Tally ho-hum...

[Peter Lemkin]

AMY GOODMAN: To talk more about President Obama's re-election, we are joined in Madison, Wisconsin, by John Nichols, political writer for The Nation magazine. His latest piece, "For Obama, a Bigger Win Than for Kennedy, Nixon, Carter or Bush."
Take it from there, John.
JOHN NICHOLS: Well, I think that's the thing that people have to wrap their head around. And I'm not just talking about Karl Rove running around in the studio at Fox trying to figure out why all of his hundreds of millions of dollars went awry. I'm talking about progressives, and indeed President Obama himself. So much of this election was framed on the notion that if President Obama was re-elected, he would sort of have to claw his way to victory, and it would be a very narrow thing, up all night with itprobably when we spoke on a Thursday morning after the election, we'd still be uncertain of the results. That's not the case. When all the votes are counted, President Obama will have won a popular vote margin of more than three million, probably quite a bit more than three million. And when Florida is finishedit's a mess down there, but when it's finally counted, probably to his column he will have roughly 332 electoralit looks like 332 electoral votes.
Those victoriesmore than three million popular vote, 332 electoral votesare bigger than what John Kennedy came in with, bigger than what Richard Nixon came in with, bigger than what Jimmy Carter came in with, and bigger than what George Bush had in 2000 or what George Bush had in 2004. And I'll remind folks that after that 2004 election, George Bush stood before the American people and said he put his platform out there, the people had embraced it, and he had political capital to spend. I think it's very, very vital that President Obama understand that he has not scraped his way to victory here. He has got a win, and he ought to take that populist language, that progressive language of the close of his campaign, and make it much more central to his politics.
Unfortunately, this president has far too much of a tendency to compromise, and so that's why the second part of the equation is progressives need to take this in. Progressives need to understand that they should pressure this president to respond to what can genuinely be referred to as a mandate to make sure that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are protected, to do humane and genuine immigration reform, as Juan has so well discussed, to do tax reforms that really do shift the burden to the wealthy. All of these things can be central to a program, but it can't work if the president, and even the president's supporters, think that he just narrowly won an election.
AMY GOODMAN: So, let's talk about this issue of a mandate for President Obama. But first I want to go to Fox contributor Charles Krauthammer's opinion on the matter. He spoke on Fox News election night.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: If he gets a majority of the popular vote, it'll be very small, if there's any. And even in the Electoral, I think it's going to be a rather small majority, particularly if Virginia, Florida will go to Romney. So this is not a mandate either with the numbers or in the way that he campaigned. He did not campaign on any ideas, anything large, anything important. He didn't address entitlements or tax reform, anything like that.

