There Is No Blog

Carrots, Not Sticks: THANK our Public Option Supporters!

2009-08-17T19:00:00.000-07:00

The most valuable function of conventions like Netroots Nation is that they provide a venue for dedicated, highly intelligent people to network and share ideas in real time. The just-passed Netroots Nation shindig in Pittsburgh was no exception.

One of the principle ideas that kept coming up again and again from in conversations with such luminaries and Meteor Blades, Darcy Burner, Jim Dean and many others was the notion of using not just sticks, but also carrots. This idea of rewarding our friends and allies is something the wingnuts do well, and remains to be adequately learned and incorporated by the online left.

This is entirely understandable: our movement grew and matured as a distinctly opposition movement, at a time when no other serious resistance to Republican policies was being offered by Democrats in Congress or by the supposed watchdogs in the fourth estate. We screamed into the ether, made angry calls, and did all we could to be a fly in the ointment of our foes. We raised money for favored candidates like Jerry McNerney and Jim Webb to beat selected Republicans or bad Democrats; and proceeded to revile them at turns when they failed, by some accounts, to live up to their promise.

Rarely, however, have we rewarded our representatives and Senators for doing the right thing. Rarely have we engaged them in conversation, given them pedestals on which to stand, and showered them with the respect and encouragement they deserve. Here in California, Senator Dianne Feinstein has received 100 times more attention for being consistently wrong on the issues than our usually excellent Senator Boxer has received for being so consistently right.

Human beings are psychologically predictable creatures, much like Pavlov's famous canine. We do respond well to negative reinforcement, but we respond just as well if not better to positive reinforcement. Do nothing but beat a dog with a stick, and the dog is likelier to be aggressive than lovingly loyal. Do nothing but scream at a child, and the child will eventually fail to respond to the screaming. Senators and Representatives, no matter how elevated, are still just people: the rules of psychological conditioning still apply. If all we can do is scream at people who don't do what we want, eventually no one will listen to us at all.

On the issue of healthcare, the time has come to reward those Democrats who have committed to standing up for the public option by refusing to vote for a bill that does not include it. Fortunately, the always excellent folks at Democracy for America have made it easier for us to thank our healthcare heroes for doing the right thing, by giving them words of positive encouragement for continuing to stand up for the public option.

Piggybacking and expanding on that idea is an ActBlue page created by Howie Klein called Take the Pledge to financially reward those 64 representatives who are doing the right thing. This is part of an effort being put together by Jane Hamsher, Howie Klein, Darcy Burner, my brother Dante Atkins, myself and others that I am dubbing the Carrots, Not Sticks Initiative to help generate fundraising, blogosphere attention and broader media attention for members of the Progressive Caucus and for likeminded Senators. If the insurance industry and other big GOP donors are going to help reward those who dance to their tune, the least we can do is to help reward those who do what we want in whatever way we can, through the power of small-dollar fundraising.

From the ActBlue page:

These are the progressive members of Congress with the guts to stand up to Big Insurance, Big Pharma and to the pressure from their own party bosses. They stood with the American people and ordinary working families when push came to shove and both political parties decided propping up a disastrous health care system and a corrupt Insurance Industry was more important than keeping the promise made over and over to working families. These were the men and women who promised to vote against any health care reform bill that didn't include, at the minimum, a robust public option. 57 signed a letter to Speaker Pelosi and 18 took the FDL Pledge.

Democratic members of Congress need to understand that a healthcare reform bill with a Public Option is simply not an option-- it's a requirement. The congressmembers on this list have said in no uncertain terms that they will not vote for a bill without a public option all the way through Conference. That takes courage, and we need to show them how much we appreciate them for doing so. Please make a contribution-- and thanks for everything else you're doing from the public option.

If Anthony Weiner is right that there are at least 100 potential Hosue members to join this effort, their names will be included on the ActBlue recipient list. And, of course, if any Senators decide to sign on to the effort, they will be rewarded as well. The time has come to provide a real progressive incentivizing counterweight on the organizational side, to the series of positive reinforcements available to Republicans and conservative Democrats on the right.

As funds accumulate for this effort, those Democrats in very safe seats can be encouraged to donate funds to their more endangered counterparts in an effort to make maximally productive use of the money. They Took the Pledge also allows you to donate to specific candidates on the list, rather than to the list as a whole, so that individuals can determine how best to allot their financial carrots.

Please do what you can today to help reward our Democrats.

Donate at They Took The Pledge.

Send a good word for Progressive Caucus members through DFA's Thank Our Healthcare Heroes.

And join the Carrots, Not Sticks group on Facebook to learn more about other initiatives to help reward our best progressive Democrats for getting our backs.

Title

2008-08-02T17:09:00.001-07:00

With unemployment on Friday jumping by 51,000 to take this year’s job losses to almost half a million, Mr Obama is mining a potentially rich seam. But a number of Democrats, including advisers to the Obama campaign, are worried that the Democratic party’s overall electoral advantage this year has not yet translated into comfortable leads for Mr Obama. On Friday Gallup showed Mr Obama just one point ahead of John McCain – a significant tightening in the past two weeks.

Bullshit alert #1: using Gallup's national polling. Gallup has already forfeited its claim to credibility on the presidential race this election cycle by fudging the numbers "just to see under a scenario where McCain supporters are energized" while pretending the poll represented a normal result, and by showing consistently closer margins than almost any other pollster in the field. If you're intending to write a hit piece against Obama, cherry-picking the closest poll you can find (and one that still shows him ahead) is a good place to start.

But that's only the beginning. Mentioned only briefly and misleadingly in the article is the state-by-state polling tally, where Obama holds a huge edge and is playing heavily on red-state turf. Given Obama's huge polling deficits in Appalachia and certain southern states, the fact is that Obama could easily be almost tied with McCain in the popular vote, yet win by a landslide in the electoral college. One of the most infuriating aspects of any traditional media on the campaign horse race is the seemingly intentional refusal to get into the details of electoral vote projections, and how those results are going to impact targeted advertising campaigns. In short, just as in the primary campaign against Clinton, if Obama wanted to shore up his national popularity, all he would need to do is reinforce his popularity in blue states. But that's not where elections are won or lost. One would think that the 4th estate, charged with informed the general public, would take greater care with such a seemingly simple fact of campaign politics.

But it gets worse. Next come a few grafs praising the supposed efficacy of McCain's recent ad campaigns painting Obama as a celebrity messianic elitist:

the signs are that Mr McCain’s continuing attacks – most recently in a commercial that portrayed Mr Obama as a vapid celebrity against images of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears – may be striking a chord with the white working class voters who shunned Mr Obama so emphatically in many of his primary contests with Hillary Clinton.

With just one month to go before Labour Day – the traditional beginning of the general election – and only three weeks before the Democratic convention, many Democrats fear that time is running out for Mr Obama to overcome the suspicions of this key swing vote.

These "many Democrats" who are so concerned are mostly anonymous in the article, of course. It is extraordinarily tiresome to hear pundits and journalists consistently refer euphemistically to the "white working class" voters: the sort of people susceptible to dog-whistle racism, suspicious of a candidate who might be too fit and skinny, and deeply distrustful of a candidate who can produce adoring throngs overseas--mostly because they've never been overseas themselves.

