Rubio Offers Full-Throated Support for Immigration Bill

Senator Marco Rubio offered an extraordinary endorsement of legislation to overhaul the nation’s badly strained immigration system on Sunday when, after holding back for weeks, he appeared on no fewer than seven television talk shows to explain and defend a plan that he said would be “a net positive for the country, now and in the future.”

As Mr. Rubio, a Florida Republican who is a member of a bipartisan group of eight senators preparing to unveil their immigration legislation on Tuesday, pressed his case again and again on the airwaves, new details of the bill emerged. Prominent among them was a proposed fee of roughly $2,000 that illegal immigrants would have to pay before they could earn legal status.

As part of that plan, which was still being completed on Sunday, these immigrants would have to pay $500 when they apply for a temporary work permit, and would have the next 10 years to pay the remaining $1,500 or so, a person familiar with the negotiations said.

Republicans in particular have insisted that the 11 million illegal immigrants already in the country should face a tough path — including paying a fee, getting in line behind those seeking citizenship but who have not lived in the country illegally, and learning English — before they could apply for citizenship.

A Senate aide described the $2,000 figure as “significant but not impossible, punitive but not unreasonable.” Democrats and immigration advocates had originally pushed for a lower amount.

Mr. Rubio’s one-man media blitz on Sunday was a striking show of confidence for a lawmaker who only weeks ago had been a voice of caution, a counterweight to the optimism being expressed by others in the group.

On Sunday, by discussing the plan on the five major network talk shows and on the Spanish-language networks Telemundo and Univision, he was clearly signaling that the plan was ready for scrutiny by the public and by Congress, and that he was prepared to throw his full weight behind it — perhaps, at the same time, risking his own prospects for a widely expected presidential run in 2016.

His tone seemed to reflect those high stakes.

In each appearance he spoke with a sense of urgency, arguing that the plan did not constitute amnesty for illegal immigrants. He said that they would receive no federal benefits during the 13 or so years it would take them to qualify for full citizenship and that the plan depended on tougher border security and better systems for verifying the employment and legal standing of people already in the country.

The new plan would also include a path to citizenship for an additional 500,000 or more people who are currently in “limbo” status — including refugees; people who face persecution in their home countries; and people with visas specifically designated for trading and investing with countries with which the United States has signed treaties of commerce and navigation, another person familiar with the bill said.

Mr. Rubio’s status as a Tea Party member, a prominent young Latino and a rising star in the Republican Party means his imprimatur on the legislation will carry weight. One leading Republican, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, praised Mr. Rubio last week as “indispensable” and “a game changer.”

The timing of the plan’s formal introduction remained unclear, though the group was hoping to go public with its bill on Tuesday. Mr. Rubio would say only that it would come “as early as this week.” But a Democrat in the bipartisan group, Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, said that all remaining hurdles had been removed.

“I see nothing in the way,” Mr. Schumer said on the ABC News program “This Week,” “and I think you’ll see a major agreement that’s balanced, that’s fair, that will have the widespread support of the American people on Tuesday.”

Ultimate passage is far from guaranteed. But Republicans are deeply concerned about attracting Latino voters — Mr. Obama won 70 percent of their votes last year — and the measure is seen as the major element of the president’s second-term agenda that has the best prospects.

The Senate group’s push for an immigration overhaul was also being greeted on Sunday as an example of the sort of productive bipartisan cooperation that has become exceedingly rare in Washington.

“The eight of us have met in the middle, and I think that’s where the American people are,” Mr. Schumer said. He had only praise for Mr. Rubio, whom he called “a tremendous asset here.”

Even Karl Rove, the former political adviser to President George W. Bush who is known as a hard-nosed partisan strategist, welcomed the cooperation on immigration.

“The Democrats and Republicans here have tried to cobble together a bill that is thoughtful, sensitive, tough, and with an eye toward getting something done,” Mr. Rove said on “Fox News Sunday.”

Whatever the outcome, he said, it showed leadership on Mr. Rubio’s part. Concerning the presidential race in 2016, he added, “I think it helps him.”

View the original article here

In Shift, Lobbyists Look for Bipartisan Support to Repeal a Tax

Cook executives had backed Representative Bobby Schilling, her Republican opponent in last year’s election for Illinois’s 17th District seat, after he had joined with other House Republicans to push for the repeal of a new medical device tax imposed to pay for President Obama’s health care law. The company said the tax would cut its profits this year by an estimated $15 million, perhaps limiting future expansions. But in a hint of a shift in corporate lobbying strategy now under way in Washington, the industry pitch is now focused on Democrats like Ms. Bustos.

“Republican or Democrat, we need them to understand who we are and what we do,” said Steve Ferguson, the chairman of Cook’s parent company, who was there alongside Ms. Bustos as she toured his company plant. The visit ended with Ms. Bustos telling local reporters she would consider joining the effort to repeal the tax, which is expected to raise $29 billion over 10 years.

