Supreme Court Rules On Minnesota Senate Race: Window Closes On Norm Coleman

In what may very well be the death knell for Norm Coleman’s time in the U.S. Senate, the Minnesota Supreme Court on Wednesday unanimously dismissed one of his last legal objections to the recount process.

In a five-to-zero decision, the court rejected a Coleman campaign lawsuit that sought to block the course of the recount due to concerns that some ballots had been counted twice. It was the Minnesota Republican’s last legal angle for making up the 47-vote deficit he currently faces against Al Franken.

Coleman had argued that in the process of recounting, some precincts had accidentally counted both the original ballots and duplicates that were used for those original ballots that couldn’t be properly scanned. But the campaign asked only for the state to look at 25 specific counties, suggesting that the argument was politically and not legally motivated. Moreover, it couldn’t provide evidence that voting tallies during the recount exceeded those on Election Day — which would have been the obvious result of duplicates being counted.

With this issue, seemingly, out of the way, the recount process will come to an end once the state and both campaigns decide what to do about improperly rejected absentee ballots. That should come in early January. And while it would be foolish to predict how the counting and disbursement of these 1,600 ballots would proceed — the two camps have agreed on principles by which the process will be conducted — it seems likely that the results will favor Franken.

Franken’s campaign has been pining to have these wrongfully rejected absentee ballots counted from the beginning of the recount process, suggesting that they believe the votes will favor Franken. It is more common for Democratic voters to make clerical errors on their absentee ballots than it is for Republicans.

All told, the window through which Coleman was looking to hold unto his Senate seat just became measurably narrower.

UPDATE: Not entirely surprising, the Coleman campaign says a lawsuit challenging the results of the election is now a near certainty. According to the Hill:

The Coleman campaign had claimed [duplicate] ballots, created by local election officials to mirror original ballots that were somehow damaged, were sometimes counted twice by accident, and should not be included.

“We are deeply disappointed in that result. The Supreme Court decision virtually guarantees this election will be decided with an election contest,” Fritz Knaak told reporters on a conference call on Christmas Eve. “There’s no question, I mean no question in our minds that [a lawsuit] will happen now.”

Should the Coleman campaign file a contest, which it must do within seven days of the end of ballots being counted, the election results cannot be certified and no one will be sworn in when the 111th Congress meets January 5.

Read more: Franken Coleman, Minnesota Recount, Coleman Recount, Norm Coleman, Al Franken, Supreme Court, Franken Senator, Minnesota Supreme Court, Minnesota Senate Race, Mn Senate Race, Politics News

Obama Blagojevich Report: Team Claims Exoneration

Barack Obama’s chief counsel declared on Tuesday afternoon that only one member of the President-elect’s staff — incoming chief of staff Rahm Emanuel — had any communications with embattled Gov. Rod Blagojevich and his staff since Obama’s election.

Emanuel’s interactions, moreover, were not in any way improper, Obama’s aides stressed, and the transition team was fully compliant both with the law and the U.S. Attorney’s investigation into Blagojevich’s alleged pay-for-play scheme.

“No one in the Obama circle was aware of what was going on in the governor’s office until he was arrested,” said Greg Craig, Obama’s counsel. “They found out what the Governor was doing the same time the American public found out about it.”

While Craig and spokesman Robert Gibbs debriefed reporters, the Obama transition team put out a five-page report detailing the extent of contacts between the Illinois governor, the President-elect, and their respective staffs.

Read the full text of the Obama report.

As was reported over the weekend, incoming chief of staff Rahm Emanuel had been in touch with Blagojevich and his chief of staff, primarily about the replacement process for Emanuel’s own congressional seat but also about various Obama replacements.

At some point in mid-November, the Obama internal review states, the president-elect discussed potential “qualified candidates” for the Senate seat with Emanuel and senior adviser David Axelrod. “Those candidates included Representatives Jan Schakowsky and Jesse Jackson, Jr., Dan Hynes and Tammy Duckworth. The President-Elect understood that Rahm Emanuel would relay these names to the Governor’s office as additions to the pool of qualified candidates who might already be under consideration. Mr. Emanuel subsequently confirmed to the President that he had in fact relayed these names. At no time in the discussion of the Senate seat or of possible replacements did the President-Elect hear of a suggestion that the Governor expected a personal benefit in return for making this appointment to the Senate.”

