In Kentucky's First Congressional District we managed to field a great Democratic woman who believes in fighting for the working american, for equal opportunity for everyone, and for the American dream. She believes that every American who works hard should be rewarded with fair wages and benefits. Now, in the coming campaign I am sure Ed Whitfield will run as a "moderate", who cares about everyone. This record doesn't bear itself out, and there are monumental differences between the priorities of Exxon Ed Whitfield and Heather Ryan, who wants to work for the betterment of ALL the people of our district.

There's more...

A couple of Kossacks point up (though not intentionally) the advantages to politicians (and their supporters) of a short memory.

One guy rails against GOP obstructionism - balking EFCA (HR 800) by denying cloture and the ethics and 9/11 Commission bills by preventing a UCA on the appointment of conferees.

[The 9/11 Commission, I see - that was HR 1 and S 4; ethics, I don't: S 1 passed the Senate, but (so far as I'm aware) there was never a companion bill in the House (in the 100 Hours, what the House passed was a resolution (H Res 6) making changes to the House Rules). So - how can we be ready for a conference if the House hasn't passed a companion bill to S 1?]

There's more...

I have no aversion to criticizing or ridiculing Dem leaders in Congress when it's deserved. (No party man, me!)

But, in general, I think that Pelosi, Reid and their helpers have played the mediocre hands they've been dealt with a modicum of skill.

Sirota complains about Harry not have secreted the card check bill EFCA (HR 800) in a must-pass bill, and thus allowed its defeat.

There's more...

Minority parties in Congress are supposed to squeal about majority abuses: Lord knows the Dems did their fair share in #104-109!

But, traditionally, Senate maj leaderships have found agenda control an altogether tougher trick to pull off than their House equivalents. Because of - the rules.

Now, the Hilltells us that McConnell's crew are saying (more or less) that Harry's regime is a kakistocracy intent on crushing the precious flower of democracy on the Senate side:

Republicans accuse Reid of employing procedural tactics in an unprecedented way to bring legislation to the floor without committee debate, to limit amendments on the floor and to end debate on legislation.

Does my heart bleed for the poor GOP? No more than for the Dem minorities of previous Congresses!

There's more...

Dick Cheney swore this week that should the Employee Free Choice Act ever manage to reach the President's desk, it would quickly meet the sharp end of a veto. By way of refresher, the Employee Free Choice Act would (among other things) give employees the right to form unions by having a majority of them sign cards indicating their selection of a collective bargaining representative. When Cheney said, "we will defend their right to vote yes or no by secret ballot," he was cheered by commentators on the right. This rhetoric -- elections are sacred! -- is designed to be repeated and will be heard again and again in the legislative back-and-forth over card check and the Employee Free Choice Act. So who's lining up on the "sacred elections" side? Two pillars of the Republican establishment: the National Association of Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (see M. Stoller, U.S. Chamber of Commerce: The Right Wing's Right Hand in D.C.). Here's what NAM says:

Trading federally supervised private ballot elections for a card check process tramples the privacy of individual workers. Secret ballots are the only way to protect an individual’s freedom to choose without subtle or overt coercion.

And the Chamber, in a post-election day letter to members of Congress:

Just as your constituents cast their vote on election day by secret ballot, and just as you recently cast a vote via secret ballot for the individuals you felt best suited to hold leadership positions in your party, American workers should have this traditional, democratic protection when making decisions about their own work environment.

But here's an instance where feel-good rhetoric runs smack into reality, as it's a real stretch to call the system by which union elections are held today 'democratic.' TNR's Jonathan Cohn:

Going through the requisite election process is notoriously cumbersome and difficult, particularly since it gives employers all sorts of opportunities to intimidate workers or otherwise derail the process unfairly. In theory, the NLRB is supposed to watch over the election process to keep employers in line. In practice, the NLRB is so ineffectual --and the penalties for violating labor laws so relatively meaningless -- that a determined employer can manipulate a union election with virtual impunity.

If we're going to be talking about unions and elections, I've been thinking that it might make sense, to explore the idea that workplaces are seriously flawed marketplaces of ideas. For one thing, the way it works now, employers can call employees into mandatory "captive audience meetings" to share their perspective on unions, while union organizers have to catch employees at home or when their otherwise off the company's dime. This isn't a candidate asking for your vote, it's your boss telling you not to do something you might otherwise want to do. (Disclosure: I'm working with the AFL-CIO on the legislative push around the Employee Free Choice Act.)