“If current laws are holding businesses back from hiring locally, I’m open to looking into ways to improve and fix them,” Ms. Bustos said in a statement.

Just last year, with Republicans still within reach of taking over the Senate and White House, many companies were willing to burn a chunk of their corporate lobbying budget to push House Republicans to pass bills that everyone on Capitol Hill knew had no chance of ever becoming law. The muscle flexing at least made a political point — and potentially set up special-interest groups, like the medical device industry, for a successful push this year, assuming their hoped-for Republican victories had been scored.

But then the 2012 election took place. Candidates like Mr. Schilling were defeated, even though Cook executives had contributed generously to his re-election effort, to try to keep Ms. Bustos, a strong advocate of the Obama health care plan, out of office.

Now, lobbyists across the city are redoubling their efforts to build bipartisan coalitions — not just on the 2.3 percent medical device excise tax, but other hot topics, like the possible rewriting of corporate tax laws and revisions to the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act that revamped the way financial corporations are regulated.

Republicans still get the bulk of the money that the medical device industry contributes. But there are some key Democrats who are pulling in large amounts of industry financial support, like Senators Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, who have been outspoken in their opposition to the medical device tax.

Bipartisanship, of course, is not unheard of in Washington, and the lobbyists and corporate players who have intensified their bipartisan push this year credit their dedication to good governance. But much of this is about figuring out a way to get the legislative train running again — so they can deliver some rewards to their clients.

“Lobbing grenades back and forth — that is not good enough,” said Don Nickles, a former Republican senator from Oklahoma, who runs a lobbying firm whose client roster includes Medtronic, one of the nation’s top medical device companies.

It remains unclear whether the strategy will work. The animosity between Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill — and between the White House and Republican leaders — might be so intense that even this lobbying push will fail.

But this is the moment to try, lobbyists in Washington are telling their clients. The first two years of any presidential term are when Congress, at least by historical precedent, is typically more productive — before the political posturing for the next election takes over.

“It is no longer just about sending signals or messages,” said L. F. Payne Jr., a former House Democrat whose lobbying firm was hired by Cook Medical’s parent company last year to help its push to appeal to Democrats. “But it is time to actually pass some laws.”

The bid to repeal the medical device tax is a prime example of this shift in lobbying tactics. Last year in the Senate, the industry effort was led by Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, who secured the support of 33 other senators, all of them of his party. A House version pushing the tax repeal passed in June largely with Republican support. But the measure died, after it failed to come to a vote in the Senate.

This year, Mr. Hatch is again sponsoring a repeal bill, but he has four Democrats as co-sponsors, including liberals like Senator Al Franken of Minnesota.

Perhaps even more important, industry lobbyists helped circulate a letter among Senate Democrats in December, after the election, criticizing the tax and urging a delay in its Jan. 1 establishment. Sixteen sitting Democratic senators and two who had just been elected ultimately signed on. It was a real coup for the industry, as the letter included top Senate Democrats like Richard J. Durbin of Illinois and Charles E. Schumer of New York.

The behind-the-scenes story of how those signatures were secured offers a window into the changing lobbying tactics. Companies like Cook Medical have seen their lobbying budgets soar, as they have beefed up their representation by lobbying firms with Democratic credentials, like the firm where Mr. Payne works, McGuire Woods, which also has former Senator Evan Bayh, Democrat of Indiana, as a lawyer on its team.

The appeal has included dozens of telephone calls from executives at medical device companies to the Senate Democrats or their staff, as well as many meetings in person on Capitol Hill.

Trade associations like the Advanced Medical Technology Association, have organized rallylike events in different states, and “fly-ins” to Washington, in which employees of medical equipment firms make it clear that they expect the help of their local members of Congress.

Donations from industry executives to certain important Democratic allies, like Ms. Klobuchar of Minnesota and Mr. Casey of Pennsylvania, surged in the last election cycle as the industry played a significant role in their re-election efforts.

Ms. Klobuchar, whose state has an estimated 400 medical device companies employing about 35,000 people, has emerged as one of the industry’s most important allies — cornering other Democrats on the Senate floor to press them to join the push, industry lobbyists said. The first real test will come this week. Senate backers of the device tax repeal, like Mr. Hatch and Ms. Klobuchar, plan to propose a nonbinding amendment to a federal budget bill to make their bipartisan opposition to the tax clear.

The industry executives and the lawmakers involved have at least so far avoided identifying how they would pay for the repeal of the device tax. They realize that they would only draw opposition from lobbyists representing whatever industry it is that would be targeted to make up the money. The biggest obstacle remains the White House, which last year threatened to veto the House medical tax repeal bill. The White House argues that demand for new devices will offset the economic impact of the tax.

But the industry, which sells devices ranging from wooden tongue depressors to pacemakers, has important Democratic allies now trying to squeeze the White House as well. Ms. Klobuchar and Mr. Franken brought up the topic last month with Mr. Obama during a ride they took with him on Air Force One.