So what would he do? I think he's gothe will go back to who he is. People have said he should be a Clinton and compromise, have a successful second term. But he is not instinctively a moderate. I think he is a man of the left, and he will try to push his agenda through with what he thinks is a mandate. And I think we are going to be exactly where we were, say, a year ago with the debt ceiling argument next year. And the problem is that the country will slide right through a second term, because I don't see give on either side, particularly with a president with a very weak mandate for a second term.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Fox contributor Charles Krauthammer, and it's been widely reported that President Obama, after his victory, tried to call John Boehner, the House speaker, and as well as Senator McConnell, the Senate minority leader, and both said they were sleeping, they couldn't talk.
JOHN NICHOLS: Well, I mean, this is really a big theme of the Republican right and their media echo chamber. And that is that this election was, as Haley Barbour, the former governor of Mississippi, former RNC chair said, pretty close to a tie. And they love that concept that President Obama just narrowly won. Again, I emphasize, sometimes elections are best understood a day later or even two days later. You know, Washington state out on the West Coast is still in the process of counting votes. They've only counted about 57, 58 percent of their vote. That's a very Democratic state that is still piling on popular votes for Obama.
Now, I don't want to sit with you, Amy, and suggest that President Obama is some perfect progressive. I don't actually believe Charles Krauthammer at all when he says that Barack Obama is a man of the left. He may well have read many of the books of the left. He may have met many of the people of the left. But my sense is that Barack Obama is a centrist, has tended to be a very centrist president, and troubling, frankly, on a number of military issues as well, frankly, even on the entitlement reform debate, where he's often been too soft.
What I want to emphasize here is, this president went before the American people, and the election was framed very much as a referendum on austerity, as a referendum on cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, to a real radical reshaping of the country, as pressured by, as emphasis by, as outlined by Paul Ryan, the Republican vice-presidential nominee. The important thing to understand is, American people understood that choice, and they voted for Barack Obama. They also voted for two more Democratic senators. The Senate is going to be much more progressive than it was in the last session. In the states, they've elected at least six Democratic governors, potentially a seventh if Jay Inslee wins out in Washington state. And they've shifted state legislaturesin the state of Maine, going from a Republican-controlled legislature now to a very Democratic legislature to push back against their anti-labor governor; New York state, a legislative shift; many others.
Bottom line here is, in this election that was framed as, in many ways, a choice on austerity at the national and state level, people rejected it. It is very important that it be understood that this wasn't a too-close-to-call election. President Obama has a mandate from the American people to push back against a right-wing economics. And he really must. The problem is that I'm not sure he will do that. I'm not sure he will take that in sufficiently. And I'm most concerned, perhaps, that progressives will not fully recognize that, that they have a power to make real demands on this president. I was in a union hall on election night, in Teamsters Local 20 hall in Toledo, Ohio. These trade unionistsAfrican Americans, Hispanics, white working-class folkswhen the news came, the president of the local union announced, "Brothers, sisters, our president of the United States has been re-elected." They understood what that meant. To them, that meant a pro-labor, pro-public-education, pro-public-services president of the United States. Obama should serve as that. And those who elected him, that coalition that elected him, should make that demand on him.
AMY GOODMAN: Let's talk about the other power. You've got organized people and then organized money.
JOHN NICHOLS: Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about referenda on Citizens United around the country, John?
JOHN NICHOLS: Yeah, it's really exciting. You know, one of the things that a lot of, again, the sort of punditocracy will tell us is that this is an election that showed you can beat money; big money doesn't really matter; Karl Rove today is going to have to have some sort of conference call where he explains to all his billionaires why things didn't work out as well as he had told them it would. And that can be very reassuring in one sense: we could tell ourselves, well, you know, look, boots on the ground did do better. And it's true that there were many elections this year where candidates who had less money won elections. But the bottom line to understand isand Sherrod Brown will you this, Bernie Sanders will tell you this, Tammy Baldwin will tell you thiscandidates who won races had to spend six, seven, eight hours some days on the phone begging for money. This money in politics problem is a crisis. It is a crisis no matter what the final result. You may be able to claw your way to victories, but don't think it isn't a real problem.
And the people understand that. In the state of Montana, in the state of Colorado, they had referendums on whether those states should encourage a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. And the results are very, very encouraging. Not just in those states, but in cities across the country, people voted to overturn Citizens United. And there's a very exciting result out of Montana, as well. It looks like the new governor of Montana, Governor Bullock, a Democrat, willyou know, he's a guy who was, as attorney general of Montana, the person who went to the Supreme Court and fought to maintain Montana's historic bar on corporate money in politics. We have elected people who really do understand that we've got to overturn Citizens United. And we alsoI think it's very important to recognize, in this new Senate, Bernie Sanders made overturning Citizens United a central theme of his re-election campaign in Vermontoverwhelmingly won. Sherrod Brown put overturning Citizens United at the front of his agenda in Ohio; he won big. Tammy Baldwin, a big supporter of a constitutional amendment, and even Angus King, the new senator from Maine, a supporter of what can properly be described as aggressive, even radical, responses to money in politics. We ought to embrace this and make this a central theme of the next few months. This ought to be a movement that grows, because it's clear, people want the change.
AMY GOODMAN: One of the closely watched Senate races was Montana, where voters ultimately decided to re-elect Democratic Senator Jon Tester. This is a part of his acceptance speech Wednesday morning.