Axelrod and senior adviser Valerie Jarrett both “did not have any contacts with the Governor or his office but are included in the report,” Craig’s findings say. But there is enough back-channel conversation involving Jarrett — mostly second-hand discussion about Blagojevich’s scheme — to possibly create public relations issues for her down the road.

According to the report, Jarrett had one contact with Blagojevich, during a National Governor’s Association Conference in Philadelphia in early December — “over three weeks after she had decided not to pursue the Senate seat.” Jarrett did speak to Tom Balanoff, the head of the Illinois chapter of the Service Employees International Union, who relayed to her that he had spoken with Blagojevich about her being named Obama’s replacement. Balanoff also related that Blagojevich was, perhaps, interested in heading the Department of Health and Human Services in the new administration.

“Mr. Balanoff did not suggest,” the internal report states, “that the Governor, in talking about HHS, was linking a position for himself in the Obama cabinet to the selection of the President-elect’s successor in the Senate, and Ms. Jarrett did not understand the conversation to suggest that the Governor wanted the cabinet seat as a quid pro quo…”

As for the HHS topic, “[Jarrett] viewed that as a ridiculous proposition and waved it off,” Craig said to reporters. “She found it to be a random comment on the face of it, ridiculous, and dismissed it as such.”

The section on Axelrod helps explain a statement he made on the scandal that created some confusion. “After the election, the President-elect discussed — with Mr. Axelrod and Mr. Emanuel — a number of individuals who were highly qualified to take his place in the Senate. Mr. Axelrod was under the impression that the President-elect would convey this information to the Governor or to someone from the Governor’s office, which explains why Mr. Axelrod gave an inaccurate answer on this subject to questions from the press.”

One other newsworthy bit: Craig said that the decision to delay the issuance of the report was made strictly by Patrick Fitzgerald’s office. They were worried about the damage it could cause to their investigation.

“This report was provided to the U.S. attorney’s office today,” said Craig. “It was ready for delivery actually on December 15, when I met with the U.S. Attorney and he asked me on that occasion to hold off out of concerns that by releasing this report we might have some impact on his investigation.”

Read more: Obama Absolution, Obama Greg Craig, Obama Internal Report, Greg Craig Robert Gibbs, Blagojevich Affair, Obama Blagojevich, Politics News

Page Gardner: Not Your Granddad’s New Deal: An Economic Stimulus for a Changing America

Most economists agree that an anti-recession program should achieve three goals: Pump money into the economy. Save existing jobs and create new jobs. And help those in greatest need.

All three of these signposts point to a large, fast-growing, but long-forgotten group of Americans who should be a major focus of emergency economic measures: the nation’s 53 million single, separated, divorced and widowed women.

Unfortunately, the first round of proposals for an economic stimulus seemed to concentrate almost exclusively on projects to rebuild the nation’s physical infrastructure and jobs that mostly employ men. While these are worthwhile goals, the stimulus should also include services that maintain the nation’s social infrastructure and jobs that mostly employ women. These services and these jobs are especially important for women who are striving to hold their households together on their own.

These women are shouldering great responsibilities. They are earning their own livings, often at jobs with low wages and few benefits. About 10 million are single moms with young children at home. Many care for aging or ailing parents, grandparents and other relatives. While these women’s busy and burdened lives make it difficult to participate in the political process, record numbers of unmarried women registered and voted in the elections this year.

Even before the recession, many of these women were economically insecure. Now, they are suffering even more than most Americans, and they need a helping hand to continue to fulfill their responsibilities at home and at work.

More than 40 percent of these women have household incomes of less than $30,000 a year — much worse than the figures for married women and unmarried men. Single women are twice as likely as married women not to have health insurance, and also twice as likely to be unable to afford medical care last year as their married sisters.

With the recession, unmarried women have become more vulnerable than married people to layoffs, bankruptcies, and foreclosures. Women who have never married had an unemployment rate of 8.8 percent in November, 2008, compared to 6.2 percent for the entire workforce. At a time when most families are seeing their situations deteriorate, female-headed households are twice as likely as other families to suffer a 50 percent drop in their income, according to the majority staff of the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.

For women on their own in these difficult times, economic calamities can be one illness or layoff away. About 43 percent of single women spend more than 30 percent of their incomes on housing, compared to only 25 percent of married couples. Thus, these women are much more likely to face foreclosures or evictions. With a median net worth of only $12,900, unmarried women account for 40 percent of all bankruptcy filings.