“I think that there has been some renewed understanding on the president’s part,” Mr. Franken told the editorial board of a Minnesota newspaper last month — which then repeated his call for the repeal of the tax, under a headline, “If a tax has bipartisan opposition, Obama should listen.”

View the original article here

In the Rockies, Growing Support for Renewables

State of the Rockies Project, Colorado College A regional poll found significant support for greater investment in wind and solar power.

A new poll tracking the conservation attitudes of residents of the six Rocky Mountain States shows that support is strong for greater protection of public lands and investment in renewable energy. It also offers some clues to why public policy does not dovetail with public opinion in those areas.

In early January, two polling companies questioned 2,400 registered voters across Arizona, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. Brendan Boepple, program coordinator for Colorado College’s State of the Rockies Project, said the results highlighted “the disparity between the reality and the rhetoric among Western voters.”

In a region where fossil fuel extraction has long been an economic linchpin, wind and solar ranked first in most states when voters were asked what two energy sources they wanted to see more money spent on.

In Arizona, for example, greater investment in solar energy was supported by 74 percent of those polled, and wind, by 43 percent. Support for more oil drilling and coal extraction registered at just 8 percent and 6 percent, respectively. (Support for solar power was far lower in Montana and Wyoming, however.)

“Overwhelmingly, they’re pointing to renewables,” said Lori Weigel, a partner with Public Opinion Strategies, which regularly conducts polling for the Republican Party. The other polling firm, Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz and Associates, is associated with the Democratic Party.

A majority of respondents said that while some public lands should be drilled, environmentally sensitive places should be off limits forever. Ms. Weigel said the poll indicates that Rocky Mountain residents want a better balance.

“They don’t want to shut the door on development, but it’s pretty clear they want to see more protection,” she said. “They want to make sure that their clean water, clean air, wildlife and places to recreate are protected.”

The poll was released on Thursday, a day after the Obama administration announced the nomination of Sally Jewell as the new secretary of the interior. Ms. Jewell’s blend of oil expertise, enthusiasm for the outdoors and conservation advocacy is viewed by some as emblematic of the evolving land ethic across the Rocky Mountain states.

The survey results also come on the heels of a speech in Washington in which Bruce Babbitt, a former interior secretary, admonished the Obama administration for opening public lands to drilling without making commensurate conservation efforts.

Nine in ten people polled said that national parks, forests, monuments and wildlife preserves are essential to the economy. Three in four said that those lands furnish good jobs, and more than seven in 10 said that no public lands should be sold to private corporations.

Three in five said that drilling should not be allowed in “critical locations” near recreation areas, water sources or wildlife. Only 35 percent said that more public lands should be opened to “responsible energy development.”

To reflect the region’s changing demographics, the poll was also conducted in Spanish. Sixty-four percent of Latino respondents described themselves as pro-conservationist, virtually mirroring the result for the Rocky Mountain states as a whole.

While support for more conservation has remained constant during the three years since the poll began, David Metz, who works for the Democratic-leaning polling company Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz and Associates, said he set out this year to understand why western politics and policy depart in some ways from public opinion.

He learned that 54 percent of Rocky Mountain residents are unaware of how their leaders have voted with regard to protecting land, air and water. “People don’t have a clear idea of what their elected officials are doing,” Mr. Metz said.

For example, more than two-thirds of people interviewed either said that no drilling was taking place on public lands or that they didn’t have enough information to answer whether it was or not. In reality, 38 million public acres across the United States, including land in 42 national park units are leased for oil and gas drilling, something that most western lawmakers support.

“There’s a mismatch,” Mr. Metz said. “One of our goals with this poll is to show a common scientific set of data to better connect where public officials are and where the public is.”

The poll suggested that voters would have a “more favorable” impression of any candidate who voiced support for public land protection. But the degree varied depending on the candidate’s party affiliation.

The results suggest that Republican candidates stand to gain the most by championing land conservation; a Republican candidate who took that stance would draw support from more Democratic voters than a Democratic candidate would from Republicans.

Walt Hecox, faculty director for the State of the Rockies Project, argues that politicians should pay close attention to the study. “Westerners see the permanent protection of their public lands as an economic imperative and essential to their quality of life,” he said in a statement. “Decision-makers would do well to take notice.”

The poll also showed that while 85 percent of Rocky Mountain residents engage in at least one outdoor recreational activity, 83 percent of parents worry that children don’t spend enough time outside.

View the original article here

MyCar: An Electric Runabout With Bipartisan Support

GreenTech AutomotiveThe MyCar, which is to be produced initially in Mississippi.

If a start-up car company’s chances for success were correlated to the enthusiasm of its chief executive, then an electric-vehicle venture led by Terry McAuliffe, the former Democratic National Committee chairman, would be a sure thing. It takes more than charisma to attract buyers, though, and while the enterprise in question enjoys support from prominent politicians in the Republican and Democratic parties, it also engenders skepticism from some analysts.