SEN. JON TESTER: It is an honor to accept your trust in sending a Montana farmer with Montana values back to the United States Senate. Todaytoday ends in a historic election in Montana. Literally tens of thousands of TV commercials, radio ads, fliers in the mail, many of them from big corporations who spent millions of dollars trying to buy Montana's votes. This victory is our victory, because it proves that neither corporations nor billionaires can buy the state of Montana and buy elections.

AMY GOODMAN: That's the Democratic Senator Jon Tester, who will go back to the Senate. And there were a number of firsts, Johnand we only have 30 seconds. I mean, in your state, you've got Tammy Baldwin, who will be the first openly gay senator. She is from Wisconsin and the first woman senator from Wisconsin. And then there's Mazie Hirono, elected in Hawaii, becoming the first Asian-American woman elected to the Senate, the first woman elected from Hawaii in the Senate, and the Senate's first Buddhist, as well as the first U.S. senator born in Japanand, in fact, she was born in Fukushima, Japan.
JOHN NICHOLS: These are incredible stories coming in. And don't forget Heidi Heitkamp up in North Dakota, in a state that voted overwhelmingly for Mitt Romney, a populist Democrat who put together the old urban-rural coalition. We had a lot of good politics that occurred on November 6, and we ought not to rush beyond it. We ought to look at some of these people who beat corporate power, beat big money, and we ought to recognize that there's a cry out there from America for a different and better politics.

[Peter Lemkin]

I thought State's rights were taken very seriously there?

Federal Law usually trumps State Law...but it is very complex...here is some about what might happen and not happen...

AMY GOODMAN: More than 70 years after the film Reefer Madness stoked hysteria over marijuana usage, Colorado and Washington have become the first states to legalize marijuana for recreational use. In a historic move, 52 percent of voters in Colorado supported Amendment 64, which will amend the state constitution to allow those 21 and older to purchase up to one ounce of marijuana at specially regulated stores. Adults would be permitted to grow up to six marijuana plants in their homes. Meanwhile, in Washington state, Initiative 502 passed by a 10-point margin.

Now marijuana reform advocates are preparing for a showdown with the federal government, which still considers the plant a dangerous drug. On Wednesday, marijuana reform activists in Colorado and Washington said they hope to provide a model for the rest of the country.

BRIAN VICENTE: Colorado rejected the failed policy of marijuana prohibition and made a positive step forward towards regulating this product, taking it off the streets, putting it behind the counter and taxing it. We really feel that Colorado can be a model for the nation in how to sensibly regulate marijuana policy.

ALISON HOLCOMB: Today, the state of Washington looked at 75 years of a national marijuana prohibition and said it is time for a new approach.

AMY GOODMAN: Meanwhile, here in Chicago, the city council recently passed an ordinance that allows ticketing for low-level marijuana possession. But our next guest reports that hasn't stopped police from arresting people in certain neighborhoods.

For more, we're joined now by Mick Dumke, a reporter for Chicago's alternative newspaper, the Chicago Reader, wherewhich covers political issues, including drug policy.

We welcome you to Democracy Now!

MICK DUMKE: Thanks.

AMY GOODMAN: So, let's first talk about the significance of Colorado and Washington state. You've been covering these issues for quite some time.

MICK DUMKE: Well, I think the main issue is that people appear to want a change in drug policies, particularly as they apply to marijuana. And as the federal government has sort of, you know, been standing pat, states and municipalities across the country have been making their own moves.

AMY GOODMAN: During our election night coverage, I spoke with Brian Vicentehe's the executive director of Sensible Coloradoand asked him how advocates there succeeded in becoming one of the first two U.S. states to approve regulating, taxing and controlling marijuana similar to alcohol. This was his response.

