<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Salon.com > Democratic Party</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.salon.com/topic/democratic_party/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.salon.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 14:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Don&#8217;t wish for a Newt nomination</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/26/dont_wish_for_a_newt_nomination/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/26/dont_wish_for_a_newt_nomination/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jan 2012 19:41:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Newt Gingrich]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican Party]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12243641</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Republicans are worried sick about Newt Gingrich’s ascendance, while Democrats are tickled pink.</p><p>Yet no responsible Democrat should be pleased at the prospect that Gingrich could get the GOP nomination. The future of America is too important to accept even a small risk of a Gingrich presidency.</p><p>The Republican worry is understandable. “The possibility of Newt Gingrich being our nominee against Barack Obama I think is essentially handling the election over to Obama,” says former Minnesota Governor Tom Pawlenty, a leading GOP conservative. “I think that’s shared by a lot of folks in the Republican party.”</p><p>Pawlenty’s views are indeed widely shared in Republican circles. “He’s not a conservative – he’s an opportunist,” says pundit Joe Scarborough, a member of the Republican Class of 1994 who came to Washington under Gingrich’s banner. Gingrich doesn’t “have the temperament, intellectual discipline or ego control to be either a successful nominee or president,” says New York Republican Rep. Peter King, who hasn’t endorsed any candidate. “Basically, Newt can’t control himself.”</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/01/26/dont_wish_for_a_newt_nomination/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Republicans are worried sick about Newt Gingrich’s ascendance, while Democrats are tickled pink.</p><p>Yet no responsible Democrat should be pleased at the prospect that Gingrich could get the GOP nomination. The future of America is too important to accept even a small risk of a Gingrich presidency.</p><p>The Republican worry is understandable. “The possibility of Newt Gingrich being our nominee against Barack Obama I think is essentially handling the election over to Obama,” says former Minnesota Governor Tom Pawlenty, a leading GOP conservative. “I think that’s shared by a lot of folks in the Republican party.”</p><p>Pawlenty’s views are indeed widely shared in Republican circles. “He’s not a conservative – he’s an opportunist,” says pundit Joe Scarborough, a member of the Republican Class of 1994 who came to Washington under Gingrich’s banner. Gingrich doesn’t “have the temperament, intellectual discipline or ego control to be either a successful nominee or president,” says New York Republican Rep. Peter King, who hasn’t endorsed any candidate. “Basically, Newt can’t control himself.”</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/01/26/dont_wish_for_a_newt_nomination/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/26/dont_wish_for_a_newt_nomination/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>104</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Democrats got over $1 million from Bain</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/19/democrats_got_over_1_million_from_bain/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/19/democrats_got_over_1_million_from_bain/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2012 15:51:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bain Capital]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Room]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mitt Romney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12196621</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>The record of Bain Capital is already a primary line of attack against Mitt Romney by Democrats, especially because of Romney's <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/17/is-romney-backtracking-on-his-100000-jobs-created-claim/">claim</a> that he created 100,000 jobs during his tenure at the firm.</p><p>Democrats have released <a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/democrats-attack-romney-over-bain">ads</a> on Bain, and Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz said this month of Romney, "He was a corporate-buyout specialist at Bain Capital. He dismantled companies. He cut jobs. He forced companies into bankruptcy and he outsourced jobs and sent jobs overseas."</p><p>Obama campaign strategists are also <a href="http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/is-the-bain-capital-story-peaking-too-early.php">promising</a> that the current flare-up over Bain is just a taste of what's to come in the general election, if Romney is the nominee.</p><p>As an investigation by the Hill <a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/205025-dems-receive-more-bain-dollars-than-gop">found</a>, though, Democratic campaigns have actually received more money from Bain executives than Republicans in recent years. The Washington newspaper <a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/205025-dems-receive-more-bain-dollars-than-gop">reports</a>:</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/01/19/democrats_got_over_1_million_from_bain/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Read this story at <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/01/19/democrats_got_over_1_million_from_bain/">http://www.salon.com/2012/01/19/democrats_got_over_1_million_from_bain/</a></p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/01/19/democrats_got_over_1_million_from_bain/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/19/democrats_got_over_1_million_from_bain/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>49</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A win for progressives on Israel</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/13/a_win_for_progressives_on_israel/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/13/a_win_for_progressives_on_israel/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2012 20:15:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel-Palestine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12150461</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Rep. Donna Edwards, a Maryland Democrat who is associated with J Street, which argues for a more progressive U.S. policy on the Israel-Palestine conflict, has staved off a challenge from a fellow Democrat who sought to raise money by running to her right on Mideast issues.