There used to be a simpler way to refer to this kind of voter: a conservative. These are not "moderates": real moderates are turned off by McCain's recent approach. Or, with more nuance, this kind of voter might be called a "Reagan Democrat", the sort of "Democrat" that makes up the majority of PUMA's and No Quarter's consistuency. The Democratic party of the DLC and Bob Shrum has spent countless hours and untold dollars attempting to woo back these conservative "Reagan Democrats", largely to no avail. Bill Clinton won some of them back (with a great deal of help from Ross Perot), but the larger Democratic Party never did. The traditional media needs to understand something very clearly: the Democrats do not need to cater to the conservative social values of "Reagan Democrats". Those that are swayed by Democratic economic messaging will come our way; those that don't will be overwhelmed by the youth vote, the Hispanic vote, and the midwestern and western Obamacans that are making up part of this year's realignment election.

After more piddling, the article continues:

The numbers back up the concern. Although Mr Obama has a good shot at winning traditional Republican states such as Colorado, Virginia and even North Carolina, he cannot capture the White House if he loses more than one of Pennsylvania, Ohio or Michigan – the more traditional, blue-collar swing states, which Mrs Clinton won by huge margins in the primary contests. Polls suggest these states are too close to call.

Too close to call. Um...ok. Let's look at this. States were Obama has "a good shot" include Colorado (Obama currently ahead by 1.5% according to Pollster.com average), Virginia (Obama currently ahead by an averaged 2.6%), and North Carolina (McCain ahead by under 3% averaged). States that are too close to call, meanwhile, are Michigan where Obama has a 6 point lead with excellent trendlines, Ohio where Obama has a 3.6% lead, again with excellent trendlines, and Pennsylvania where Obama holds a commanding 9-point lead with damning trendlines for McCain. In other words, the states listed as "too close to call" in the article are, by and large, much more uneven in Obama's favor than the states in which Obama has "a good shot"--two of which are already in Obama's favor.

Meanwhile, the article makes no mention of former red states Florida (Obama ahead by over 2%), New Mexico (Obama ahead by almost ten points), Colorado (Obama slightly ahead), Montana (Obama ahead), or Iowa (Obama ahead by about 7 points). To say nothing of all the other red states about as close as North Carolina, including Nevada, Indiana, North Dakota, Missouri, McCain's own home state of Arizona, and even--if the latest polls are to be believed--Alaska.

And none of this makes any mention of the massive voter registration efforts by the DNC and the Obama campaign that will boost Democratic numbers beyond those shown in the polls. But then, none of these inconvenient facts would fit the "why isn't Obama further ahead" narrative, would they?

At this stage in the 1988 presidential race, Michael Dukakis, the Democratic candidate, had a 17 percentage point lead over George H.W. Bush, who went on to win the election. John Kerry emerged from the 2004 Democratic convention with a strong lead over George W. Bush only to lose the election as well. In 2008, conventional wisdom says Mr McCain is running a much less effective campaign than either of the Bushes.

Hmmm....let me think for a second. Do you think that could possibly be because of the hyperpolarization of American politics since 1988? Show me any modern presidential candidate in the America of the Bush-Gore and Bush-Kerry races with a 17-point lead in the polls, and I'll show you a squadron of flying pigs still sporting the icicles they carried out of hell. But surely the Financial Times will find some idiot to shamelessly reinforce this meme...

That reinforces disquiet about Mr Obama’s inability so far to take a decisive lead. “Even on his worst day, Bill Clinton was able to signal that he understood voters’ concerns and that he felt their pain,” said Douglas Schoen, a Democratic consultant. “Obama has no trouble with the campaign stagecraft. But this isn’t Harvard, it’s the beer hall. He has to talk in language that people understand.”

Ah, yes. When you need an idiot to back up Republican ideas with the cover of a "Democratic consultant", look no further than world's biggest moron Doug Schoen, who also happens to be partner of fellow idiot Mark Penn. Do you get the feeling, somehow, that this entire article is the bitter backlash of a few diehard DLC and neoliberal Clinton backers, attempting to subterfuge the Obama campaign? I do.

The article closes by once again taking Obama unapologetically out of context over his quote about being a symbol of restoring America's traditions, followed by McCain operatives quoted as saying that Obama thinks highly of himself. In the interest of fair use--and of preventing symptoms reminiscent of ipecac in my readers--I'll omit the last few sections.

So I guess the question is this: is the Financial Times a merely stupid tool of Republicans and DLC "Democrats", or is it actively attempting to subterfuge the Obama campaign?

Because an article this lack in journalistic ethics and this devoid of basic respect for the truth--much less balance--brooks no other alternatives.

kcrw test

2008-05-22T14:41:00.000-07:00

This is a test of the KCRW embed:

Test

BlogTalkRadio

2008-03-27T18:01:00.000-07:00

Want to start your own radio show? Well, you're going to need an agent, a lawyer and a big contract. Just kidding! With new online radio platforms, all you need to get started are a few basics. Oh, and co-hosts aren't a bad idea.

***Scroll down for an On Topic radio show discussing this diary***

First of all, some of you are probably wondering why you would want a radio show at all. There are several compelling reasons to add audio, and particularly radio shows, to your content:

Some topics are better suited to the radio format. Got a great interview lined up on a topic you would like to diary? Well, if you set up the interview as a show, you can diary the topic and allow readers who want to go more in-depth on the topic access to the actual audio. You can even set up call in shows and allow readers to pose questions to your guest directly.

It's nice to have a voice sometimes. A lot of writing is story telling, and being able to provide a first hand account or source, or even just your own commentary can be powerful.
It can add a greater depth to your diary--especially since most readers will only look at so much text before they move on. Providing a radio link with more discussion on the topic can break up the information and allow those who want to hear more a different way of accessing your information.

Reach new audiences. Especially when it comes to organizations and issues advocacy, a radio show or in-depth interview can be a great way to reach new audiences and even keep your current supporters up to date on the projects you are working on. Call in shows mean the dialog can run both ways.

Why not? It's essentially FREE, and as I will show you, pretty easy to boot.

Getting Started

There are several ways to get started in putting together your own radio show. First is deciding what platform you are going to use to record. A radio show is simply an audio file or a podcast (unless you have some hot distribution deal, in which case, maybe YOU should be writing this), so this means recording is the biggest factor in which approach you take.

Anyway you can make a podcast, you can make a radio show. There are numerous audio recording programs you can download, Mac Books often come with recording software, or you can even record Skype calls. The challenge is if you want more than one person on the recording (which I hope you do) and whether you will be dealing with feeding in calls. For the sound engineers among us, no problem! But for the rest of us, there are sites that offer a means of circumventing this problem and I highly recommend using them to get started.

BlogTalkRadio.com is the site thereisnospoon, clammyc and I currently use. It employs a recording platform that run via phone. You sign up, schedule a show and they give you a number to call into via landline, cell phone, or skype and it records a digital audio file for you and hosts it on the their site. You can link to it from your own site like we did for a time (politicalnexus.blogspot.com) or use their host page as your main site. And you can pull links for your most recent show and embed them in your diaries.