BRIAN VICENTE: You know, we just reached out to supporters. We ran local ballot initiatives to build support. We, you know, got money from small and large funders. And I think we tapped into a vein of consciousness and a passion where a lot of people realize that marijuana prohibition has been a colossal failure. It's like alcohol prohibition. It did not work. All it did was fuel an underground market. And Coloradans believe that if you move this product behind the counter, take it off the streets, it's tougher for kids to get, and it produces a lot of tax revenue for the state. So, the drug war has been an abysmal failure, and we've really taken a positive step forward to change that today.

AMY GOODMAN: After Colorado's marijuana legalization measure passed, Governor John Hickenlooper said in a statement, quote, "This will be a complicated process, but we intend to follow through. That said, federal law still says marijuana is an illegal drug so don't break out the Cheetos or gold fish too quickly," he said. Governor Hickenlooper has also said he has called Attorney General Eric Holder to reconcile his state's amendment with federal law.

GOV. JOHN HICKENLOOPER: We have a call into Eric Holder, so in the next 24 hours, I think it's scheduled, I think, for right around right after lunch tomorrow to look at that. And I'm not a lawyer, so my sense on this is that we arethat it's unlikely that the federal government is going to allow states, one by one, to, you know, unilaterally decriminalize marijuana. But I have not heard that from Eric Holder.

AMY GOODMAN: Paul Armentano, the deputy director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, known as NORMAL, says there's not much the Feds can do right now. He wrote in the Daily Caller on Wednesday, quote, "t is possible that the federal government [...] will try to use its limited resources in these states to prosecute marijuana possession offenses under federal law," but lack of "manpower, political will, and public support to engage in such behavior" may instead make legalization "the impetus for the eventual dismantling of federal pot prohibition." That's the words of the deputy director of NORMAL. Mick Dumke, your response? How is this going to play out, when state law defies federal law?

MICK DUMKE: I think everybody is waiting to see. I mean, we've seen in the last few years with states that have passed medical marijuana laws that the federal government still has felt compelled to move in and shut down dispensaries and enforce, you know, people that they felt that were violating U.S. tax laws and so forth. So, people are really waiting to see what happens with this next stage of the reform process.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn to one of the ads that ran in Colorado urging voters not to legalize marijuana, to vote against Amendment 64.

NO ON AMENDMENT 64 AD: Hey, guys, I've heard a few of you mention that marijuana is less harmful to your bodies than alcohol. I really care about you guys, so I thought you should know a few things about pot. A recent study came out proving that, over time, marijuana use causes a huge drop in IQ, especially if you start when you're a teenager. Marijuana can cause permanent changes in brain structure and functioning. I guess being silly and stupid while high isn't just a temporary experience. As you probably know, marijuana affects alertness, concentration and reaction time. But did you know it is the most commonly identified illicit drug in fatal car accidents? In addition to psychosis, chronic marijuana use has been associated with an array of psychological effects, including depression, anxiety, suicidal thoughts and personality disturbances.

AMY GOODMAN: And I want to play a comment from Kerrie Dallman, president of the Colorado Education Association, who explained why her group opposes a legalization of marijuana use.

KERRIE DALLMAN: As an educator and a classroom teacher, I saw students come into my classroom who had been using marijuana, and I could see over the course of a semester or over a year their motivation decrease dramatically. And I could begin to see the real effects of depression begin to set in. And that had real and lasting impacts on their success in school, in my class, and throughout their four years at Pomona High School. It's for this reason and others that our organization has endorsed the No on 64 campaign. We remain incredibly concerned about the impact that having additional access to marijuana would have on our students and our schools.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Kerrie Dallman. Your response, Mick Dumke, thesethose opposing the legislation?

MICK DUMKE: Well, I haven't heard anybody, you know, say that it's a great idea for teenagers or children to be using marijuana or any other drugs, for that matter. That's not really the issue, I think, that's on the table here. First of all, from what I understand, high school students who want to get marijuana can get it now in places where it's illegal. So, you know, that's a whole different issue. An education campaign probably is necessary to continue to tell people what's going on. We're talking about consenting adults, whether they should have the freedom to use something that a lot of people do feel is less harmful thanthan alcohol, excuse me. So I thinkI really do think that when we start talking about access to children and stuff like that, it'syou know, it's really kind of drifting from what the issue is here on the table with these ballot initiatives.