</p><p>This week, Glenn Ivey, the former Prince George's County state's attorney, announced he was abandoning plans to challenge Edwards, citing his inability to raise money.</p><p>“[I]t would take a very substantial amount of money to get my message out to voters in two very expensive media markets," Ivey said in a <a href="http://www.rollcall.com/news/Glenn-Ivey-Donna-Edwards-Maryland-wont-run-Congress-211430-1.html">statement</a>. "A tough economy and a compressed election time-frame have made it tough for my campaign to raise enough funds to move forward."</p><p>Ivey had raised about $150,000 while Edwards had taken in about $230,000, according to the latest available numbers <a href="http://www.baltimoresun.com/explore/howard/news/ph-ll-cns-ivey-quits-20120111,0,7935705.story">reported</a> by the Baltimore Sun. Part of the fundraising fight centered on the contentious issue of American policy toward Israel.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/01/13/a_win_for_progressives_on_israel/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rep. Donna Edwards, a Maryland Democrat who is associated with J Street, which argues for a more progressive U.S. policy on the Israel-Palestine conflict, has staved off a challenge from a fellow Democrat who sought to raise money by running to her right on Mideast issues.</p><p>This week, Glenn Ivey, the former Prince George&#8217;s County state&#8217;s attorney, announced he was abandoning plans to challenge Edwards, citing his inability to raise money.</p><p>“[I]t would take a very substantial amount of money to get my message out to voters in two very expensive media markets,&#8221; Ivey said in a <a href="http://www.rollcall.com/news/Glenn-Ivey-Donna-Edwards-Maryland-wont-run-Congress-211430-1.html">statement</a>. &#8220;A tough economy and a compressed election time-frame have made it tough for my campaign to raise enough funds to move forward.&#8221;</p><p>Ivey had raised about $150,000 while Edwards had taken in about $230,000, according to the latest available numbers <a href="http://www.baltimoresun.com/explore/howard/news/ph-ll-cns-ivey-quits-20120111,0,7935705.story">reported</a> by the Baltimore Sun. Part of the fundraising fight centered on the contentious issue of American policy toward Israel.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/01/13/a_win_for_progressives_on_israel/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/13/a_win_for_progressives_on_israel/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>137</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Should liberals be more thankful for Obama?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/23/should_liberals_be_more_thankful_for_obama/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/23/should_liberals_be_more_thankful_for_obama/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Nov 2011 13:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bill Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=10249603</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>I got to debate Jonathan Chait about his much-discussed New York magazine piece, "<a href="http://nymag.com/news/politics/liberals-jonathan-chait-2011-11/">When Did Liberals Become So Unreasonable?</a>" on "Hardball" Tuesday night. He's aiming at President Obama's liberal critics, but in fact his article proves that criticism is nothing new. Apparently, we've always been unreasonable, because Chait's survey of Democratic presidents going back to FDR finds that the left has always found a reason to squawk. But he seems to think we're particularly unreasonable when it comes to Obama. With Thanksgiving ahead, I found myself wondering whether liberals should be more grateful to the president.</p><p>First, let's take in the list of Obama's accomplishments as Chait describes them. They're considerable:</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/11/23/should_liberals_be_more_thankful_for_obama/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Read this story at <a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/11/23/should_liberals_be_more_thankful_for_obama/">http://www.salon.com/2011/11/23/should_liberals_be_more_thankful_for_obama/</a></p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/11/23/should_liberals_be_more_thankful_for_obama/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/23/should_liberals_be_more_thankful_for_obama/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>301</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Karl Rove spending millions lying about everyone</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/16/karl_rove_spending_millions_lying_about_everyone/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/16/karl_rove_spending_millions_lying_about_everyone/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Nov 2011 15:35:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Karl Rove]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Elizabeth Warren]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Campaign Finance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Crossroads GPS]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=10224185</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>An ad by Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS attacking Montana Sen. Jon Tester was <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/11/crossroads-ad-karl-rove-false-jon-tester_n_1089182.html?ref=homepage">pulled from the air</a> by a cable service because it contains nothing but very blatant and indefensible lies, unlike the usual defensible lies and distortions most political ads make.</p><p>Cablevision's Optimum cable pulled the ad, which claimed that Tester voted against banning the EPA from regulating farm dust. The supposed EPA rule <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/25/farm-dust-regulation-gop-bill_n_1031215.html?1319575647">was completely imaginary</a> and the vote was about Chinese currency manipulation.</p><p><iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/1HtHY1qvizI" frameborder="0" width="420" height="315"></iframe></p><p>I bet Crossroads is super embarrassed about this awful mistake, right? Of course they are:</p><blockquote><p>Nate Hodson of Crossroads said in defense of the pulled ad, "It was a very small cable system. The four largest broadcast stations in Montana reviewed the facts supporting the ad and will continue airing it."</p>