Pretty simple. Now for the tricky part: actually creating the shows.

The difficult part is putting it all together: live radio means you don't have to deal with pesky editing, but it also means you need to do more planning so you don't have dead air time.

So when you put together a show, you should consider several things:

1) How long should my show be? And how much content do I need to cover that amount of time?

2) Will I have a co-host? Different guests?

3) How often will I produce my show?

4) What do I want my show to be about?

5) Have I come up with a show intro and show close I can use?

6) Do I have copyright free music I can use as an intro to my show?

Our shows are typically 15-20 minutes when it comes to a single topic like our FrameWork shows, and 30-60 minutes for our in-depth interviews with Congressional Candidates or On-Topic shows. Our call in show Don't Hijack My Thread is 60 minutes.

We typically plan out five topics for Don't Hijack My Thread--but we rarely get through them all! For our shorter shows, we started out with five or so questions but we largely abandoned structuring our shows too much once we got used to the format.

In my opinion, one of the most important things you can do is not talk those last few seconds before your show goes live! If you have a clean intro to your show and a solid beginning it sets a good tone, even if you flub some of the other parts.

Transcripts of shows are something we get commonly requests for, especially since many cannot listen to audio at work, but we gave up on being able to provide them since they simply took too long to compile.

In terms of promoting a show, the best way to go about it is to compile the email addresses of people that you think might be interested, and send them

the link to the show for downloading
the phone number to dial in (if you want to take callers)
the topics and details of the show

Any more questions? Just post them in the comments and we'll be answering them over the course of the next 24 hours. Also, any of you audio geeks who have expertise in sound engineering, equipment, etc. please share your thoughts as well. And of course, I am the first to admit there are many more knowledgeable than myself, so pipe up!

A radio show discussing the topics of this diary can be found here: On Topic Kossacks Under 35: How to Start Your Online Radio Show We just taped it but it the audio should be available soon so please check back if there are problems.

Also here is a link to a previous interview we did with Kath25 herself about the Kossacks Under 35 series

Kossacks Under 35 is a weekly diary series designed to create a community
within DailyKos that focuses on young people. Our overall goals are to
work on increasing young voters' Democratic majority, and to raise
awareness about issues that particularly affect young people, with a
potential eye to policy solutions. Kossacks of all ages are welcome to
participate (and do!), but the overall framework of each diary will
likely be on or from a younger person's perspective. If you would like
more information or want to contribute a diary, please email kath25 at kossacksunder35 (at) gmail dot com

Stop the Sucking

2008-03-13T16:39:00.000-07:00

Sure, she's wasting campaign money. And Democratic opportunities to attack John McCain. And attempting to create divisions in the Party.

But of all the many reasons that Hillary Clinton should graciously concede the Democratic nomination to the clear winner of the contest, none has been more overlooked than the impact on downballot races.

No, I'm not talking about Obama's major coattails, though that is certainly important. I'm talking about the oxygen that this continued farce of a campaign is taking away from the deserving and overlooked women and men running for Senate and Congress.

Clinton supporters not making their votes based on identity politics, and who are not currently deluded enough to believe that their candidate is more electable, presumably are making their votes based on specific issues. Maybe they believe that mandates on health insurance programs are a good idea (I don't); maybe they believe that freezing interest rates for 5 years is a good idea (I certainly don't); maybe they believe that we should pull out of Iraq more slowly (I disagree). Who knows?

But the truth of the matter is that without a strong Democratic congress to help the Chief Executive to push these plans through the legislature, none of them will come close to passing in the forms being pushed by the candidates. Any voter truly making decisions about these candidates based on the issues while ignoring the state of the downballot races is making a colossal error in judgment. Much I find Clinton's candidacy and modus operandi highly distasteful, I know that a Clinton presidency with a strong Democratic, progressive congress is likelier to lead to the policy outcomes I desire than an Obama candidacy with a weaker Democratic congress. The reverse is, of course, doubly true.

I know that there are some who say that continuing this primary is good for the party, as it registers new voters and create ground operations in every state. But that help is dramatically overwhelmed by oxygen being sucked out of lungs of our deserving candidates: the media attention and money that are the lifeblood of such campaigns. Every second of every minute of every day that the Clintons spend desperately trying to maintain their grip over the Democratic Party and its levers of power is precious sand running out of the hourglass for the candidates who could actually use the most time, energy and money from the netroots and the progressive movement. Every campaign donation drive from the pockets of the netroots faithful on behalf of the Obama or the Clinton campaigns to maintain this petty and ultimately pointless intramural fight the Clintons are waging, is not only money that could have been going to attack John McCain: it's money that could have been going to candidates like those on the Red to Blue list--to say nothing of the many other deserving candidates like Ron Shepston, Mary Pallant or Gilda Reed.

My good friend clammyc and I have been conducting a series of online, podcastable radio interviews with deserving progressive, Democratic congressional candidates (the interviews also get posted to Heading Left, in case BlogTalkRadio's format is a too intimidating). In every single show, I make the case that as important as the Oval Office is, and as much as the presidential candidates deserve our time and effort, these candidates need our aggressive support to succeed in sometimes extremely difficult circumstances. Not all of them will have Bill Foster's good fortune in having a single special election to focus on, or having Barack Obama appear in ads for them, or having as sadsack an opponent as Mr. Oberweis. These are very difficult battles, and they could use a little more love coming their way. And they won't get that love from most of us unless Hillary Clinton ends her quixotic quest to put herself and her husband back in the White House.

One of those candidates I'm talking about is Ron Shepston in CA-42, running against the odious Gary Miller. As many of you know, Ron Shepston (whom clammyc and I will be interviewing tomorrow) started his political career right here in the blogosphere, posting under the name CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream, and has had our backs as a progressive activist for years. Fellow Kossacks hekebolos, theKK and I just hosted a fantastic fundraiser/house party for him this last Saturday. And Ron is just one of many, many candidates who stands to gain enormously by our party turning its attention away from the Clintons' desperate power ploy, and back to the issues and candidates that matter.

If Hillary Clinton or her supporters care anything at all about the Democratic Party, the issues we hold dear and the legislation we want passed, they must know that the time has come to end this charade. We've got more important things to worry about at this point.

--------------------------------------

By the way, for those interested in hearing the real voices of some great candidates, you can hear prior interviews in our candidate series below:

Betsy Markey (CO-4) - The diary about Betsy is here. The link to her interivew can be found here
Gilda Reed (LA-1) - the diary about Gilda is here. The link to her interview can be found here.

John Laesch (IL-14) - the diary about John is here. The link to his interview can be found here.

Dennis Shulman (NJ-5) - the diary about Dennis is here. The link to his interview can be found here.

Barry Welsh (IN-6) - the diary about Barry is here. The link to his interview can be found here.

Charlie Brown (CA-4) - the diary about Charlie is here. The link to his interview can be found here.

Mark Schauer (MI-7) - the diary about Mark is here. The link to his interview can be found here.

Heather Ryan (KY-1) - the diary about Heather is here. The link to her interview can be found here.