Undoubtedly, unmarried women need economic assistance, and they’ll pump the money back into the economy by spending it on the necessities of life. So how can an economic stimulus program include unmarried women?

Right now, the most frequently discussed ideas would mostly create and preserve jobs for working men, not working women. Yes, the nation should rebuild and repair our highways, bridges, roads, and public facilities of all kinds, as well as rewire our public schools.

But the economic stimulus should repair our social infrastructure as well as our physical infrastructure and include public services as well as public works. By helping state and local governments to avert layoffs and hire more teachers, school aides, childcare workers, homecare workers, and public librarians, an economic stimulus package could improve public services at a time of increased needs, while generating jobs that are likely to be filled by women, including those who support themselves and their children on their own.

There are many ideas that would be good for every working American, that would pump more money into the economy — and that would be especially beneficial for “women on their own.” Raising the minimum wage, increasing tax credits for low-wage workers, boosting the childcare tax credit, extending unemployment insurance (and making temporary workers eligible), and expanding healthcare coverage for children from low and moderate-income families — all would help unmarried women survive in a sagging economy. Since unmarried women make only 56 cents and women overall are paid only 77 cents for every dollar that married men make, challenging this discrimination by passing the Paycheck Fairness Act would also increase working women’s purchasing power. Some or all of these ideas might be included in an economic stimulus plan or in other legislation.

While the economic crisis may be the worst since the 1930s, the nation’s social structure has changed dramatically over the past seven decades. Just as Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal boldly confronted the challenges of its times, we need a newer deal to help Barack Obama’s changing America, with 53 million “women on their own,” to recover from this recession.

Page S. Gardner is president of Women’s Voices. Women Vote, a national nonpartisan organization that promotes civic participation by unmarried women.

Read more Holiday Season commentary from HuffPost bloggers

Bob Burnett: 2008: The Best and Worst

In a tumultuous year, ten political events stood out.

The Worst
5. “Just say no.” Republican Senators Block Critical Legislation: The 110th Congress saw Republican Senators invoke cloture motions - to limit debate and head off filibusters - a record 138 times, more than double the previous ignominious standard. The do-nothing GOP killed legislation with broad support - bills that had already passed in the House of Representatives - including renewable energy tax credits, a windfall profits tax on oil companies, negotiations with drug companies over Medicare drug prices, DC voting rights, and withdrawal from Iraq. As a result Republicans lost eight Senate seats in the general election.

4. “Gimme the money.” Paulson Demands $700 Billion Bailout Blank Check: On September 18th, in a one-page memo to Congress, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson proposed the Troubled Asset Relief Program, demanding $700 billion to purchase mortgage-backed securities, as well as unlimited discretion spending the funds. Congress modified his proposal to release funds in stages and provide oversight. Nonetheless, many believe the TARP program has been a waste of tax-payer funds.

3. “Running on empty.” McCain Suspends Campaign: While the conventional wisdom claims John McCain lost the presidential election because of the economy, he failed because he ran a terrible campaign, consistently making bad decisions. In early September, at the end of the Republican convention, McCain was surging: his selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate had galvanized the Republican base and some national polls showed him ahead of Obama. Then came the Paulson’s TARP proposal, which many Republicans refused to support. McCain “suspended” his campaign to return to Washington and broker a deal. And then did nothing. Instead of being viewed as a strong leader, McCain was revealed as confused and erratic.

2. “He’s a terrorist.” Palin Accuses Obama of Being a Terrorist: On October 4th, Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin accused Obama of “palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.” This charge, repeated by McCain, prompted shouted death threats at Republican rallies and the waving of pitchforks. While most Americans - and the Secret Service - saw the terrorist charge as contemptible and incendiary, Palin and McCain persisted for more than a week.

1. “I’m the decider.”Economy Slides into Recession, Bush Does Nothing: For the first six months, President Bush pronounced the American economy “sound” and spurned calls for action. In mid September, Bush reversed course declaring the US was on the brink of economic collapse. On December 1st, economists announced what most Americans had known already, the economy had been in recession since December of 2007. First Bush lied and then he panicked.

The Best
5. “No McCain.” Clinton Endorses Obama: After a sometimes bitter campaign, where Hillary Clinton continued her candidacy long after most observers had written her off, Democrats worried the New York Senator might offer only a half-hearted endorsement of Barack Obama. On August 26th, speaking at the Democratic Convention, Clinton strongly supported Obama giving one of the most memorable speeches of her career.