<p>He said later, "We are communicating with the cable system and expect that the ad will be back up and running on cable soon."</p></blockquote><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/11/16/karl_rove_spending_millions_lying_about_everyone/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Read this story at <a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/11/16/karl_rove_spending_millions_lying_about_everyone/">http://www.salon.com/2011/11/16/karl_rove_spending_millions_lying_about_everyone/</a></p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/11/16/karl_rove_spending_millions_lying_about_everyone/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/16/karl_rove_spending_millions_lying_about_everyone/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>31</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The myth of the progressive city</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/07/the_myth_of_the_progressive_city/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/07/the_myth_of_the_progressive_city/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Nov 2011 18:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York City]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chicago]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=10171928</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>If you've listened to a political pundit predict any election in the last 50 years, you've been told that there are Republican small towns whose politics are organized around the three G's (guns, God and gays) and there are Democratic cities whose politics are organized around the two L's (labor and economic liberalism). While this binary mythology is insulting for its hackneyed stereotyping and lack of nuance, it has at least half the story right -- in terms of sheer partisanship, many rural areas do tend to go red, and many urban areas do tend to go blue.</p><p>Where this story goes wrong is in its ideological suppositions about the cities -- and specifically, about Democratic cities. Sure, two or three decades ago, there may have been some truth to the notion that the American city is a union-driven bastion of populist progressive economics. But today, while cities may still largely vote Democratic, they are increasingly embracing the economics of corporatism. The result is that urban areas are a driving force behind the widening intra-party rift between the corporatist, pro-privatization Wall Street Democrats and the traditional labor-progressive "Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party."</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/11/07/the_myth_of_the_progressive_city/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Read this story at <a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/11/07/the_myth_of_the_progressive_city/">http://www.salon.com/2011/11/07/the_myth_of_the_progressive_city/</a></p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/11/07/the_myth_of_the_progressive_city/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/07/the_myth_of_the_progressive_city/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>17</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ben Nelson: Please don&#8217;t seek reelection!</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/02/ben_nelson_please_dont_seek_reelection/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/02/ben_nelson_please_dont_seek_reelection/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Nov 2011 19:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ben Nelson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Senate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Room]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=10160907</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://journalstar.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/article_0473f062-6c84-55f4-9171-eab01b7bcd5d.html">According to the Lincoln Journal Star,</a> Senator Ben Nelson has not yet decided whether or not to run for reelection. Consider this my open letter to the distinguished Democrat from Nebraska: Please, please, I beg you, Senator Ben Nelson, do not run for reelection.</p><blockquote><p>"I'll sit down with my family to discuss the future," Nelson said Tuesday during a telephone interview. "They are my sounding board. I value what they say."</p>
<p>Nelson said he will weigh his family's views along with a personal judgment on "whether I believe I have a role to play in dealing with a very divided Congress in a very divided country, whether I could be constructive in finding some solutions, whether I am convinced I can be a positive force for the following six years."</p></blockquote><p>Senator Nelson, you have never been a "positive force" during your time in office thus far, and it seems unlikely that you will become one at any point in the next six years.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/11/02/ben_nelson_please_dont_seek_reelection/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Read this story at <a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/11/02/ben_nelson_please_dont_seek_reelection/">http://www.salon.com/2011/11/02/ben_nelson_please_dont_seek_reelection/</a></p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/11/02/ben_nelson_please_dont_seek_reelection/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/02/ben_nelson_please_dont_seek_reelection/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>26</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why Andrew Breitbart can&#8217;t grasp Occupy Wall Street</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/18/why_andrew_breitbart_cant_grasp_occupy_wall_street/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/18/why_andrew_breitbart_cant_grasp_occupy_wall_street/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Oct 2011 16:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Occupy Wall Street]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Andrew Breitbart]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Anarchism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=10125177</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Andrew Breitbart has <a href="http://www.alternet.org/story/152745/andrew_breitbart%27s_pathetic_attempt_to_smear_occupy_wall_st._">tracked down secret internal Occupy Wall Street emails</a> that prove the entire movement is a leftist conspiracy to destabilize capitalism. There are anarchists involved! And ACORN!