What Hillary Means By "Obama Isn't Vetted"

2008-02-25T12:52:00.001-08:00

Among the memes this election cycle that are so patently stupid that it makes me want to beat my head against a wall is the idea put forth by the Clinton campaign that "Obama isn't vetted." Here's just one example of Hillary Clinton herself pushing this idea:

“I’ve been tested. I’ve been vetted. I have been in the political arena in our country very intensely for 16 years. There are no surprises. There’s not going to be anybody saying, ‘Well why didn’t we think of that?’ or ‘What, my goodness, what does that mean?’” she said. “I am going to be able to go up against any Republican who they nominate.”

And here's longtime Clinton booster Taylor Marsh:

I'm getting quite a lot of heat these days for my posts on Mr. Obama. Frankly, I don't care because when a man running for office hasn't been vetted by the media or our own party, it's a dirty job, but someone has to do it.

The pertinent question is, "What could the Clinton camp possibly mean by this?" It certainly can't be the fabricated Rezko scandal, or the silly Exelon story, or the ridiculous charge about "present" votes, or the insulting "cult" insinuations, or the plagiarism charges, or his supposedly incomplete health care plan, or his supposed "lack of experience" in domestic or foreign policy. All of these are attacks are easily batted aside and debunked, of course--but more importantly, they've already been used by the Clinton campaign. Most of these broadsides are more influential with Democratic voters than with the general election; if hitting Obama with them hasn't sunk his presidential campaign in a Democratic Primary against an opponent with better name recognition who started off 20 points ahead in the polls, why should anyone believe that they'll stick in the general election?

Certainly she can't mean that Obama has yet-unseen skeletons in his closet. After all, she had to have been using at least some of the $140 million she wasted on oppo research. If the Clintons couldn't dig up serious dirt on Obama with over 13 months to run against him and most of the Democratic establishment until recently at their disposal, Democratic voters should not too afraid of what 9 months of Republican research in Obama's background will bring. Not to mention the fact that the Clintons' last seven years of financial dealings have not been vetted, as the disclosure of the $100 million Boratgate scandal reminds us. Add to that the fact that Clinton refuses to release her tax records until after the nomination has been secured and continues to resist releasing Clinton Library records, and it becomes a serious question who has more undisclosed skeletons in their closet (to say nothing of the numerous Clinton skeletons that have already been exposed and are lying all over the bedroom floor). That Hillary Clinton has survived rightwing assaults is no great shakes: surviving a challenge from Rick Lazio in bluer-than-blue New York is no more a badge of honor than Obama's beating Alan Keyes in Illinois.

No, the frustration and exasperation seen on the faces of the Clinton campaign and its supporters about Obama's supposed lack of vetting has nothing to do with scandal or experience: it's all about race and Muslim smears. This is an uncomfortable truth that was first pointed out by Bob Novak, of all people.

The Clinton camp is frustrated because they know that the "Black/Muslim" line is the only one they can't use in a Democratic Party without its blowing up in their faces. They also know it's the only one that has a prayer of working to smear Obama enough to stop his incredible grassroots movement and fundraising momentum. And as is typical of the DLC, weak-willed finger-in-the-wind bunker politics practiced by the Clintons and many of their backers, they believe that when Republicans use this strategy on Obama in the general election, it will destroy Obama and secure the nomination for John McCain.

But they couldn't come out and say that explicitly--not, at least, until the Clinton campaign became as desperate as they are today. Now that the Clinton camp is all but certain to lose the nomination, they are throwing all caution to the wind and actively going with the sort of campaign that they have been signaling with various dog-whistles that Republicans would be running: an overt strategy to paint Obama as a black African Muslim.

It is actually a boon to the Obama campaign to see Clinton begin this line of attack, especially after her ridiculous attempt to accuse Obama of having started the gutter politics first, right before she knew that she would be using the filthiest line possible against him. To the Obama campaign's credit, David Plouffe has has responded quickly and coherently to this tripe, which just goes to show that the Obama camp, as usual, is on its toes and ready to counter such vile fearmongering. The Clinton camp, in true Fox News fashion, is playing coy, neither affirming nor denying that they were behind the attack, but stating with extraordinary nerve that

We think it is wrong for the Obama campaign to say that this is divisive photo. It’s not a divisive photo.

This Rovian strategy of accusing the other camp of doing exactly what you intend to do, combined with appealing to the worst instincts of the American electorate, is exactly what Obama can expect to encounter from the Republican machine.

It is the final barrier; the final vetting. Clinton has hit Obama with every other attack possible but the Black/Muslim smear. This last is what Hillary means by "Obama isn't vetted." So let's vet him and get it over with. That neither Obama nor any of the other candidate shave gone this route against Clinton (e.g., Vince Foster or Chelsea Hubbell rumors) even when things looked hopeless for their campaigns is a testament to their collective character. Let us demonstrate once and for all who our friends really are in the Democratic Party.

And, more importantly, let us demonstrate that the American people can respond to the better angels of our nature and reject the gutter politics being pushed by the Clinton campaign just as surely as we can reject it from the Republicans.

Yes, we can.

Am I a Cult Member?

2008-02-07T23:50:00.000-08:00

Am I a cult member? Jake Tapper seems to think so. The Guardian seems to think so. Many commenters here seem to think so.

One must, of course, admit that there has been more than a whiff of the euphoria of fervent aspiration among Obama supporters. It is certainly a phenomenon, a movement that has rarely been paralleled in American politics. Obama's message, his speeches, his policy platforms, and his personal charisma have been deeply inspiring to millions across America. But is there more to it than that? Is it about Obama--or is it about something else entirely?

One of the central tenets of a cult of personality is, by definition, that the cult disappears without the person behind the cult. Thus, by this thinking, if Obama himself were to die tomorrow and his candidacy disappear, there would be no movement. There would be no fervor, no animus, no euphoria. The cultists would, as though deprogrammed and removed from a trance-like state brought on by the sight and sound of the Obama wurlitzer, come to some "rational" support for another candidate--a candidate with a more pedestrian style perhaps, but with the hard-nosed experience to fight against Republicans.

The biggest problem with this thinking is not that the millions who have voted for Obama are too many to accurately describe as a cult, or that cults tend to be closed systems while political campaigns are not, or that cults utilize brainwashing tactics to recruit and retain their members (where's that secret Obama handshake?).

The biggest problem is that this movement--this phenomenon--was already in place. It was happening before Obama took it by the horns and ran with it. It has been growing and building since Howard Dean's candidacy gave progressive Democrats the will to believe, and provided a reason to hope for the future. And it has had many, many faces--Obama's is only the latest.

This movement is about CHANGE. Change from not only last eight years of Bushism, but from the previous eight years of Clintonism before that. It is about change from neoliberalism, from centrism (no, Obama's inclusivity is not centrism), from triangulation, from arguing over the same boomer battles from abortion to Vietraq year after year, from corporatism, from playing not to lose, from apathy. Change from the belief that we have to settle for the lesser of two evils. Change from the belief that the nice people at the top of the food chain will do what's best for all of us--whether that's supply-side economics, or a candidate who believes that LBJ's pulling the levers of power was more important than MLK's grassroots movement.