4. “I can see Russia from my house.”Tina Fey Mimics Sarah Palin: In 2008 Saturday Night Live reinvented itself as a bastion of political comedy. Tina Fey’s dead on imitation of Palin mocked Alaska’s Governor as a vapid airhead totally unprepared for the vice-presidency.

3. “Respect, Empower, Include.” Obama’s Field Organization From the Iowa caucuses on January 3rd to the twenty-five-state get-out-the-vote effort on November 4th, Barack Obama put together the most impressive field organization ever seen in U.S. politics. First, Obamacons took down Hillary Clinton, the prohibitive favorite to win the Democratic nomination. Then they defeated John McCain, despite his despicable attempt to label Obama a terrorist and closet Muslim. On Election Day, Obama won the critical swing states because he had a ground game and McCain didn’t. American politics will never be the same.

2. “This is a goodbye kiss, you dog.” Bush insulted by Iraqi journalist: In a vain effort to resurrect his reputation, George Bush took a December “victory” tour of Iraq. In the middle of a Baghdad press conference, where he touted the “success” of his strategy, Bush was the target of two shoes thrown by Iraqi journalist Muntathar al Zaidi, who cursed him in Arabic. The incident symbolized Bush’s Iraq legacy.

1. “Yes we can.”Obama wins Presidency: When was the point you knew Barack was going to be America’s 44th President? Was it after his Iowa victory? Or when it became clear he had out-organized Hillary? Was it his speech on race? Or when we knew Obama was going to win all the debates because of his thoughtful, unflappable demeanor? Or did you bite your nails until the evening of November 4th, expecting something awful to happen that would snatch victory from his grasp? However you experienced the campaign, Barack Obama Obama’s candidacy was an once-in-a-lifetime political thrill; capped by his dazzling victory speech on November 4th. We can and we did.

Jim Schumacher and Debbie Bookchin: Our Oil Reserves Are Depleted; It’s Time for Utopia

Last week at a Christmas party in the hills of Umbria, we were part of a captive audience listening to an American businessman holding forth on an ever-popular expat subject - the dismal exchange rate of dollars to euros. He informed his listeners that they needn’t worry: In just a couple of years, he said, America will have pulled out of the recession and the economy will be growing strong; Europe, on the other hand will still be facing the ripple effects of the global meltdown - and will be suffering.

“You’ll see,” he said blithely, “the dollar and the euro will be at par.”

Although the conversation took place in Italy, it could have as easily occurred in a Wall Street boardroom. Despite the ongoing economic meltdown, the dominant, “business as usual” wisdom is that the ascendancy of the American model of global capitalism can only continue. It’s just a matter of time before the good ship USS Free Enterprise rights itself and we have smooth sailing ahead.

But exactly what resources will the U.S. call upon to fuel the economic recovery that our American businessman and millions of others like him continue to believe in? Our longtime economic paradigm - growth fueled by cheap oil - has no future. Even when it did, it was a flawed concept because the constant growth required under the “grow or die” capitalist paradigm demands that we relentlessly exploit natural resources - how else to increase profit margins and pay investors their ever-greater dividends?

This paradigm has brought us to the brink of ecological disaster, with a planet so over-heated that even the most optimistic climate experts are doubtful whether we will be able to prevent cataclysmic disruptions unless worldwide carbon emissions are drastically reduced in the coming years - an unlikely scenario given the unwillingness of most governments to enact tough standards and regulations.

Not only has the planet been brought to its knees as a result of this capitalist ethos, but we humans haven’t fared so well either. Can we really say we’re succeeding as a human race when half of the world’s population is starving, or lacks adequate access to potable water, or is suffering from preventable diseases? Even in the U.S., our “high standard of living” leaves much to be desired, not only for the 45 million people who have no health insurance but for the tens of millions who work 40-80 hours a week and find themselves with little time to socialize, go for a walk, prepare and enjoy a meal with friends, or read a book - in short, have less free time and a lower standard of living than their parents did.

With oil virtually at an end, what better time to re-examine the economic paradigm that allowed us to think we could use up finite resources and just “grow” forever? Isn’t it time to rethink our blind embrace of the “grow or die” philosophy that led us down this self-destructive path?