</p><p>Breitbart obtained <a href="http://owsmail.dc406.com/">a couple thousand listserv emails</a> from some Occupy Wall Street participants and organizers arguing strategy and planning events, and <a href="http://biggovernment.com/abreitbart/2011/10/14/crowdsource-this-social-list-emails-expose-occupywallstreet-conspiracy-to-destablize-global-markets-governments/">he has "crowdsourced"</a> his analysis of these emails because he doesn't really understand any of it.</p><p>Despite his inability to grasp who these people are and what they want, he has determined "the true purpose" of the movement, based on a couple of random things some anarchist organizers wrote to one another:</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/10/18/why_andrew_breitbart_cant_grasp_occupy_wall_street/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Read this story at <a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/10/18/why_andrew_breitbart_cant_grasp_occupy_wall_street/">http://www.salon.com/2011/10/18/why_andrew_breitbart_cant_grasp_occupy_wall_street/</a></p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/10/18/why_andrew_breitbart_cant_grasp_occupy_wall_street/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/18/why_andrew_breitbart_cant_grasp_occupy_wall_street/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>60</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The progressive debate we need</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/18/the_progressive_debate_we_need/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/18/the_progressive_debate_we_need/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Oct 2011 13:08:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Occupy Wall Street]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Great Recession]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=10124594</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Republicans are debating again tonight. And once again, Americans will hear the standard regressive litany: government is bad, Medicare and Medicaid should be cut, “Obamacare” is killing the economy, undocumented immigrants are taking our jobs, the military should get more money, taxes should be lowered on corporations and the rich, and regulations should be gutted.</p><p>Four years ago the most widely-watched TV debate among Republican aspirants attracted 3.2 million viewers. This year it’s almost twice that number. And for every viewer assume a multiplier effect as he or she shares what’s heard with friends and family.</p><p>Americans are listening more intently this time around because they’re hurting and they want answers. But the answers they’re getting from Republican candidates – tripping over themselves trying to appeal to hard-core regressives – are the wrong ones.</p><p>The correct ones aren’t being aired.</p><p>That’s partly because there’s no primary contest in the Democratic party. So Republicans automatically get loads of free broadcast time to air their regressive nonsense while the Democrats get none.</p><p>But even if the President had equal time, the debate about what to do about the crisis would still be frighteningly narrow.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/10/18/the_progressive_debate_we_need/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Republicans are debating again tonight. And once again, Americans will hear the standard regressive litany: government is bad, Medicare and Medicaid should be cut, “Obamacare” is killing the economy, undocumented immigrants are taking our jobs, the military should get more money, taxes should be lowered on corporations and the rich, and regulations should be gutted.</p><p>Four years ago the most widely-watched TV debate among Republican aspirants attracted 3.2 million viewers. This year it’s almost twice that number. And for every viewer assume a multiplier effect as he or she shares what’s heard with friends and family.</p><p>Americans are listening more intently this time around because they’re hurting and they want answers. But the answers they’re getting from Republican candidates – tripping over themselves trying to appeal to hard-core regressives – are the wrong ones.</p><p>The correct ones aren’t being aired.</p><p>That’s partly because there’s no primary contest in the Democratic party. So Republicans automatically get loads of free broadcast time to air their regressive nonsense while the Democrats get none.</p><p>But even if the President had equal time, the debate about what to do about the crisis would still be frighteningly narrow.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/10/18/the_progressive_debate_we_need/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/18/the_progressive_debate_we_need/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>31</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Democrats can&#8217;t occupy Wall Street</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/11/democrats_populism/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/11/democrats_populism/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Occupy Wall Street]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tea Parties]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=10106883</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Can the Occupy Wall Street movement do for the Democrats what the Tea Party has done for the Republicans? Will a spontaneous grass-roots uprising against the rich neutralize the manipulated “Astroturf” Tea Party movement’s assault on big government, assure a second term for Barack Obama and lead to the new New Deal that progressives have been waiting for?</p><p>Alas, probably not. Ever since Richard Nixon won his reelection victory in 1972 by appealing to many of the discontented populists attracted to George Wallace, the Republican Party, formerly a party of big city boardroom types and small-town Rotarians, has been based at least in its rhetoric on right-wing populism. The Tea Party movement is merely an extreme exaggeration of the mainstream GOP.