Obama didn't create this movement; he's just the last and most credible candidate left to harness it. Perhaps more importantly, it is a movement that cannot and will never have Hillary Clinton at its head--first female candidate or not. Not because of sexism against her first and maiden names, but because of anti-DLCism against her last name.

One way to demonstrate these twin points is by looking at candidate support on DailyKos over the past year. While acknowledging that Daily Kos readership is not the same as the Democratic electorate (obviously) or even Obama supporters in general, it is nevertheless indicative, in a broad sense, of the Netroots progressive movement that has been a key part of the "change" demographic since the rough-and-tumble days of Howard Dean and before. And since almost 80% of DailyKos readers now support Obama, they are at least somewhat indicative of a certain kind of very passionate and well-informed Obama booster.

Let us examine, then, the latest tabulated dkos straw poll results provided by Markos on 12/20/07:

What you will notice here is fairly obvious: Obama's support is a recent phenomenon. Obama support hovered on average around 25% of DailyKos all the way from February of 2007 until mid-December--even cratering to 16% as late as October. His fluctuating numbers are proof that many of his supporters were not so mesmerized by his personality that they didn't switch their support from him to other candidates--particularly Chris Dodd, who at that time and to this day showed himself a greater champion for progressive values and for change from the politics of the past than did Obama himself.

You will also notice something even more obvious to those who have paid any attention for the last year: DailyKos has historically been Edwards territory, not Obama territory--by wide margins, in fact.

You will also remember that many Kossacks (myself included) were holding out for Al Gore to enter the race, leading as many as 9% of voters to reject all of the candidates in the race in favor of the man who would not, unfortunately, end up running for more than an Oscar and a Nobel.

Most importantly, you may notice that in all these fluctuations, Hillary Clinton never broke the 11% barrier among those committed to this change movement. Not once. Even Bill Richardson (ugh) hit 13% at one point in May. But not Hillary.

Now let's examine the straw polls since then. Here we are on January 2, 2008 eve of the Iowa caucuses:

John Edwards reaches the height of his support at 48%. Obama has fallen to 27%. Dodd limps along with Dennis Kucinich at 4%. Hillary, the Democratic Default Candidate, stands at 8%--with 92% of 22,568 Kossack votes against her, spread out among various candidates.

But then came Obama's victory in Iowa. And after that came Hillary Clinton's surprising win in New Hampshire.

Now let's see what happens. From the straw poll taken on January 16:

By now several of the candidates (Dodd, Biden, Richardson) have dropped out of the race. Obama's momentum, stalled by his NH loss, has carried him to a 41% surge. Edwards' failure to take Iowa where he was putting all his marbles (combined with his dismal NH showing) deflates his support to 37%. In spite of Hillary's amazing New Hampshire victory being recently in the minds of poll-takers, Clinton once again hits only 11%--barely tying her highest mark to this point. With the first two states down, the "change" vote is split between two candidates--neither of whose supporters are yet being labeled cult members at this point.

Now let's move on to the latest straw poll to date, taken on January 30:

With Edwards out of the race, Obama has now taken a whopping 76% of 18,784 voters in the dkos poll; the die-hard supporters of dropped out change candidates plus Gravel account for 5%, putting the "change" vote at over 4-in-5 Kossacks and lurkers. As for Hillary? Once again, she stalls at 11%. Because Obama is the only credible candidate left to defeat the Clintons, all the support is now thrown his way.

-----------------------------------------

What all of this should tell you is that Obama's supporters aren't part of an Obama personality cult: they're part of a "Change" cult. A change cult that wants to end Clintonism almost as badly as it wants to end Republicanism. A "Change" cult that sways from one change candidate to another--be it Gore, Gravel, Edwards, Kucinich or Obama--but that is in no way motivated to switch its allegiance to a Clinton.

It is a movement that believes as much in itself as it does in its chosen candidate(s). It is a movement that needs no leader, no figurehead, no reason to exist beyond the courage of its own convictions and its own aspirations for a political future radically different from that of the past 30 years.

And this story is, in fact, my story. For months I held out in vain hope (get that word?) for Gore to jump into the race. His incredible book The Assault on Reason is in many ways my Progressive Bible, ranking right up there with Markos' own Crashing the Gate. I have never promoted Obama's books before; I have repeatedly promoted Gore's and Markos'. When it became clear that Gore would not enter and that he chose to make his mark in ways other than electoral politics and elections, I moved squarely into the undecided camp. I could not support Richardson or Kucinich for several reasons; Edwards bothered me, admittedly, for reasons that had much more to do with image and electability than with substance (perhaps I can write more about what I believe was wrong with Edwards' campaign when the flames of passion have died down here somewhat), while Obama's seemingly conciliatory rhetoric turned me off.

Like my good friend clammyc, I became a Dodd supporter because of his hard-nosed fights on our behalf. When I went to YearlyKos, it was Dodd I went to go see speak--not Obama. I still have the red wrist-tag somewhere to prove it.

But then, as it became clear that Dodd could not get traction for several reasons (again, grist for a diary someday), I moved into the undecided column again. As of two days before the Iowa Caucuses, I still couldn't make up my mind. And then, after leaning his direction for a while based on the movement he was building, this video sealed the deal for me and convinced me he would be the fighting candidate we need:

From this point on, my destiny was set. I signed up to become a precinct captain in my neighborhood; I went to Nevada where my suspicions about the lack of ethics of Clinton machine support were confirmed in ways that even I couldn't believe; and I've been turning out voters for Obama ever since.

Does that make me and the other 80% of Obama supporters here in the progressive grassroots members of a cult of personality?

Hardly. It makes all of us members of a Cult for Change: a cult that will continue to exist well beyond Obama's candidacy should it come to the same unfortunate end as Howard Dean's. A cult that will only with extreme reluctance unite behind Hillary Clinton as a nominee in order to end Republicanism (in the dual quest to end Republicanism and Clintonism, I guess I'll settle for 1 out of 2).

A cult that will not stop, come Republican or Democratic victories, until it has actually succeeded in creating the cultural transformations and political realignments demanded by the urgency of our times.

Congressional Democrats: Cynical Manipulators, not Spineless Cowards

2007-11-08T09:26:00.000-08:00

Enough with the Congressional Democrats are weak meme already. Enough of this idea that Democrats cave to the slightest pressure from the GOP. Really--enough. It may be comforting to progressive bloggers to say that our leaders are weak and all will be well when we've replaced them or given them spine transplants. That would be a pleasant fiction. But it's about as far from the truth as Mike Gravel is from the presidency.

It's time to put that tired piece of conventional wisdom to rest--if for no other reason than so that we can address the real root of the problem and stop tilting at windmills.

I've said it before. Other diarists before me have said it better than I. When we vent about the unwillingness of our elected officials to stand up to the Republicans on everything from Iraq to telecom amnesty to subpoena enforcement to Executive Branch nominations to impeachment inquiries, we are barking up the wrong tree to call our Democrats "weak." "Capitulating", certainly. But not "weak."

Conventional wisdom says that our Dems are so afraid of their own shadows that they wouldn't dare risk letting Republicans slander them as weak on terrorism or inadequately patriotic. Conventional wisdom says that our Dems are too worried about the next election to stand up for the principles they believe in. Conventional wisdom says that our Dems have bought into the DLC line that this is a conservative country, and that only by running as conservative lite can they stay ahead of the game. Conventional wisdom says that our Dems are so poll-driven and focus group tested that authentic progressivism never shines forth to inspire the public.