In her recent post, “Laissez-Faire Capitalism Should Be as Dead as Soviet Communism,” Arianna Huffington suggests that the collapse of our financial system as a result of deregulation proves that this form of deregulated capitalism should be relegated to the dust bin of history. But is it just deregulation, or is it capitalism itself that needs to be junked? Inherent in the capitalist ethos is the endless exploitation of natural resources. Indeed, not only the exploitation of nature, but the exploitation of individuals by individuals is a guiding principle of modern capitalist society. You needn’t travel to 19th century England to understand this; it’s not just the exploitation of workers in factories anymore. As capitalism colonizes the realm of interpersonal relations, we’ve ceased to become human to each other and instead become “resources” (think “networking”) to be exploited for one type of gain or another.

Considering the tremendous advances in labor-saving technology in the last century, isn’t it time for a new form of social organization? One that prizes mutual aid over competition, collective stewardship of nature over its rapacious exploitation, and recognition that “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” must include the provision of basic necessities for all, regardless of status: shelter, food, free healthcare. Even better, imagine if we could recognize that ultimately human beings are capable of much more than just earning money? It’s time to use our immense powers of reason to ask ourselves: What does it mean to build a truly civilized world? History has shown us that Leninist Communism - itself a form of state-sanctioned exploitation of nature and human beings - wasn’t the answer. But neither has capitalism allowed us to fully realize our potential as free, creative beings.

We stand on a threshold. Will we use our extraordinary technology, science and rationality to create a just, humane and truly free society? Or will we continue down the path of domination - of each other and of the natural world - destroying our environment and ourselves?

The great utopian, Murray Bookchin, said: “If we do not do the impossible, we shall be faced with the unthinkable.” When he said those words, more than a quarter of a century ago, the notion that capitalism could bring the world to the brink of destruction was ridiculed by almost every mainstream intellectual. Yet here we are on the precipice, confronted with the unthinkable. The only course left to us, is to do the impossible - to abandon the paradigm of capitalism that has defined our cultural, political and economic life for the past 250 years, and whose supremacy has led inexorably to the despoilation of our planet and demeaning of human existence.

Let us choose to end the domination of each other and the unthinking exploitation of nature, and find a more human, decent form of social organization, one that prizes true, decentralized democracy, basic decency and the common good.

The oil is almost gone. The hourglass is about to run out. It’s time to create a utopia.

Yvonne R. Davis: Senator Coleman, Give Yourself Two Christmas Presents - Acceptance & Peace

Dear Senator Coleman,

Despite what happens to you during this most contentious war for the U.S. Senate Seat in Minnesota, I want to wish you a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

I am writing you from Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. I am away from my family, friends and the snow in Connecticut, but I plan to spend a very beautiful, warm and relaxing holiday in Zanzibar. While I am taking the ferry over later today to spend the night, I plan to review my life in 2008. I will look at all of the incredibly smart things I have said and done to win with others and myself, but also the stupid decisions and mistakes I have made that have cost me. Mostly I’ll ponder about how to peacefully reconcile my present with my future.

Sir, I want to know if you would kindly consider giving yourself two Christmas presents this year - 1. Acceptance of what is meant to be wrapped in a big white bow and 2. Peace of Mind dressed in gold wrapping paper with yellow ribbons.

During President George W. Bush’s first term, I remember seeing you at the White House a number of times. I did not know who you were, but I knew you were with Bush because he always acknowledged you and you always spoke to him after the events. Like the other power guys in the room, you were one of the first ones to talk to him. Afterwords, there was always this big laugh at something the president usually said. I know it sounds odd that someone observed you so carefully, but it should not come to you as a surprise since the people of Minnesota have watched you more closely. Since that time, your relationship with the White House changed dramatically. You critiqued the president’s handling of the Iraq War and Hurricane Katrina. At this point, it does not even matter what your status with Bush is. He’s leaving and you are trying to hang on to power by nearly any means necessary.

Now, after the most historic presidential election of Barack Obama, it is Christmas and Hanukah Season, and you still don’t know if you won or not. The State Supreme Court shot down your most recent campaign lawsuit that sought to block the course of the recount due to concerns that some ballots had been counted twice.

I can only imagine how terribly painful it must be to fight so hard to win. Sleepless nights and early morning rises are probably most difficult. I have noticed the signs of aging on your face due to the stress of trying to prove you deserve this Senate seat. I am sure you talk endlessly with your loved ones, campaign staff, friends and anyone who will really lend a listening ear why this nightmarish election against inexperienced comedian like Al Franken is so laughable. It must be difficult to think that perhaps the ultimate shaggy dog story might be on you for losing this seat to someone who either might become a great junior Senator or a big joke like your former Governor Jesse Ventura.