</p><p>But the Democrats since George McGovern captured the party’s presidential nomination in the same fateful year of 1972 have been the opposite of a left-wing populist party. Thus while right-wing populism reinforces the existing Republican story about America, any genuine left-wing populism would challenge the basic constituencies and values of the McGovern-to-Obama Democrats. There are six reasons in particular why Democrats are unlikely to benefit as much from populism as Republicans.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/10/11/democrats_populism/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Read this story at <a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/10/11/democrats_populism/">http://www.salon.com/2011/10/11/democrats_populism/</a></p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/10/11/democrats_populism/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/11/democrats_populism/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>194</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dems backing Occupy Wall St. are funded by Wall St.</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/10/dems_backing_occupy_wall_st_are_funded_by_wall_st/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/10/dems_backing_occupy_wall_st_are_funded_by_wall_st/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Oct 2011 17:35:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Occupy Wall Street]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=10106751</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>A lot has been made in the last few days of increasing Democratic Party support for Occupy Wall Street. Some within the movement have expressed fears of co-optation. Some on the right have argued that the Dems are blundering by throwing in their lot with a group of putative radicals. And so on.</p><p>The irony is that the same elected Democrats singing the praises of Occupy Wall Street are themselves major recipients of money from … Wall Street!</p><p>Does this mean that the Democratic embrace should be rejected? Not necessarily. Occupy Wall Street could, of course, open up political space for Democrats to address unemployment, income inequality, criminality by banks, the overwhelming influence of corporate money in politics and so on. But it's worth keeping in mind that most if not all of these politicians have been cozy with Wall Street for years; so there are grounds for suspicion.</p><p>Take the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), the party organization that collects money for House races around the country. It is now soliciting signatures (along with email addresses for its database) for a <a href="http://www.dccc.org/pages/occupy">petition</a> in support of Occupy Wall Street.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/10/10/dems_backing_occupy_wall_st_are_funded_by_wall_st/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Read this story at <a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/10/10/dems_backing_occupy_wall_st_are_funded_by_wall_st/">http://www.salon.com/2011/10/10/dems_backing_occupy_wall_st_are_funded_by_wall_st/</a></p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/10/10/dems_backing_occupy_wall_st_are_funded_by_wall_st/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/10/dems_backing_occupy_wall_st_are_funded_by_wall_st/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>25</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Occupy Wall Street isn&#8217;t the left&#8217;s Tea Party</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/10/democrats_occupy_wall_street/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/10/democrats_occupy_wall_street/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Oct 2011 13:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Occupy Wall Street]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=10106558</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Will the Wall Street Occupiers morph into a movement that has as much impact on the Democratic Party as the Tea Party has had on the GOP? Maybe. But there are reasons for doubting it.</p><p>Tea Partiers have been a mixed blessing for the GOP establishment – a source of new ground troops and energy but also a pain in the assets with regard to attracting independent voters. As Rick Perry and Mitt Romney square off, that pain will become more evident.</p><p>So far the Wall Street Occupiers have helped the Democratic Party. Their inchoate demand that the rich pay their fair share is tailor-made for the Democrats’ new plan for a 5.6 percent tax on millionaires, as well as the President’s push to end the Bush tax cut for people with incomes over $250,000 and to limit deductions at the top.</p><p>And the Occupiers give the President a potential campaign theme. “These days, a lot of folks who are doing the right thing aren’t rewarded and a lot of folks who aren’t doing the right thing are rewarded,” he said at his news conference this week, predicting that the frustration fueling the Occupiers will “express itself politically in 2012 and beyond until people feel like once again we’re getting back to some old-fashioned American values.”</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/10/10/democrats_occupy_wall_street/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Will the Wall Street Occupiers morph into a movement that has as much impact on the Democratic Party as the Tea Party has had on the GOP? Maybe. But there are reasons for doubting it.</p><p>Tea Partiers have been a mixed blessing for the GOP establishment – a source of new ground troops and energy but also a pain in the assets with regard to attracting independent voters. As Rick Perry and Mitt Romney square off, that pain will become more evident.</p><p>So far the Wall Street Occupiers have helped the Democratic Party. Their inchoate demand that the rich pay their fair share is tailor-made for the Democrats’ new plan for a 5.6 percent tax on millionaires, as well as the President’s push to end the Bush tax cut for people with incomes over $250,000 and to limit deductions at the top.