Bullshit.

Let's be clear on something: our Democrats are perfectly well capable of standing up to Republicans--and even to the American people--when they damn well feel like it.

Exhibit A: Gay Rights. Even though the "Democrats Support Gays" angle is one of the few tactics the GOP have been able to play against Democrats with any sort of continued success, our House Dens were more than brave enough to pass an anti-discrimination bill protecting gays and lesbians from workplace discrimination. Certainly, this is a wonderful development for a long oppressed minority, for civil rights, and for the American Constitution. And yet, if Democrats were able to do this on such a contentious issue where the polling, while improving, is still marginal at best, why not on other issues like Iraq or healthcare where the polling is so much clearer?

Exhibit B: Illegal Immigration. Even though the GOP had limited electoral success this year playing the anti-immigrant card, the polling on this issue remains abysmal for Democrats. Whipped up by nativist media elements from Lou Dobbs to Pat Buchanan to every Republican racist hack with a deep fear of any skin color darker than porcelain, the American public is deeply anti-immigrant at this time. And yet, Democrats are somehow finding the spine and courage to promote (or at least hem and haw about) giving driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants--despite polls showing that 3 out of 4 Americans disapprove of the idea. During the major war over immigration earlier this year in which Congressional Republicans eventually caved to pressure from their base, Democrats were more than willing to take the unpopular position of so-called "amnesty."

The same goes for affirmative action programs, which have mixed support with the American public. And certainly, Democrats have no difficulty standing up and opposing the majority of Americans who want more progressive policies ranging from healthcare to foreign policy.

So what's the difference? Why do Democrats seem able to show such courage on some issues, but not on others? Why in god's name does Hillary Clinton find it easier to consider giving driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants than to promise universal health coverage for all Americans? Why in the world does Barack Obama find it easier to support gay rights than to support the speedy drawdown of American forces in Iraq? Why in all hell does Dianne Feinstein have no trouble supporting the difficult issue of abortion rights, but cannot find the will to oppose the simple issue of the Mukasey nomination--even though her next election is years away and no one will even remember or care what she did on Mukasey come 2010?

The answer is simple: they're not poll-driven cowards; they're cynical electioneering manipulators. Perhaps they're right to be; perhaps it's the best way when all is said and done. Perhaps the end of electoral victory justifies the means of cynical accommodation and capitulation in the short term. Who knows? But weak and cowardly they aren't.

The awful truth is that--all references to "do-nothing Congresses" aside--when the people are upset (and make no mistake: the people are plenty upset right now), they tend to blame those who hold the power. They don't tend to blame those who are--or at least seem to be--powerless. When the people want change they lash out at whoever appears to be in charge, pretty much regardless of who they are. When the people think the the country's on the wrong track, they're pretty much certain to throw out whoever looks like they're conducting the train.

In fact, to act at all in such a way that would demonstrate they have real power, would be to take responsibility for the absolute mess this country is currently in--from housing troubles to currency collapses to global warming issues to foreign policy disasters to a host of other troubles.

On the other hand, to fan the flames of public resentment against the current holders of power for perceived wrongs is nothing short of electoral gold. Republicans were brilliant about doing this for years in their role as a minority opposition party: they would successfully trash Democrats while offering no coherent solutions of their own beyond a culture of "I've got mine; screw you." It was only when forced to actually attempt to govern that Republicans ended up sowing the seeds of their own demise.

An important and utterly perverse corollary of these two premises is that, so long as we have an unpopular Republican president and a Democratic legislature, the Executive must be seen as overwhelmingly powerful compared to the Legislative for Democrats to win. So long as the public believes that Bush is driving the train and the Democrats are itching but unable to get into the driver's seat, the public will be so angry by November 2008 that they will toss Bush and anyone associated with him out of the driver's seat and put Democrats in charge. Thus, so long as Democrats keep their eye on electoral victory rather than on their oath of office, Article I of the Constitution is doomed to near irrelevance if not extinction.

Indeed, the only way (to the congressional mindset) to screw things up for electoral victory in '08 would be, ironically, to act and exercise their authority rather than to complain. Why defund the Occupation of Iraq and risk having the voters turn their scorn on you when/if things go badly, when you can simply fume impotently about the President's Iraq policy and keep the focus on him, instead? Why risk taking real action on healthcare and making people upset about whatever transition pains may take place, when you can simply get people riled up about their HMOs? Why impeach the Vice-President and risk focusing the spotlight on yourself, when it's so much easier to rage with feigned indignation at Cheney's latest abuse of power?

After all, as far as the Congressional mindset is concerned, the only mistake Congressional Republicans made during the Clinton years was actually going through with stalling the budget and impeaching Clinton, thereby making the election more about Gingrich than Clinton. Never mind that Clinton was more popular and a better politician and policy-maker than Gingrich: to your average strategist, the problem was that Gingrich became an issue at all.

And let's be clear: to defund the Occupation of Iraq or impeach the President shows that you have power. To promote equal rights for all couples or affirmative action programs shows that you care for the Constitution at best, or are pandering to specific demographics at worst.

The Democrats have no difficulty standing up to Republicans and public opinion to do the latter, but they have major issues doing the former.

They're not weak; they just want to win. Their strategy is to act as weak and helpless as possible so that the other guy takes the fall for the current and coming disasters.

And until we realize that that's what is going on, our exhortations to stand stronger against Republican depredations will continue to fall on deaf ears attuned not the needs of the American people, but rather to a concerted strategy aimed at 2008 victories through the path of least resistance.

How Dare Republicans Use Katrina for Electoral Gold?

2007-11-05T14:32:00.000-08:00

As the next election season begins unfolds and the primaries get into full swing, it is natural to begin the process of writing epitaphs on the previous administration. This must be done, if for no other reason, than so that other campaigns can compare and contrast their prospective agendas with those that came before them.

In the case of the ~~Bush Administration~~ Worst Administration in History, the all-too familiar adjectives have already become shopworn: "Incompetent." "Misguided." "Reckless." "Misleading." "Stubborn." We who pay attention and aren't afraid to tell the truth, on the other hand, know better: Bush is not incompetent; he is, in fact, criminally negligent and pathologically corrupt. It is old hat for progressives at this point to say that we must continue to emphasize this point< in any way we can to demonstrate that the problem with the last 8 years is not a Bush Administration problem, but a problem of Republican ideology.

The Mississippi governor's race has given us yet another opportunity to do just that, in association with the debacle that did more to undo the Bush Presidency than the Occupation of Iraq: the criminally negligent response to Hurricane Katrina.

One would think that the issue of Katrina would be a political poison pill to Republicans. Not so in Mississippi, however, where recovery efforts and disaster response times have been much faster than in New Orleans. In Mississippi, the L.A. Times reports that current Republican governor Haley Barbour is trying to ride the issue of Katrina to re-election:

Haley Barbour, who impressed many with his quick disaster response [to Katrina], now hopes to ride that popularity to a second term...

