be taxed less than the income earned by construction workers and firefighters and nurses and dressmakers who earn wages for providing the nation’s goods and services.

Whether Bain’s approach is legal or a tax-evading subterfuge will be settled in the court system.

Whether it is ethical and desirable as public policy, in light of how we tax honest labor, is much clearer.

Labor Day: Republicans and Democrats AWOL on Taft-Hartley

In a broadcast to the AFL-CIO merger meeting On December 5, 1955, President Dwight D. Eisenhower said,

“You of organized labor and those who have gone before you in the union movement have helped make a unique contribution to the general welfare of the Republic--the development of the American philosophy of labor. This philosophy, if adopted globally, could bring about a world, prosperous, at peace, sharing the fruits of the earth with justice to all men. It would raise to freedom and prosperity hundreds of millions of men and women--and their children--who toil in slavery behind the Curtain.
One principle of this philosophy is: the ultimate values of mankind are spiritual; these values include liberty, human dignity, opportunity and equal rights and justice.

Workers want recognition as human beings and as individuals-before everything else. They want a job that gives them a feeling of satisfaction and self-expression. Good wages, respectable working conditions, reasonable hours, protection of status and security; these constitute the necessary foundations on which you build to reach your higher aims. “

When Eisenhower gave this speech in the 1950s, more than one-third of all American workers were members of a union. Unions were largely credited with bringing about the 40-hour work week, the 8-hour day, the concept of a “weekend,” health coverage, pension reform, and safe working conditions. But today, union membership in the private sector has fallen to 7.2% While some of that is due to changes in industry structure in the US, the single biggest factor that has contributed to the elimination of union protections and bargaining powers is the Taft-Hartley Act.

Passed in 1947 over the veto of President Harry Truman, the Taft-Hartley Act (often known in labor circles as "the slave-labor bill") has been described by Ralph Nader as "one of the great blows to American democracy…that fundamentally infringed on workers' human rights" -- most importantly, their right to unionize.

The includes the following provisions:

- Authorizes states to enact so-called ‘right-to-work’ laws. These laws undermine the ability to build effective unions by creating a free-rider problem—workers can enjoy the benefits of union membership in a workplace without actually joining the union or paying union dues. Right-to-work laws increase employer leverage to resist unions and vastly decrease union membership, thus dramatically diminishing unions' bargaining power. 23 states are currently right-to-work states, with legislation threatening in New Hampshire and Wisconsin.

- Defines "employees" for purposes of the Act as excluding supervisors. This diminishes the pool of workers eligible to be unionized. The exclusion of supervisors from union organizing activity also means they can be used (and coerced) as management's "front line" in anti-organizing efforts; what's more, employers can fire supervisors who try to unionize.

- Defines "employees" for purposes of the Act as excluding independent contractors. It means that institutions such as colleges can hire staff, often using grant funds, as ‘independent contractors,’ thus excluding them from benefits such as health insurance and pension, and denying them union membership and contractual benefits.

- Requires that election hearings on ‘matters of dispute’ be held before a union recognition election, thus delaying the election; these delays enables management to ‘buy time,’ and has been shown to give management an advantage as over time workers feel coerced into avoiding organizing activities.

- Establishes the "right" of management to campaign against a union organizing drive, thereby eliminating the time-honored legal principle of employer neutrality.

- Prohibits secondary and sympathy boycotts—boycotts directed to encourage neutral employers to pressure a defiant employer with which the union has a dispute. Secondary boycotts had been one of organized labor's most potent tools for organizing, negotiating and dispute settlement prior to the passage of Taft-Hartley.

- Enables the federal government to move in and demand an 80-day cooling off period if it deems a strike to be detrimental to the national interest.

The Act sent a clear message to employers: It is OK to bust unions and deny workers their rights to collectively bargain. Today, union membership is at historic 60-year lows, employer violations of labor rights are routine, and illegal firings of union supporters in labor organizing drives are at epidemic levels.

The advent of unions created a balance in bargaining power between ‘producers’ of labor (workers) and purchasers of labor (employers), providing for fairer conditions overall. The attempted destruction of unions through Taft-Hartley and recent political moves against public employee unions represents a scary step backwards in American history.

On labor issues, the Republicans are essentially a lost cause, preferring to regularly side with the owners and investors of businesses at the expense of common workers.


But Democrats have not been appreciably better.


The Taft-Hartley Act passed in 1947 with majority support of the Democratic majority in Congress. 

Under Truman in 1949, the Democrats failed to repeal Taft-Hartley.