</p><p>And the Occupiers give the President a potential campaign theme. “These days, a lot of folks who are doing the right thing aren’t rewarded and a lot of folks who aren’t doing the right thing are rewarded,” he said at his news conference this week, predicting that the frustration fueling the Occupiers will “express itself politically in 2012 and beyond until people feel like once again we’re getting back to some old-fashioned American values.”</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/10/10/democrats_occupy_wall_street/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/10/democrats_occupy_wall_street/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>21</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Unions, Democrats and Occupy Wall Street</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/05/unions_democrats_occupy_wall_street/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/05/unions_democrats_occupy_wall_street/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Oct 2011 13:05:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>I'm embarrassed to admit my first reaction to Occupy Wall Street was cynicism. Along with some other folks on Twitter when it began Sept. 17, I wondered aloud why it started on a Saturday, when Wall Street was quiet. I couldn't find a list of its goals. Visiting New York a few days later, I walked along Wall Street in the rain trying to find protesters, but though there were barricades all along that dark canyon, and cops everywhere, nobody was protesting; I later saw a few dozen people among tents at Liberty Plaza, but by that time I was running to catch my plane home.</p><p>The next day, the New York Police Department cruelly pepper-sprayed female protesters, and suddenly the movement came alive. Ever since, I've been struck by the good sense the protesters have used in dealing with the police (in contrast with the poor sense of some of the cops): They are not making them the enemy. In fact, as 700 people were being arrested on the Brooklyn Bridge on Saturday, they were chanting at the cops: "We're fighting for your pensions!" It didn't keep the protesters from getting arrested, but it kept them on the moral and political high ground.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/10/05/unions_democrats_occupy_wall_street/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Read this story at <a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/10/05/unions_democrats_occupy_wall_street/">http://www.salon.com/2011/10/05/unions_democrats_occupy_wall_street/</a></p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/10/05/unions_democrats_occupy_wall_street/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/05/unions_democrats_occupy_wall_street/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>156</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why white liberals are (really) ditching Obama</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/26/white_liberals_obama_2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/26/white_liberals_obama_2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Sep 2011 14:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Race]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>A few weeks ago, I wrote an <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/david_sirota/2011/08/26/americans_denying_racism/index.html" class="storyLink">essay</a> that got me a much larger truckload of hate mail than usual. The piece concerned the persistent problem of denialism in parts of White America when it comes to race. I lamented how, despite media and political insinuations that whites have become an oppressed group, it is people of color -- and in particular, African Americans -- who remain the real casualties of discrimination:</p><blockquote>
<p>You can see [this racism] in black unemployment rates, which are twice as high as white unemployment rates -- a disparity that persists even when controlling for education levels. You can see it in a 2004 MIT study showing that job-seekers with "white names receive 50 percent more callbacks for interviews" than job seekers with comparable resumes and "African-American-sounding names." And you can see it in a news media that looks like an all-white country club and a U.S. Senate that includes no black legislators.</p>
</blockquote><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/09/26/white_liberals_obama_2/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Read this story at <a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/09/26/white_liberals_obama_2/">http://www.salon.com/2011/09/26/white_liberals_obama_2/</a></p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/09/26/white_liberals_obama_2/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/26/white_liberals_obama_2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>236</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How the two-party duopoly operates</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/23/democrat_republican_similarity/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/23/democrat_republican_similarity/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Sep 2011 11:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican Party]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/david_sirota/2011/09/23/democrat_republican_similarity</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>By now, probably everyone reading this is already sick of America's quadrennial political spectacle -- the one in which politicians and media outlets ask us to believe that there remain vast differences between our two political parties. It's like cheaply staged pornography on a red and blue set, with words like "polarization," "socialist" and "extremist" comprising the breathless dialogue in a wholly unconvincing plot.</p><p>Some of this tripe can be momentarily compelling, of course. And as the 2012 election climax draws nearer, many Americans will no doubt submit to the fantasy. But before that happens, it's worth looking a few levels beneath the orgiastic presidential campaign for a last necessary dose of nonfiction, if only to remind us that the parties are often two heads of the same political monster.</p><p>As good a place as any to get such a dose is my home state of Colorado, which this month provided two emblematic examples of how the two party duopoly really operates.</p><p>Exhibit A is our Republican secretary of state, Scott Gessler. Though his job is to enforce campaign finance rules and protect voting rights, he's proudly using his office for exactly the opposite.