Mr. McAuliffe’s GreenTech Automotive will unveil the two-seat, low-speed, Smart-size MyCar on Friday at a new plant in Mississippi. The event, he said in a telephone interview, would feature a barbecue and an appearance by the former president Bill Clinton, Mr. McAuliffe’s longtime friend.

GreenTech AutomotiveTerry McAuliffe.

Mr. McAuliffe is a possible candidate for the Virginia governorship in 2013 — he lost a three-way Democratic primary for the post in 2009 — but he says he has a good reason for choosing to manufacture the MyCar in Mississippi.

“Haley Barbour put the most aggressive package on the table for us,” he said, referencing the state’s former governor, a Republican. “No one else’s offer was even close to Governor Barbour’s. We can disagree on political issues, but this is two people from different parties coming together. He’s been very aggressive in bringing in the carmakers, so now he’s saying, ‘Let’s try an electric.’ It’s a win-win for everybody.”

Toyota and Nissan also operate plants in the state.

In a separate telephone interview, Mr. Barbour said he and Mr. McAuliffe had reached across the aisle before, since both were involved in the opening of the bipartisan Caucus Room restaurant in Washington in 2000. He said GreenTech received an “off-the-shelf package of incentives” to locate its plants in Mississippi. “It’s not about politics,” he said. “It’s about economic development and higher-paying, higher-skilled job creation in my state. We have not, by a long shot, given up on manufacturing in Mississippi.”

Mr. McAuliffe said the venture would employ 900 workers in Mississippi by the end of the year, as well as create many jobs indirectly. With an initial focus on fleet sales and the European market, he says he believes the company can produce 10,000 cars in 2013. GreenTech described its first Mississippi plant, a leased 400,000-square-foot former elevator factory in Horn Lake, as a pilot facility. A second plant, in Tunica, is expected to open in 2013.

Mr. McAuliffe quoted a price of $18,000 for a MyCar with an included lithium-ion battery pack, and $10,000 for the basic car, presuming a battery lease from the company. A version of the car with lead-acid batteries and 51 miles of range will sell in the mid-$15,000 range, according to Marianne McInerney, a GreenTech sales and marketing spokeswoman.

But prices and performance may vary. Chris Anthony, chief executive of Flux Power, said in a telephone interview that his California-based company had worked with GreenTech “for well over a year” on lithium batteries for the car and had developed 7-, 15- and 23-kilowatt-hour packs, the largest of which would give the car more than 100 miles of range. He also said several hundred packs had been delivered to GreenTech.

The MyCar is hardly a slam dunk for Western buyers. It is a neighborhood electric vehicle, or N.E.V., which means it is not allowed on interstates and is legally limited to 25 miles per hour in most states. In a majority of markets, statutes limit the cars to roads with posted top speeds of 35 m.p.h. or lower. Although it was designed by the noted Italian stylist Giorgetto Giugiaro, the MyCar was originally the product of a Hong Kong-based venture bought by Mr. McAuliffe and his partners for $20 million in 2010.

Mr. McAuliffe said in May that an early MyCar produced in Mississippi was delivered to Denmark, where the company has a relationship with an electric car distributor, Greenabout A/S. Last year, GreenTech said Greenabout would “purchase a sizeble percentage of production through 2014.”

GreenTech is also building a factory in China to produce cars for that market. According to Mr. McAuliffe, he negotiated a contract requiring that core components for those vehicles be built at the plants in Mississippi. “The powertrain and guts of the car will be made in the United States,” he said. “If we allow one more technology to escape overseas, shame on us.”

There’s some skepticism over the market for speed-limited cars. “It’s a niche vehicle, and historically niche vehicles haven’t done particularly well,” Michelle Krebs, a senior analyst at Edmunds.com, said in a telephone interview. She also noted that pricing for the soon-to-be-delivered Chevrolet Spark minicar would start at about $13,000, “and you can take it on the highway.”

But Jay Friedland, legislative director of the advocacy group Plug In America, was more supportive. “It makes sense in some ways,” he wrote in an e-mail. “The export market for these, as medium-speed vehicles, is pretty good. There is also a big market for neighborhood vehicles in Florida.” He described annual sales of 5,000 to 10,000 N.E.V.’s as “probably doable.” Anything beyond that, however, “is dreaming,” he said.

View the original article here

Democrats, Republicans each aim to woo support of women voters in November - Post-Crescent

WASHINGTON ? Is the 2012 election shaping up to be all about women?

President Barack Obama is working hard to woo this pivotal constituency in his re-election race. His Democratic allies are even accusing the GOP of launching a "war against women" after the Republicans reignited a new national debate over cultural issues, including birth control.

But now the Republicans ? including Ann Romney and Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski ? are striking back with a promise: Their party will win women by focusing on the real No. 1 issue, the economy.