Then again, you might win and then have a national press conference with your family by your side. You may have the opportunity to show that great smile of yours once again, and thank the people of Minnesota for their patience and understanding over this bitter and oh so ugly battle. In as much as this could happen, will you still have peace of mind if you win? Will you still feel like you won with the dignity and pride of winning a seat to serve Minnesotans?

If you lose, can you be like your colleague Senator John McCain and rise out of the ashes like he did? Can you find that place in your heart that leads you to an even greater purpose for your future once you figured what really happened? Are there lessons you can teach others about the true agony of defeat? Please don’t be upset by my questions. These questions can be applied to any leader at any given time.

I am comforted to know that you stated that life goes on should you lose. I just only hope it was more than just words. I am not advocating that you give up or thrown in the towel, but whatever the outcome, I hope you can look into the eyes of the people of Minnesota with reconciliation and a new self awareness.

David Sirota: Fox News: "Historians Pretty Much Agree" That FDR Prolonged the Great Depression

I appeared on Fox News yesterday to discuss both the Blagojevich flap and the imminent economic recovery package from the Obama administration. You can watch the clip here. As you’ll see, on that latter issue, Fox News is starting its campaign to stop Obama’s big spending plan by stating - as assumed fact - that “historians pretty much agree” that Franklin Roosevelt prolonged the Great Depression, and that therefore, Obama shouldn’t try another New Deal.

When I say Fox News’ assertion about historians is patently false, they literally laugh at me as if I’ve said something so clearly untrue, something Americans supposedly assume is so obviously stupid, that it’s worthy of ridicule.

The Depression issue was brought up by conservative pundit Monica Crowley - not surprising since this is the conservative talking point du jour ever since the “center-right nation” meme started looking idiotic and ever since fringe-right-wing bloviator Amity Shlaes published her since-discredited book claiming FDR essentially created the Great Depression. Crowley supported her the “FDR ruined the country” meme with the very authoritative-sounding statement that “based on all kinds of studies and academic work done on the great depression” she knows that the New Deal’s “massive government intervention prolonged the Great Depression.”

Of course, she doesn’t offer up a single study or “academic work” as any kind of proof, and yet, when I say her assertion is absurd, Fox News anchor Greg Jarrett starts laughing at me - as if my assertion that FDR’s New Deal helped end the Great Depression is so fantastical as to prompt guffawing. Jarrett proceeds to state that historians “pretty much agree” that FDR prolonged the Great Depression, and resorts to insisting that he knows that’s true because “it’s in the books” - whatever the hell that means. Indeed, Fox wants us to believe that what was only very recently the deranged propaganda of a handful of conservative political pundits is now such a consensus opinion among historians that to say otherwise is to evoke laughter.

Now, it’s true - back in 2004, two UCLA professors published a little-noticed report claiming the New Deal’s government intervention prolonged the Great Depression. But that assertion has been subsequently eviscerated by, ya know, actual data.

Here’s University of California historian Eric Rauchway:

For a start, New Deal intervention saved the banks. During Hoover’s presidency, around 20 percent of American banks failed, and, without deposit insurance, one collapse prompted another as savers pulled their money out of the shaky system. When Roosevelt came into office, he ordered the banks closed and audited. A week later, authorities began reopening banks, and deposits returned to vaults.

Congress also established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which, as economists Milton Friedman and Anna Jacobson Schwartz wrote, was “the structural change most conducive to monetary stability since … the Civil War.” After the creation of the FDIC, bank failures almost entirely disappeared. New Dealers also recapitalized banks by buying about a billion dollars of preferred stock…

The most important thing to know about Roosevelt’s economics is that, despite claims to the contrary, the economy recovered during the New Deal. During Roosevelt’s first two terms, the U.S. economy grew at average annual growth rates of 9 percent to 10 percent, with the exception of the recession year of 1937-1938…

Excepting 1937-1938, unemployment fell each year of Roosevelt’s first two terms. In part, the jobs came from Washington, which directly employed as many as 3.6 million people to build roads, bridges, ports, airports, stadiums, and schools — as well as, of course, to paint murals and stage plays. But new jobs also came from the private sector, where manufacturing work increased apace.