Under Johnson in 1965 and 1966, the Democrats twice failed to repeal Section 14b of Taft-Hartley, the section that enabled states to outlaw union shops (so-called “right-to-work” laws).

Under Carter in 1977 and 1978, the Democrats failed to pass one bill that would have repealed the Taft-Hartley prohibition on solidarity picketing at construction sites and another bill to reform the National Labor Relations Board whose long delays and inconsequential employer sanctions had made it a shield for union-busting.

Under Clinton in 1993, the Democrats failed to pass a ban on permanent striker replacements.

Under Obama in 2009-2010, the Democrats failed to pass the Employee Free Choice Act for majority card check union recognition. Worse, unlike any previous period of Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, the Democrats failed to even bring the bill to a vote.

Republicans claim that Democrats have been 'captured' by 'big union bosses.'  Democrats promise to deliver in campaign appearances, but those promises have amounted to little more than empty lip-service. 

It’s time for hardball politics if Labor - and the middle class - is to survive in this nation.

Obama vs. Romney Electoral Map: Sept 1 Update

As the Republican Circus winds down in Tampa and the Democratic one gets ready to roll in Charlotte, we have decided we need to make four changes in our Election prediction map since last month. The hammering Romney has taken over his taxes and the fiscal ice-water that runs in his veins was only exacerbated by the choice of Paul Ryan as Veep. Ryan's scorched-earth approach towards government programming has even normally Republican seniors sitting up to listen...and independent seniors furious.  The pandering to Ryan, darling of the Tea Party, and the adoption of a platform on social issues (abortion, marriage equality) that is so conservative Ronald Reagan wouldn't have been able to abide by it, cements the GOP ticket as an image of a party captured by the lunatic right.

Accordingly, we switch two states from red to blue:

FLORIDA:  The Senior citizen vote is critical in Florida, and the choice of Ryan was, in effect, a surrender of the Sunshine State by the Republicans.  Add to that the embarrassing voiding of a GOP-lead voter suppression law by the courts, and the endorsement of President Obama by former Republican Governor (and now-Independent) Charlie Crist, who stated, " "I didn't leave the Republican Party, it left me."  Momentum is clear for Obama to overcome notorious elections in Florida to take the state. Color it Blue.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: Another state with a sizable retiree population that votes in its own interests. A closely watched 'swing state,' New Hampshire Democrats are energized by a Gubernatorial primary that pits two popular Democrats against each other in a contest that has been relatively upbeat and above board.  The Republicans, meanwhile, are beginning to show their deep fissures, as Paul-leaning libertarians, Christian fundamentalists, and old-tyme establishment Republicans find it increasingly harder to convey a common message to the voters. We tilt this one, ever so slightly, Blue.

On the other hand, there are two states we are finally resigning to the GOP:

ARIZONA:  It appears that in this election, in spite of the outrage among liberals, the young, Latinos, and many independent women at the Republican establishment, they do not command the votes to overcome a significant GOP registration edge.  This was a state that I thought might end up in the 'swing' column, but it is clear now that it is Red, at least for the next election cycle or two.

IOWA: This state has gone back and forth, but the most recent polls seem to show that the Republicans are uniting and the Democrats are growing tired and weary of this fight.  It seems likely to slide back into the Red column in 2012.

This gives the election to Obama by an electoral vote of  326-212.

And now, the Sleeper Surprise State:  

GEORGIA: A Deep South state, many have simply written Georgia off as a Red Republican state like her neighbors Alabama and South Carolina.  But Georgia is changing: the metropolitan Atlanta area commands a huge portion of Georgia's electorate, and these are no good old boys.  In addition, the minority population of Georgia is growing exponentially: as of the 2010 census, only 56% of Georgians were non-Hispanic whites,  while 60% of those under the age of one were minorities. The minority vote will factor in strongly here.  Lastly, Georgia has a recent history of breaking for Democrats, such as home-state candidate Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Bill Clinton in the 1990s.

The latest polls?  Romney is still ahead...but only by a 3% margin.  I still expect Georgia to go Red, but it will be fascinating to watch the margin of victory; with Obama having won North Carolina and Virginia last go-round, and his expected victory in Florida in 2012, it is possible that 'the Solid South' is becoming a competitive landscape.

.

Separatists Poised for Québec Election Victory: An Analysis for Confused Americans

  [This article analyzes the 2012 elections; for a blogpost on the 2014 elections, see 2014 Québec instead] In the midst of unparalleled student unrest, a university system that literally shut down for half a year, and a government embroiled in construction-contract scandals, Québec Premier Jean Charest and the Liberal Party appear headed for a major defeat in provincial elections less than a week from today.