Not that Obama is ready to give up that issue.

"I believe that the Democrats have a better story to tell to women about how we're going to solidify the middle class and grow this economy, make sure everybody has a fair shot, everybody's doing their fair share, and we got a fair set of rules of the road that everybody has to follow," Obama said Tuesday as Republican presidential contenders competed in Super Tuesday primaries.

Hours later, Ann Romney ? the wife of GOP front-runner Mitt Romney ? answered him.

"Do you know what women care about? Women care about jobs," she declared on national television, as her husband waited nearby to speak. "They're angry, and they're furious about the entitlement debt that we're leaving for our children."

"I'm right along with Ann Romney," Murkowski said on Wednesday.

The Alaska Republican has been critical of her party's focus on birth control policy when people remain worried about economic stability. In a telephone interview, Murkowski added: "There is clearly a direction that we can take as Republicans that gives confidence and assurance that we are focused on the issues that matter to women."

Eight months before Election Day, women have become arguably the most sought-after voting group in an election year where the presidency and control of Congress are at stake. Females comprise a majority of voters in a typical presidential election year.

Women are a crucial voting group for Obama, particularly in the suburbs of big cities like Denver and Detroit. He would not be president today had he not beaten Republican John McCain by 13 points among women four years ago.

The importance of winning the women's vote may be magnified this year given that the fragile economy may weigh down the support of other groups that supported Obama strongly in 2008, such as Latinos and college-age voters.

Recent polling suggests Obama is gaining among women. An Associated Press-GfK poll conducted last month showed his approval rating had risen 10 percentage points among women since December. The poll also showed that women approve more strongly of the way the president is handling the economy.

For Republicans, conservative women represent a loyal sector of the party's base, and female independents offer an opportunity to eat into Obama's support. Independent women broke for Obama by a 10-point margin four years ago, according to exit polling, while among independent men he managed just a 5-point edge.

Both parties have viewed the furor over Obama's policy on access to contraception as an opportunity to curry favor with women. Republicans protested Obama's mandate that birth control be covered by insurance, even for employers whose faiths forbid contraception. The policy, Republicans insisted, was a violation of the Constitution's guarantee of religious freedom, and they forced a vote on it in the Senate. The GOP measure to overturn Obama's policy lost, 51-48, with one Republican, Sen. Olympia Snowe, helping Democrats kill it.

Recent exit polls in the GOP nomination contest suggest some groups of women within the GOP are turned off by the focus on social issues. In Ohio, for example, married women broke for Santorum, while unmarried women favored Romney, a marriage gap that did not exist among men. Women who said abortion should be legal in most or all cases broke for Romney, while those who thought it should be illegal in most or all cases leaned toward Santorum.

Democrats called the Senate vote the latest attempt to roll back long-established women's rights. House Republicans, they also pointed out, had barred a young law student from testifying in favor of Obama's policy but allowed five men to testify against it. And then radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh called the woman a "slut" and a "prostitute" for arguing that her school, Georgetown University, should cover her contraception.

Obama made sure reporters knew he had telephoned the young woman, Sandra Fluke, to offer support. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, called Limbaugh's remarks "inappropriate." And Limbaugh, losing advertisers, apologized.

The Democrats' pitch ? that Republicans were launching a "war on women" was born. Coast to coast, Democrats hawked the theme. Women senators used it to raise money, wives of candidates included it in pleas for support, and surrogates ? from Sen. Claire McCaskill's mother to former tennis star Billie Jean King ? ran with it.

"Stop the GOP's War on Women!" read an email sent to Democrats by the party's House campaign committee.

The drumbeat has frustrated Republicans, pushed onto the defensive as polls showed a majority of Americans favored the president's contraception policy.

But the notion that Republicans are out to strip women of their rights "is just a lie," said Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus. "It's not a war on women. It's an effort to protect religious liberty."

But Ann Romney's rebuttal moves the response further, said veteran GOP pollster Ed Goeas.

Polling, he said, shows that different subgroups of women assess economic questions differently ? and that white women in particular respond well to the Republicans' economic message.

"Everybody's responding to this as if women vote as a monolith," Goeas said. "They don't."

Or, suggested Murkowski, they shouldn't.

In the interview, she said she regrets her vote for the GOP amendment to overturn Obama's contraception policy. If she had it to do over again, she would join Snowe in voting against it.

"Women in Alaska are worried about what they're paying for energy costs. They're worried about whether or not they're going to be able to put their kids through college, whether their savings are secure," Murkowski said.

Even Obama acknowledged that female voters are going to want questions answered on the economy.

"I'm not somebody who believes that women are going to be single-issue voters. They never have been," he said.