This basic fact is clear — unless you quote only the unemployment rate for the recession year 1938 and count government employees hired under the New Deal as unemployed, which conservative commenters have taken to doing.

So, as Rauchway says, the hard data about bank closures, job creation and overall economic growth rates proves the regulations and spending of the New Deal helped end the Great Depression. In fact, Rauchway notes that the data actually suggests that the major, data-driven criticism of the New Deal is that it didn’t spend enough money fast enough.

But, OK - let’s say you want to cherry pick the unemployment numbers like a right-wing pundit. Let’s say that, as Rauchway notes, you are a conservative dittohead totally comfortable dishonestly “quot[ing] only the unemployment rate for the recession year 1938 and count[ing] government employees hired under the New Deal as unemployed.” Shouldn’t you be blaming conservative ideology, and not New Deal-ism, for those numbers? After all, as Paul Krugman recently explained to a stunningly ignorant George Will on ABC News, 1937-1938 was the period Roosevelt dialed back the New Deal in the name of conservative demands that he stop spending:

By 1937 things were a lot better than they were in 1933. Then [FDR] was persuaded to balance the budget or try to and he raised taxes and cut spending and the economy went back down again and then it took an enormous public works program known as World War II to bring the economy out of the depression.

So with all of that data, let’s go back to Fox News’ main assertion: Is it really true that “historians pretty much agree” that the New Deal’s government intervention prolonged the Great Depression? Of course not, as New York Times economics writer Daniel Gross says:

It was only with the passage of New Deal efforts–the SEC, the FDIC, the FSLIC–that the mechanisms of private capital began to kick back into gear. Don’t take it from me. Take it from Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, who wrote the following in Essays on the Great Depression: “Only with the New Deal’s rehabilitation of the financial system in 1933-35 did the economy begin its slow emergence from the Great Depression.”…

The argument that the New Deal’s efforts “perhaps had prolonged, the Depression,” is a canard. One would be very hard-pressed to find a serious professional historian–I mean a serious historian, not a think-tank wanker, not an economist, not a journalist–who believes that the New Deal prolonged the Depression. (emphasis added)

In other words, it’s the opposite of what Fox News says. “Historians pretty much agree” on one thing when it comes to Roosevelt: The New Deal helped end the Great Depression. But I would go even further than that, and agree with economist Brad DeLong who said that whether you are a historian or not - to argue what Jarrett and Crowley argued yesterday is to publicly declare oneself as divorced from the facts as the most ridiculed conspiracy theorists. As DeLong says, “A normal person would not argue that the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression.”

But, then, these are not “normal people” - those making these arguments are right-wing automatons whose claim that we shouldn’t look at actual data, we should simply accept the truth of their claims because they insist “it’s in the books!” or they’ve supposedly seen “all kinds of studies and academic work” that proves their hysteria true.

Of course, the good news is what I said on Fox News before they cut me off: While the right’s historical revisionism is dishonest, it’s doing progressives a big favor.

If the right wants to try to stop a serious economic recovery package and financial regulations by trying to vilify one of the most popular presidents and popular policy programs in American history, then I’ll say what George Bush once said: Bring it on. Every high school civics class teaches the broad truth about Roosevelt, the New Deal and how it helped end the Great Depression, and if the conservative movement has gone so off the deep end that they want to make crazy-sounding arguments that even high schoolers know are silly, then the progressive movement is in an even better position than we may have thought.

Jewish Groups Convene For Obama Transition Meeting

High-ranking officials with Barack Obama’s transition team met for roughly two-and-a-half hours with a wide-range of Jewish groups that encompassed nearly the entire ideological spectrum.

The meeting, which involved 29 organizations ranging from hawkish (Zionist Organization of America and, to a lesser extent, AIPAC) and conservative (the Orthodox Union) to Democratic (the National Jewish Democratic Council) and progressive (J Street, Peace Now), took place in the transition’s Washington D.C. office on Thursday afternoon.

Reflecting the variety of viewpoints at the table, a host of foreign policy and domestic topics were raised for discussion. Disagreements between the groups were aired before the Obama officials, which included deputy chief of staff Jim Messina, public liaison Michael Strautmanis, Jewish outreach coordinator Dan Shapiro, and aides Tonya Robinson and Eric Lynn.

On several occasions, the Obama team was pressed to define the president-elect’s position on a paramount issue to Jewish groups: U.S. policy towards Iran.