The likely victors will be the Parti Québécois and their passionate leader, Pauline Marois.  It will be the first chance that the Franco-centric separatists will have to flex its muscle since it lost an independence plebiscite by a mere 1% margin in 1995.  Whether the Parti Québecois will win a majority of seats in the largely three-way race on September 4th remains to be seen.

The Canadian political landscape – and the Québécois landscape in particular – rests on different paradigms than the more ideological, American race which has dominated the media from Tampa all week.

Three parties are vying for control of the province – none of which are parties that have any significant role on the national level…but the politics of Canadian nationalism (or ‘federalism’) loom large over this race.

The current government of Québec is dominated by the Liberal Party, a political party that lost all significance on the federal level just a few years ago.  The Liberals dominated the national Canadian government under Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chrétien for forty years from the 1960s to the early 2000s; the party was then decimated on the national level, reduced to a mere footnote, winning only 35 of 308 seats in the House of Commons.   

 But in Québec, the Liberals, under Premier Jean Charest,  have managed to hold on to power – until now.

Earlier this year, the Charest government recommended raising university tuition by $1600/year, setting off the largest protests in Canadian history throughout the summer.  Charest responded to the protests by enacting Bill 78, a bill that severely limited the right to protest and included  “pre-notification” requirements.  Initially, the majority of Québec citizens appeared to support the government as against the students, but the enactment of Bill 78 turned much popular sentiment against Charest’s Liberals.  The Liberals were compared to the national Conservative Party (the Canadian version of the Republican Party in the United States, which hardly exists at all in Québec.) The Conservatives are grossly unpopular in Québec. Conservative Canadian Premier Stephen Harper inflamed French Québec this year by openly embracing the British monarchy.  Harper's conservative, pro-British government in Ottawa created a leftist, French backlash in Québec, and Charest's Liberals have lost support because of it. (In the US, Liberals and Conservatives would never be seen as 'allies;' in Canada, that is not the case.)

 If these troubles were not enough for Charest, a long-term investigation of a bribery scandal involving his cabinet members and the construction industry began to hit media outlets during the student protests, further souring even his own traditional supporters.

The Liberal Party’s troubles and a strengthened sense of French culture in Québec have catapulted the Parti Québécois (or PQ) to first place in all pre-election polls.  Lead by Pauline Marois, the party is neither left nor right, as much as it is “French.”  The party has embraced and exalts Québec’s unique French heritage, and, as such, appears leftist (even socialist) on economic issues, while holding to a very conservative line on social issues of a “French” nature.

The PQ  has openly supported the students in their strike, embracing the very French notion of a low-cost, or even tuition-free, university education for all citizens.  It has taken a harsh approach towards miners, announcing it will demand higher royalty payments; some have suggested that the PQ will shut down Québec asbestos industry altogether.  But while liberal on social issues, the PQ insists on a conservative approach towards “French” issues: the PQ wants to tighten language laws to require greater use of French in business and government operations, and stronger laws preventing the purchase of Québec companies by foreign corporations. 

 The PQ recently called for laws outlawing the wearing of muslim head scarves as well as religious symbols such as crosses in government office buildings, similar to the militantly-secular culture found in France.

Ironically, it is in the city of Montréal where the greatest political discordance is found: Montréal is the center of the student protests, which the PQ has embraced; it is also the city with the greatest number of bilingual and non-French speaking people in Québec, who will be impactedthe most by the PQ’s stricter language proposals.

 

Enter the third party: The Coalition Avenir Québec, or “CAQ,” a new party headed by François Legault.  CAQ describes itself as right-of-center (and "pro-entrepreneur") on economic issues, but liberal on social issues. It attempts to stake out a ‘middle position’ on Québec independence, rejecting both the separatist platform of the PQ and the Federalist platform of the Liberals.  CAQ wants to ‘strengthen’ French language laws (especially in Montréal), and limit immigration, while promoting a French culture within the Canadian federation.  Though new, it is outpolling the Liberals on the eve of the election.

Will Montréal voters (and English speakers) continue to embrace the scandal-plagued, anti-dissent Liberals in order to protect their multilingual heritage?

Will French speakers (constituting 80% of Québec’s voters) join the bandwagon to replace the Liberals with a markedly French Parti Québecois?  

 Or with they choose just a “slightly-less-French” CAQ in the hopes of taking a ‘middle way,” even though the CAQ is an upstart, unknown entity?

Can any of the three parties win a majority of seats in the Québec Parliament?

Nous allons savoir mardi.

.