AMY GOODMAN: When you look at President Obama and the Attorney General Eric Holder, they've both expressed their admiration for The Wire, right? David Simon's series on HBO. The significance of that and what The Wire represents?

MICK DUMKE: Well, both of these people obviously are very bright guys. They understand what the war on drugs has done to communities inespecially in urban America, but not exclusively. Look, there's political realities out here. With everything that's been on the attorney general's, the president's plate the last four years, they just haven't felt like this is an issue that they can take on politically. Maybe, you know, with state by state, city by city, voters stepping up and saying, even as the federal government is sticking to its line, "We want something different," you know, there's a hope out there that this message is going to get through to the federal government and they're going to start doing things differently.

AMY GOODMAN: What's happening here in Chicago, Mick Dumke?

MICK DUMKE: Well, the city of Chicago passed an ordinance that essentially decriminalizes low-level possession of marijuana, so it gave police officers the option of issuing a ticket, a notice of violation, instead of taking people back to the station and booking them for a full arrest. The problem is that it's an option. And I've looked at the data, and it turns out that since this law went into effect, police are still making arrests at a 10-to-one rate over tickets. So most of the people getting caught with low-level possession are still getting arrested, if they're getting anything at all. And what I mean by that is that a lot of police officers are telling me the ticketing process is actually just a pain in the butt. So, in some cases, they're deciding just to let people go, but in other cases they're saying, "I'm going to go ahead and take this person to the station and arrest them."

And it seems to break down along racial lines. Almost eight of every 10 people who are being arrested are African American, even though we well know that that's not how usage rates break down. So, essentially what we have here is what we call a "grass gap." It's continuing. And this law that'sthat gives officers the option of not making an arrest isn't really being used. So it doesn't appear to be a solution to the fundamental problems.

AMY GOODMAN: And do you see this happening now around the country?

MICK DUMKE: Yeah, citiesI mean, there's like 90 cities just in Illinois alone that have defied state law, that have defied federal law, and issued their ownexcuse me, passed their own laws and ordinances that give police officers the right to issue tickets, because they'reit's clogging the courts. It's not only an issue of justice, but it's an issue of resources. We found that the city of Chicago's policy of arresting people for marijuana possession is costing local taxpayers $78 million a year, conservatively. And that's just here. You start doing the math, it just adds up to an astronomical use of resources. I think researchers found it was like $300 million over the last 20 years or 30 years in Washington state just to process the arrests there. So we're talking hundreds of millions of dollars around the country that could be used on so many other things, including drug education.

AMY GOODMAN: You know, interestingly, it turns out that incoming Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto may adjust Mexico's approach to tackling marijuana production in his country in response to the votes here. The AP reports the head of President Peña Nieto's transition team "told Radio Formula that the Mexican administration taking power in three weeks remains opposed to drug legalization. But he said the votes in the two states complicate [Mexico's] commitment to quashing the growing and smuggling of a plant now seen by many as legal in part of the [United States]."

MICK DUMKE: Yeah, if you translate the political speak there, what that really means is they see an opening to potentially change policies. There's extraordinary pressure from United States on the Mexican government to maintain the status quo. I just sat down with the top DEA official in the Midwest last week, and he was sort of openly rooting for the next Mexican administration to continue working with the United States in the way it has. So, I really do think that these two states passing this lawyou know, I think that there are some people in Mexico who are pretty happy about that.

There was actually a study that just came out from a respected nonpartisan organization in Mexico that found that just these states passing the law could cut the profits of cartelson marijuana profits, that isby like 30 percent. So we're talking about a huge issue. Look, the status quo gives money to people working in the black market. That's a key issue that's fueling violence along the Mexican border within Mexico. So I really find it hard to believe, especially for the Mexicanincoming Mexican president, who campaigned on a promise of reforming drug policiesI really find it hard to believe that he doesn't welcome the news from the United States this week.