View the original article here

Will the Democrats say 'I do' support marriage equality in 2012? - DAILY KOS

On Feb. 13, Freedom to Marry launched their "Democrats: Say I Do" campaign, aimed at lobbying the Democratic Party's drafting committee to formally adopt a position of supporting marriage equality into the party platform. The new platform will be ratified at the Democratic National Convention this summer. The current platform language reads (p. 52):

We support the full inclusion of all families, including same-sex couples, in the life of our nation, and support equal responsibility, benefits, and protections. We will enact a comprehensive bipartisan employment non-discrimination act. We oppose the Defense of Marriage Act and all attempts to use this issue to divide us.

The proposed new language would read:

The Democratic Party supports the full inclusion of all families in the life of our nation, with equal respect, responsibility, and protection under the law, including the freedom to marry. Government has no business putting barriers in the path of people seeking to care for their family members, particularly in challenging economic times. We support the Respect for Marriage Act and the overturning of the federal so-called “Defense of Marriage Act,” and oppose discriminatory constitutional amendments and other attempts to deny the freedom to marry to loving and committed same-sex couples.

Is the time ripe for the Democratic party to finally come out of the closet and say "I do" support marriage equality and not just wink and a nod at it?

Reid Wilson writing in the National Journal this week called marriage equality support "The New Democratic Litmus Test." Wilson argues the 2016 Democratic presidential aspirants will inevitably include marriage equality supporters, and Democratic marriage equality opponents may well find themselves at a significant fundraising disadvantage.

In July 2011, President Obama's pollster Joel Benenson and George W. Bush's pollster Dr. Jan van Lohuizen were hired by Freedom to Marry to crunch the numbers. Here's what their analysis of six national polls from Gallup, Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), CNN/Opinion Research Corporation, ABC News/Washington Post and Pew Research Center (Pew) found:

The trendlines are indisputable, and a general consensus seems to be forming that marriage equality is inevitable, Vice-President Joe Biden even said so himself.

Among Beneson and van Lohuizen's conclusions was the declaration that "support strongly correlates with age. As Americans currently under the age of 40 make up a greater percentage of the electorate, their views will come to dominate."

And look who signed up right away to endorse Freedom to Marry's initiative: the Executive Director of Young Democrats of America. YDA has 150,000+ members from chapters in 46 states and U.S. territories and over 1,500 local chapters. Emily Tisch Sussman writing on the group's website said:

“As the Executive Director of Young Democrats of America, I represent young people, and the way we connect young people back to Democratic politics is by speaking out for what is right and taking action. Polling shows that 70 percent of voters 18-34 support the freedom to marry, and for many of our members, it’s a cause that goes to the core of why they consider themselves Democrats. It is time to realize that marriage is no longer an effective wedge issue; it is a cause that we as Democrats should be leading on.”

Leadership is the key issue here.

The changing trendlines certainly are signaling to many Democratic leaders the water's fine, hop right in. The strong hand of leadership emanting from Democratic Govs. Cuomo, Gregoire and O'Malley in New York, Washington and Maryland were certainly key to marriage equality victories in the last year.

There is certainly a school of thought that Democrats should not engage "social issues" and that what voters really care about is the jobs and economy.

While the second part is almost certainly true, total disengagement from this "social issue" is not a luxury the LGBT community has the privilege to enjoy in the 2012 election cycle. Whether LGBT Americans like it or not, their civil rights will be going to popular ballot referendums, definitely in Minnesota, Maine and all but certainly in Washington and Maryland as well. North Carolina too will be voting on May 8 on a constitutional amendment to ban virtually all unions but opposite-sex marriage.

And for some inexplicable reason Republicans seem anxious to make 2012 the year of a resurgent culture war. Inexplicable as polling shows they are out if the mainstream on all touchstone issues. Abortion, birth control and even marriage equality offers increasingly no advantage to winning the hearts and minds of the middle.

Support by party affliation, average five national polls*Nationally marriage equality supporters are indisputably in the majority.

Viewing support through party affiliations, and non-affiliated voters, the divide is even more revealing.

Increasingly the GOP's rhetoric preaches only to their choir. Supporting marriage equality offers little risk to a Democrat to turn off the base or independents. It's becoming clear that the most adamant opposition is fast boiling down to a hardcore group of 30% mostly religious right conservative Republicans. And it isn't at all clear that a voter that doesn't support marriage equality personally considers a candidate's support a deal-breaker in an otherwise acceptable platform of issues.

Believe it or not, even the Republican party seems to be waking up to this. Earlier this year, National Journal took the temperature of political "insiders"—political operatives, strategists, campaign consultants and lobbyists—in both parties. They found an amazing 20 percent drop in GOP's appetite for opposing marriage equality in just under two years. All the movement on the GOP side was toward a desire to "avoid" the issue:

Republicans insiders on marriage equalityMy party should avoid the issueA smart strategist will attack where he sees his opponent retreating and 84 percent of Democratic opinion leaders recommend their party support marriage equality. Quotes from insiders included this from a Democrat: "It's a huge demographic opportunity for Democrats because almost every voter under 30 supports it."  This one came from a GOP operative: "Only idiots fight demography." In New Jersey, Democrats appear to have used Republican Chris Christie's idiocy against him.