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/09/23/democrat_republican_similarity/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Read this story at <a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/09/23/democrat_republican_similarity/">http://www.salon.com/2011/09/23/democrat_republican_similarity/</a></p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/09/23/democrat_republican_similarity/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/23/democrat_republican_similarity/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The perils of partisan punditry in the Obama age</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/15/carville_6/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/15/carville_6/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Sep 2011 12:16:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Democratic strategist and CNN&#160;pundit&#160;James Carville has written <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2011/09/14/opinion/carville-white-house-advice/">an article</a> declaring Obama's political and policy approaches to be abject failures and advising several steps to correct course, such as: fire large numbers of his advisers, "make a case like a Democrat,"&#160;and "Panic."&#160; At the end of his list of serious grievances against the White House, he includes this paragraph to make clear that he's still a Good Democrat and is offering the advice only because he wants to help the President win re-election:</p><blockquote>
<p>As I watch the Republican debates, I realize that we are on the brink of a crazy person running our nation. I sit in front of the television and shudder at the thought of one of these creationism-loving, global-warming-denying, immigration-bashing, <strong>Social-Security-cutting, clean-air-hating, mortality-fascinated, Wall-Street-protecting Republicans</strong> running my country.</p>
</blockquote><p>Those first three adjectival accusations against the Republicans -- "creationism-loving, global-warming-denying, immigration-bashing"&#160;-- are fair enough, but let's look at the last four:</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/09/15/carville_6/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Read this story at <a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/09/15/carville_6/">http://www.salon.com/2011/09/15/carville_6/</a></p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/09/15/carville_6/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/15/carville_6/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>360</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Democrats having trouble with Anthony Weiner&#8217;s old seat</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/08/30/weiner_replacement/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/08/30/weiner_replacement/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Aug 2011 17:15:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York City]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. House of Representatives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Room]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//war_room/2011/08/30/weiner_replacement</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Harmless <strike>city council member</strike> Assemblyman David Weprin, the Democrat running in a special election to replace Anthony Weiner, is ... having trouble.</p><p>He accidentally <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2011/08/nys-gop-bashes-ny-9s-weprin-on-debt-bungle">said the national debt was "4 trillion"</a> instead of $14 trillion. Yesterday he <a href="http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/weprin_slammed_for_debate_no_show_01OViMgFRU6T3Xs02hhyVM">pulled out of a debate with his Republican challenger</a> at the last minute. Weprin blamed Hurricane Irene. His opponent, Republican Bob Turner, <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904199404576538993788085006.html?mod=googlenews_wsj">mocked him.</a></p><p>Anthony Weiner enjoyed being a shouty liberal on your television but his (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:New_York_District_09_109th_US_Congress.png">very oddly shaped</a>) congressional district was a lot whiter and a bit older than a lot of the rest of New York City. NY-9 is reliably Democratic -- Obama won it with 55 percent of the vote -- but its largely Jewish and Italian neighborhoods also <a href="http://elections.nytimes.com/2009/results/?ref=nyregion">largely voted for independent Mayor Michael Bloomberg</a> over his Democratic challengers.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/08/30/weiner_replacement/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Read this story at <a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/08/30/weiner_replacement/">http://www.salon.com/2011/08/30/weiner_replacement/</a></p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/08/30/weiner_replacement/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/08/30/weiner_replacement/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>24</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Don&#8217;t buy the &#8220;Democrats are powerless&#8221; myth</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/08/15/powerless_democrats_fable/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/08/15/powerless_democrats_fable/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Aug 2011 17:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/david_sirota/2011/08/15/powerless_democrats_fable</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>
    <em>"Obama's aides say the president has a responsibility to explore policies that have a chance of passage, rather than merely making a political statement." -- <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/nervous-democrats-say-president-obama-must-be-bolder-on-economy/2011/08/10/gIQA8SZS7I_story.html">Washington Post, 8/10/11</a></em>