Barbour, a former lobbyist and chairman of the Republican National Committee, is riding high in Mississippi, where he is widely considered to be the front-runner in Tuesday's election. Campaign finance reports from October showed him with nearly $6 million in cash on hand, compared with $23,000 for his Democratic rival, John Eaves.

Not only is this GOP machine operative who worked for Richard Nixon's 1968 campaign seemingly destined to cruise to re-election as Mississippi's governor, he's being touted as prime vice-presidential material--especially by the likes of Rudy Giuliani. Apparently, Giuliani's decision to place emergency anti-terrorism essentials in the top terrorist target, to fail to integrate emergency responders' communication equipment, and failure to address the concerns of poisonous particulates at the Ground Zero site makes him a perfect comparison with a governor who had the good fortune to have Trent Lott's porch within his territory.

And why would a Republican operative who used fiscal mismanagement as an excuse to cut tens of thousands of poor and elderly from Medicaid have the gall to run on Katrina, even if his response were effective? Well, first there's the partisan Rovian corruption involving federalization that Michael "Brownie" Brown, former head of FEMA, enlightened us about:

Brown, speaking at the Metropolitan College of New York, said he had recommended to President Bush that all 90,000 square miles along the Gulf Coast affected by the devastating hurricane be federalized, a term Brown explained as placing the federal government in charge of all agencies responding to the disaster.

"Unbeknownst to me, certain people in the White House were thinking, 'We had to federalize Louisiana because she's a white, female Democratic governor, and we have a chance to rub her nose in it,'" he said, without naming names. "'We can't do it to Haley [Barbour] because Haley's a white male Republican governor. And we can't do a thing to him. So we're just gonna federalize Louisiana.'"

And then there's the less directly overt but still insanely corrupt issue of reconstruction efforts. If you're a Republican, a little open graft never hurts:

The governor's critics, however, contend that his post-storm success was due largely to his Republican friends in Washington. Blanco, who did not seek a second term, has even alleged a "political conspiracy" in which GOP leaders in Washington stiffed Louisiana while lavishing money on Barbour's state...

The governor's supporters said they saw Mississippi shine where Louisiana stumbled. For one thing, Mississippians got their housing recovery money quicker. By January 2007, more than 10,000 Mississippi homeowners had received federal rebuilding grants from the program administered by their state. In Louisiana, fewer than 300 had received their money. (Louisiana officials say the comparison is unfair. Congress began fully funding Mississippi's program six months before theirs; Louisiana has since paid out more than 67,000 grants.)...

Few doubt that Barbour's Washington contacts paid off for Mississippi, especially before Republicans lost control of Congress in 2006. Until then, Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) had been chairman of the powerful appropriations committee...

By some measures, Mississippi received a disproportionate share of the federal aid for recovery from Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma. A study funded by the Rockefeller Institute of Government found that Mississippi had 20% of the major or severe housing damage, but got 33% of the Community Development Block Grant funds. Louisiana had 67% of the damage and received 62% of those funds.

So here's the story: while Bush strummed his guitar and shared birthday cake with John McCain during th, the male former RNC head of a Red State gets to run his own show, get federal monies and assistance far in advance, use his contacts to pull strings, and finds a way to get much more money compared to its needs. He strides ahead in the polls and is on his way to running for the seat currently occuppied by Darth Cheney. And the people couldn't be more thrilled:

Look, I hate lobbyists," said Janet Densmore, 59, a Democrat from the hard-hit coastal city of Waveland. "But I've got to say that in the post-Katrina world, his connections benefited us quite a bit." Densmore was living in a government-provided trailer until September, when she moved into a tiny prefab Katrina Cottage as part of a program that Barbour championed. "And I'm proud of him for it," she said.

Meanwhile, the female Democratic governor of a blue state gets her power removed, is left helpless, gets federal funds in delayed manner, and receives fewer funds overall than needed. She will face a difficult re-election battle.

That's not what you call "misguided", "stubborn", "clueless" or "incompetent." That's what you call "criminally corrupt."

At the very least, if a Republican is going to dare run on Katrina of all things on a local level, the Republican Party as a whole should pay a price on a national level. The public should be reminded of just how competent the Bush Administration is in bestowing political favors to its cronies and allies, while letting the rest of America eat cake.

And that, when all is said and done, from Blackwater to Barbour, should be the final epitaph of this horrid Administration.

Bush Admin Loses Its Weak Claim to Moral Clarity

2007-10-11T16:30:00.000-07:00

Everyone who has been paying even the remotest attention to the events of the last seven years can say without a shadow of a doubt that this Administration is one of the worst--if not the very worst--in human history. Whether it's allowing the destruction of an entire American city, turning heavy surpluses into record deficits, the hollowing out of the nation's middle class, violating and shredding the U.S. Constitution in a way that would make Richard Nixon shudder, or failing to catch the world's #1 mass murderer and terrorist-in-chief, the points on a possible list of Administration failures of judgment and morality is astounding.

Arguably worse than all of them, of course, was the criminal, irresponsible and immoral move to attack and occupy Iraq at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, and the desecration of America's image abroad.

Throughout all of this, however, the Bush Administration's one single line of rhetorical defense for its actions has been an appeal to a childish, simplistic view of moral clarity. Why more tax cuts for the rich? Because the people should keep their money, not government. Why torture and shred the Constitution? Gotta do what it takes to defend the American people. Why stay in Iraq? Gotta defeat the terrorists. It's the bumper-sticker party writ large: there's good, and there's evil--and America's on the side of good.

Nowhere is this more obvious than in the Republican arguments for attacking Iran. We must attack Iran, we are told, because they are developing nuclear weapons and their President has made threatening statements toward Israel. And what do we constantly hear is one of the biggest proofs that Iranian President Ahmadinejad is an evil nut who must be attacked? That he is a holocaust denier. What sort of evil man would ever deny the fact of the Jewist Holocaust at the hands of the Nazis?

The America of the Bush Administration does not stand for such things. The America of the Bush Administration does not condone mass murdering terrorists and holocaust deniers. The America of the Bush Administration does not negotiate with evil regimes responsible for barbarous acts of cruelty (though we do little to stop the violence in Darfur or in Burma). The America of the Bush Administration knows black from white, white from black (especially in New Orleans, apparently). The Bush Administration, we are told, has the moral clarity necessary to condemn evil wherever it is (don't look into any mirrors, boys!).

Until, of course, it becomes inconvenient. This week the Democratic House Committee Foreign Affairs passed a resolution condemning as "genocide" the 1915 exportation and massacre of 1.5 million Armenians by Turkish authorities. In response, Turkey has recalled its ambassador and made condemnations of its own. In spite of Turkey's protestations, there can be no doubt that the actions of the Ottoman Empire were deliberate, cruel and directed squarely at the Armenian people; living as I do near a community of Armenians, it is difficult to express and the anger and anguish still strongly felt by this proud people about what they view as insufficient attention and admission of wrongdoing given to one of the worst genocides in human history. In fact, 22 other countries have already expressed the view that the Armenian Massacre was indeed a genocide The Bush Administration's stance?