But often Democrats are more comfortable discussing the politics of contrast than playing them. To do that you have to get in front of the issue, and lead the conversation in a new direction rather than just respond to what the other side is saying.

As marriage equality support becomes the majority position it becomes less and less understandable to the LGBT community that leaders should treat the issue as radioactive or an electoral albatross.

There is of course, widespread anxiety about these various ballot fights coming to the 2012 calendar, and also perhaps anxiety at the prospect of a 2008 redux.

Think back to November 4, 2008. While Democrats had every reason to cheer, for the LGBT constituency, the evening was more bittersweet. The landslide win of Barack Obama, and downticket sweeps of Democrats did not stop Proposition 8 in California, nor did it stop similar anti-gay ballot initatives in Florida, Arizona, and Arkansas.

In 2009, during the ballot fight for marriage equality in Maine, there was some criticism that Organizing for America was perhaps, less engaged than many LGBT Democrats might have hoped. That ballot initiative failed narrowly.

Signs are encouraging that the larger Democratic establishment will be more engaged in assisting the LGBT community with these battles in 2012 than in the past.

In Maryland and Washington, the party has good incentive to unite. Like marriage equality or not, the Republicans are coming to take away the Democratic Governor's legacy. Govs. Gregoire and O'Malley's triumphs will be hollow, even viewed as a political misstep, should they be erased by voters. In both states, a united front of the Democratic base can assure the governors' fight for the freedom to marry was not made in vain and the Democratic party's legislative agenda vindicated. In Minnesota, the Democratic party, under the leadership of Gov. Mark Dayton is showing a fierce appetite to adopt the fight as their own.

Unsurprisingly, further south of the Mason-Dixon line, the news is less encouraging in North Carolina. Moving the date of the ballot initiative from the general to be concurrent with Republican primary was anything but helpful, at least for the LGBT community. And Sen. Kay Hagan's comment she was "wary" of the amendment was described by North Carolinian Pam Spaulding as more "tepid" and "pitiful" than fierce, but still better than Democratic Gov. Beverly Perdue's statement.

The platform adoption is but one strategy for solidifying support within the Democratic base for turning these ballot initiatives into LGBT victories.

Adam Bink of Courage Campaign called adopting marriage equality support into the platform "constructive and important." But Courage Campaign's strategy is perhaps more pragmatic than symbolic and can be summed up in four words: "Show us the money!"

Courage Campaign and Grindr 4 Equality are focused on ensuring the DNC chip in to fund the campaign against these discriminatory amendments in Minnesota and North Carolina and ensure equal rights in other states because ultimately, money is what is needed to get our message out to voters in these critical campaigns."

Courage Campaign's petition to the DNC reads:

LGBT voters and their allies have put Democrats in office for years. Now it's time for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to have our back and help secure equal rights. As many as 5 states (Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, North Carolina and Washington) will face ballot referenda on marriage equality this year, where voters will vote on the rights of same-sex couples to marry.

In 2008, the DNC chipped in $25,000 to help fight Prop 8 and then-candidate Obama called for a "no" vote. DNC Chairwoman and Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz told reporters she would "certainly consider" funding the fight for equal rights. Let's show the DNC how important it is for them to help again.

Submitted to Madame Chairwoman as she considers the appropriating of DNC resources for the 2012 cycle: the voters these equality-minded organizers will be working furiously to drive into voting booths will almost certainly be disproportionately young, progressive Democrats. Please, consider how that might end well for everyone on election night.

The ask seems particularly effective coming from Courage Campaign as they have distinguished themselves as full-spectrum progressive organizer engaging on issues as disparate as fair taxation, racism, health care reform and countless others.

Michael Cole-Schwartz speaking for Human Rights Campaign said:

We are supportive of Freedom to Marry's and Courage Campaign's efforts. Having party support for marriage and a variety of other LGBT issues is important which is why we've testified previously, including in 2008, before the DNC Platform Committee. As we look toward these critical elections with marriage to be on the ballot in a number of states, HRC will be playing a substantial role in these fights.

The LGBT community has a good friend in DNC chairwoman Wasserman Schultz, a supporter of marriage equality. She has not yet commented on the platform language, but has a long history of standing with the LGBT community, including serving as vice-chair of the House LGBT equality caucus. House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi has already voiced support for the proposed change in platform language. She also once said to marriage equality opponents, "The inconceivable to you is the inevitable to us." Secret Service watches President Obama address
Human Rights Campaign, Oct. 2009 (White House)But of course the elephant donkey in the living room is the awkward optics of a party adopting a position that the party leader does not share. (Although exactly such a situation already transpired late last year in Australia on precisely this issue.) This almost certainly presents the biggest hurdle to the successful adoption.