  </p><p>One of the most persistent memes in modern politics, perfectly embodied by the above quote, is what <a href="%C3%82%C2%A0http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/the-innocent-bystander-fa_1_b_63734.html%C3%82%C2%A0">I've</a> <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/the-medias-own-innocent-b_b_145177.html">long</a> <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/when-will-the-innocent-by_b_65980.html">called the Innocent Bystander Fable</a>. It goes something like this: Democrats really want to do X, but they can't because it's "politically impossible" not "where the country is" and/or doesn't "have a chance of passing."</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/08/15/powerless_democrats_fable/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Read this story at <a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/08/15/powerless_democrats_fable/">http://www.salon.com/2011/08/15/powerless_democrats_fable/</a></p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/08/15/powerless_democrats_fable/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/08/15/powerless_democrats_fable/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>78</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How the Democrats could have saved healthcare</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/08/15/healthcare_law_constitutionality/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/08/15/healthcare_law_constitutionality/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Aug 2011 12:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Healthcare Reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Room]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//war_room/2011/08/15/healthcare_law_constitutionality</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Two appellate judges in Atlanta -- one appointed by President Bill Clinton and one by George H.W. Bush -- have just decided the Constitution doesn't allow the federal government to require individuals to buy health insurance.</p><p>The decision is a major defeat for the White House. The so-called "individual mandate" is a cornerstone of the Affordable Care Act, President Obama's 2010 healthcare reform law, scheduled to go into effect in 2014.</p><p>The whole idea of the law is to pool heath risks. Only if everyone buys insurance can insurers afford to cover people with preexisting conditions, or pay the costs of catastrophic diseases.</p><p>The issue is now headed for the Supreme Court (another appellate court has upheld the law's constitutionality) where the prognosis isn't good. The Court's Republican-appointed majority has not exactly distinguished itself by its progressive views.&#160;&#160;</p><p>Chalk up another one for the GOP, outwitting and outflanking the president and the Democrats.</p><p>Remember the healthcare debate? Congressional Republicans refused to consider a single-payer system that would automatically pool risks. They wouldn't even consider giving people the option of buying into it.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/08/15/healthcare_law_constitutionality/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Two appellate judges in Atlanta &#8212; one appointed by President Bill Clinton and one by George H.W. Bush &#8212; have just decided the Constitution doesn&#8217;t allow the federal government to require individuals to buy health insurance.</p><p>The decision is a major defeat for the White House. The so-called &#8220;individual mandate&#8221; is a cornerstone of the Affordable Care Act, President Obama&#8217;s 2010 healthcare reform law, scheduled to go into effect in 2014.</p><p>The whole idea of the law is to pool heath risks. Only if everyone buys insurance can insurers afford to cover people with preexisting conditions, or pay the costs of catastrophic diseases.</p><p>The issue is now headed for the Supreme Court (another appellate court has upheld the law&#8217;s constitutionality) where the prognosis isn&#8217;t good. The Court&#8217;s Republican-appointed majority has not exactly distinguished itself by its progressive views.&#160;&#160;</p><p>Chalk up another one for the GOP, outwitting and outflanking the president and the Democrats.</p><p>Remember the healthcare debate? Congressional Republicans refused to consider a single-payer system that would automatically pool risks. They wouldn&#8217;t even consider giving people the option of buying into it.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/08/15/healthcare_law_constitutionality/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/08/15/healthcare_law_constitutionality/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>128</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The best way to fight the two-party monopoly</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/08/09/lind_two_party/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/08/09/lind_two_party/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Aug 2011 11:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Room]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican Party]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//war_room/2011/08/09/lind_two_party</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Does America need a third party? Dissatisfaction with America&#8217;s dysfunctional political system has produced calls for alternatives to the Democratic-Republican duopoly. But a third major party cannot exist under the rules of America&#8217;s electoral system. A single-issue party might inject a new issue into American politics, but the challenges facing the country are too complex for simple answers. What America needs is not a new party but a new movement of reform, a movement that, even if it is largely identified with one national party, includes members of the other.</p><p>Most of the world&#8217;s democracies have adopted one or another version of proportional representation (PR), an electoral system that more or less accurately reflects the diversity of political views among the country&#8217;s citizens. Unfortunately, from 18th century Britain the U.S. inherited the older, less representative system called plurality voting or "first past the post" voting.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/08/09/lind_two_party/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Read this story at <a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/08/09/lind_two_party/">http://www.salon.com/2011/08/09/lind_two_party/</a></p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/08/09/lind_two_party/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/08/09/lind_two_party/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>60</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