“They assured us, as the vice president-elect has said, that the Iran/nuclear issue is one of the things at the very top of the agenda,” said an attendee. “They repeated the idea that we should be focusing on it diplomatically and not just militarily. Some of the more right-wing groups were saying that it can’t be carrots and no sticks, that we are running out of time…. The Obama team said [in response] that preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons is an issue that the president-elect, as he’s made clear during and after the election, considers a primary concern. It is not something that will fall off the radar.”

Participants in the meeting, which was first reported by Politico’s Ben Smith, also addressed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “Pretty much everybody in there but a handful of people were for a two-state solution,” said an attendee. Obama’s positions on energy and health care received attention as well.

“On domestic issues, except for some of the orthodox groups, it sounded like a cheerleading session for the transition team’s format,” said the source.

What stood out, above all else, was not any particular policy statements, but rather the gathering of such ideologically disparate groups under one roof. The meeting, the attendee noted, was very much in line with the Obama campaign’s stated mission to listen to a whole host of opinions when it comes to formulating foreign policy.

“The fact that they took time to do this,” said the source, “and that they did this with senior transition people, was deeply appreciated.”

Read more: Jewish Organizations, Obama Transition, Obama Jews, Obama Foriegn Policy, Transition Team, Obama Iran, Obama Israel, Obama Jewish Groups, Iran Policy, Barack Obama Iran Statement, President Obama, Iran, Politics News

Minnesota Recount: Franken Starting To Make Big Gains On Challenged Ballots

For the past few days, the Minnesota State canvassing board has been sifting through the roughly 1,500 ballots challenged by both candidates for U.S. Senate.

Their findings will determine who exactly has won this race — now several weeks removed from the election. And as things currently stand, Democratic challenger Al Franken seems to be in an increasingly favorable position.

On Tuesday and Wednesday, the board went through all the challenges to ballots made by the Franken campaign. These were mostly votes cast for Sen. Norm Coleman that contained enough clerical errors or vague voter intent to merit protest.

Through those approximately 440 challenges, Coleman picked up somewhere in the ballpark of 250 votes. Franken, meanwhile, earned roughly 100 votes (mostly on ballots that were rejected from the count on Election Day but where it was ruled that the voter intended to support the Democratic candidate). Thus, Coleman added approximately 150 votes to his Election Day lead — itself believed to be roughly 200 votes.

On Thursday, however, the canvassing board made its way to the approximately 1,000 ballots that Coleman had challenged. And the tides have dramatically shifted in Franken’s favor. Plowing through the pile of ballots (the board insisted that it will finish this process on Friday afternoon, regardless of how long it has to work on that day) Franken’s vote pickup total rose to more than 220 by 12:45 P.M.

As such, it seems increasingly likely that Franken will soon be in the black when it comes to votes gained, and that the gap he faced on Election Day will begin to close. Both the Associated Press and the Minneapolis Star Tribune project that Franken will overtake Coleman once this process is ended. And this count doesn’t even include the disputed wrongfully rejected absentee ballots that the canvassing board ruled should be added to the final result.

To watch the ongoing canvass board meeting check out uptake.org.

UPDATE: As of 1:30pm, Franken was still making impressive gains in the challenge process. So far, nearly 300 Coleman challenges have been reviewed (as well as all of Franken’s challenges) and the Democrat has gained 273 votes. Coleman, meanwhile, has gained 249 votes.

In other words: with roughly 700 Coleman challenges left to review, Franken has already chipped away 24 votes from his lead.

Read more: Minnesota Senate, Franken Coleman, Coleman Recount, Canvassing Board, Coleman Challenges, Al Franken, Challenged Ballots, Franken Challenges, Politics News

Connecticut Democrats backing off Lieberman censure resolution.

Last September, the Connecticut Democratic Party central committee agreed on a resolution censuring Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) for his vigorous support of John McCain and for speaking at the Republican National Convention. But after Lieberman escaped rebuke in the U.S. Senate, it appears now that the “anger is draining“:

“We’re in the process of updating the resolution to be more reflective of the current time and situation,” said Audrey Blondin of Litchfield, one of two committee members who proposed the censure. Words like “censure” are certain to disappear. So is any suggestion that Lieberman end his affiliation as a registered Democratic voter in Connecticut. Instead?

“An expression of disappointment, an expression of disapproval,” Blondin said. “And let it go at that.”

Next Page »