But even the party leader himself seems to be acknowledging the inevitable telling Joe Sudbay and gathered bloggers in October 2010:

THE PRESIDENT: The one thing I will say today is I think it’s pretty clear where the trendlines are going.

Q: The arc of history.

THE PRESIDENT: The arc of history.

The biggest point of debate seems to be when he will—or should—get on the correct side of the arc of history?

Not everyone has lost faith that the president's position will complete its evolution before November 6, 2012. In December, former Clinton White House advisor Richard Socarides wrote of Prop 8 and DOMA constitutional challenges in the New Yorker:

The potential for those decisions, together with a rapid change in public opinion in favor of marriage equality, have clearly become factors in President Obama’s thinking. As a result, I believe that he will announce his support for same-sex marriage before the 2012 election.

Might the president announce his personal endorsement concurrent with that of his party?

It certainly would put a bold exclamation point on his likely place in history as the first American president to declare the freedom to marry as a fundamental human right for every loving couple.

View the original article here

Chicago mayor rallies Obama support in Iowa (AP)

DES MOINES, Iowa – Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel launched an ardent defense of President Barack Obama in Iowa on Saturday, telling local Democrats that in order to create security for the middle class, "we just can't cut our way to prosperity."

Obama's former chief of staff rallied about 1,300 people during the Iowa Democratic Party's largest annual fundraiser in Des Moines. Emanuel told the crowd that Republicans want to solve the nation's debt problem only through spending cuts, while Obama favors a balanced approach of cuts and tax increases.

"To create true middle-class security, we can't just cut our way to prosperity," Emanuel said. "We must out-innovate, out-educate and out-build the world."

Emanuel said Obama has made crucial, tough decisions based on his principles to help the country — and not in an attempt to lay the groundwork for a second term in the White House. And he asked the crowd whose judgment they wanted leading the country during such a critical economic time.

"In the next four years, there will be more challenges and more crises that will determine the economic vitality of the middle class and the economic future of this country," Emanuel said. "Whose character, whose judgment do you want in that office?"

Obama has a solid history in Iowa. His surprising win in the state's precinct caucuses four years ago launched him on the road to the White House, and he easily carried the state in the 2008 general election.

Emanuel's appearance in the key early-caucus state was a chance for Democrats to grab attention from several Republican presidential candidates making their case to social conservatives across town. Emanuel used the opportunity to criticize GOP candidate Mitt Romney, even though Romney wasn't in Iowa.

The mayor cited the sharply different views that Obama and Romney had on rescuing the auto industry and propping up the nation's financial system. He argued that Obama's views have been proven right, while Romney's stance to not offer federal financial assistance would have destroyed the two key industries.

Emanuel also said Romney has flip-flopped in his political views, such as taking a more conservative stance on abortion and gun control.

"Mitt Romney says he's a man of steadiness and consistency. If that's true, then I'm a linebacker for the Chicago Bears," said the slim, 5-foot-8 1/2 mayor.

In an interview before the event, Emanuel said he was looking forward to the prospect of a lengthy, heated Republican primary race — and the exposure it gives to the GOP candidates.

"I think a lot of people want to see it over quickly, and I don't think they're going to get that," he said.

Sounding the populist theme that Obama has been offering in recent weeks, Emanuel also said the president is focused less on the difficulty of his tasks as president and more on the struggles of the American middle class.

"He continues to help them try to get their feet back on the ground. That's the struggle he's worried about, not his struggle," Emanuel said.

View the original article here

Sweden Democrats suffer drop in support - Local

Published: 10 Jul 11 08:25 CET | Double click on a word to get a translation
Online: http://www.thelocal.se/34842/20110710/

The Sweden Democrats Party has lost one in three voters over the past month according to the latest opinion survey.

Only 4.2 of the electorate described the party as their favourite last month, down by 2.4 percent from the previous month, reports TT.

The voter survey, carried out by Skop, was based on telephone interviews with 1059 people made during the period between June 17th and July 3rd. They were asked the question: "Which is your favourite political party?"

The result was good news for the centre-right Alliance which saw a 2.3 percent rise in popularity, closing the gap on the Red-Green opposition, polling their second best result since the election in 2010. Support for the two largest parties, the Moderates and the Social Democrats, remains at a pretty steady 30 percent meanwhile.

The Liberal (Folkpartiet) and Centre parties have both seen a rise in popularity recently, with the Centre party especially on a roll, having increased in each of the past three months.

The Green Party has also seen a slight increase, but the latest opinion poll has not been so positive for the Christian Democrats. Only 3.1 percent of those surveyed described them as their favourite party.

It remains to be seen how the recent campaigning in Almedalen will effect the electorate, although the Social Democrats leader H?kan Juholt will be hoping for a boost after his speech on Friday during which he presented a sweeping row of new points on labour and employment reforms.The Sweden Democrats Party has lost one in three voters over the past month according to the latest opinion survey.

View the original article here