The measure passed on Wednesday despite extraordinary last-minute efforts by Bush Administration officials, including the President himself, to have it shelved out of concern that it could hurt relations with a key NATO ally and affect U.S. troops in Iraq.

And why would the Bush Administration be so desperate to placate Turkey?

Seventy percent of American air cargo and a third of the fuel the U.S. uses in neighboring Iraq passes through the its air base in Incirlik in southern Turkey. Prior to the bill's passage, Turkish politicians had warned of possible retaliation by blocking the use of Incirlik...It comes as Washington tries to persuade Turkey not to launch a military operation into north Iraq to pursue separatist Kurdish guerrillas who are based there and who have been staging increasingly violent attacks in southeast Turkey. The U.S. is opposed to any such move, fearful that it could disrupt Kurdish-controlled north Iraq, the only relatively stable area in the country.

But the government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is under huge public pressure after several deadly attacks by Kurdish guerrillas in the southeast that have killed 30 people in under two weeks. Members of Turkey's parliament are due to vote on allowing a cross-border military incursion next week, and the military machine is already preparing. "After the U.S. House vote, the Turkish public is going to think tit for tat," says Birand. "This is going to strengthen the nationalists, including the position of those people who want us to invade north Iraq."

Honestly, it is not for me to decide what is the right thing to do in this situation. From an emotional standpoint that takes justice and history into account, my heart goes out to the Armenian people and demands a recognition of the immense suffering to which they were subjected by a government and by a world that largely refuses to acknowledge it. From a rational standpoint, it is stupid realpolitik to be upsetting Turkey at the moment and potentially causing untold suffering today--especially over an issue that is over 90 years old and concerns a government that no longer functionally exists.

It is, in short, a gray moral area, fraught with the sort of complexity and difficulty so often overlooked and repudiated by the Bush Administration.

And yet, the Administration has explicitly chosen the realpolitik of attempting to salvage an impossible occupation of Iraq, over the moral clarity of condemning the very real genocide of 1.5 million people.

No matter what happens from here or what the right course of action is, one thing is absolutely certain: we should never have to hear again from outraged Republicans about Ahmadinejad's populist denials of the Holocaust, since they themselves refuse to acknowledge holocausts when it is politically convenient to them. We should never have to hear again from George Bush about the necessity to confront murderous regimes. Democrats should never again be tagged as moral sissies afraid to call an evil spade a spade, while Republicans stand up for human rights and against genocide regardless of the consequences.

Because the Bush Administration's last flimsy grasp on the issue of moral clarity has just disappeared.

Progressive: the OTHER Third Way

2007-10-11T16:28:00.000-07:00

Among the many prevailing bits of tragically misguided conventional wisdom is the idea that the word "progressive" can be used interchangeably with the word "liberal". Pundits use the words as synonyms, while pollsters like John Zogby use a measurement scale of political stances where the position farthest to the left is "progressive/very liberal". Even many on our side have a great deal of difficulty attempting to define the difference.

Most of the time, "progressive" is seen as the positive, new framing of the word "liberal", which is supposed to have been artificially stripped of its positive connotations by conservative ideologues. The best example of this view was seen in Hillary Clinton's response at the Democratic Youtube debate.

This particular view of things may to comforting to those of us on the left: it allows us to avoid painful divisions within our own party and movement, and it gives us a powerful word we can use both to rally our friends and attack our enemies.

The problem is that progressives very different from liberals--and we will never truly capture the hearts and minds of the American voter until we make the separation clear. Until we demonstrate this difference to the American public, we will always be just one major fear-inducing attack or catastrophe away from a terrified return to authoritarian impulses. It gets a little in-depth from here, but please bear with me: it's worth it.

While the battle between left and right has been going on since the beginning of civilization, the conflict between Liberalism and Conservatism as we have come to understand them in Western society today really begins with the Renaissance and the Humanist break from the strict hierarchies of feudalism and the Church, and comes full bloom with the Age of Enlightenment.

While the subject is obviously far too complex to adequately distill into a blog post, the essential battle lines between Liberalism and Conservativism traditionally rested on a conflict about fundamental human nature: from the theological conservatives of the Middle Ages to the Burkeian conservatives of the modern era, traditional Conservatism rests on a belief that mankind is basically evil--and that established authoritarian traditions are the only thing keeping human society from falling into chaos and sin. Traditional Liberalism, on the other hand, rests on the premise that human nature is essentially good--and therefore that given equal opportunities and a lack of inequalities that give rise to conflict, mankind can achieve a future devoid of tyranny, war and suffering. Conservatives, therefore, are traditionally wary of change and apt to view government as a tool essential to the preservation of order, while Liberals traditionally embrace change while putting a premium on individual liberty.

Obviously, this traditional order has been turned on its head: today, in spite of convincing arguments to the contrary, libertarians align themselves with "conservatives" and "neoconservatives" who make radical alterations (i.e., shredding) to the Constitution, while attempting to make radical alterations to the world map with the use of American troops. Meanwhile, "Liberals" find themselves in the uncomfortable position of appealing to the tradition of checks and balances while being more cautious about the posssibility of making rapid changes for the promotion of human liberty abroad, while "neoliberals" interested in "free markets" align themselves (in a most confusing turn of events) with "neoconservatives".

When "neoliberal" and "neoconservative" mean much the same thing, you know it is time for a reconception of the political divide, and a re-evaluation of what we mean by "left" and "right" in this country. kid oakland's fantastic diary on October 7th presents an excellent overview of this thesis--an argument I have also made less eloquently in various fits and starts.

Both Conservatism and Liberalism traditionally understood are at points of nearly disastrous crisis. For Conservatives, the decline of belief in organized religions, the abnegation of longstanding traditions and the extraordinary pace of societal change are terrifying. More terrifying, however, is that fact that society seems to be humming along fine without the need for culture-preserving authoritarian controls: if a multicultural, multiracial, polyglottal, areligious, semi-socialist society can function without adverse consequences, the entire premise of Conservatism is shot. Canada and Western Europe prove the failure of Conservatism every single day, causing great gnashing of teeth and extraordianry antipathy.

For Liberals, on the other hand, the 20th Century served to disprove any notion of the essential goodness of human nature, of the promise of Marxist thinking, or of the ability to transcend war, inequality and suffering. Nietzschian humanism helped give rise to Hitler; Marxism helped lead to the greatest atrocities in human history; and the great Aquarian revolution of the 1960's couldn't even keep that very same baby boom generation from voting in droves for Ronald Reagan.

What we are left with today in the 21st century is a situation nearly unparalleled in human history: on the one hand, the world is more diverse, globalized and uprooted from its traditions than ever before--leading to undeniable progress and prosperity. On the other hand, human beings have been shown capable of a massive selfishness, cruelty and destruction to one another and to our environments that not even our conservative ancestors could have imagined possible.

This is where Progressivism comes in. Progressivism is a new third way that is based not in liberal or conservative ideology but in the pragmatism of reality. Progressivism makes no pretense about the essentially selfish nature of the human condition--but also makes no pretense that cultural bigotry or authoritarian strictures will make any improvement upon it. Progressivism understands that the only way to improve conditions for ourselves and our environment is to look at what works for the common good and what doesn't--regardless of ideology or tradition.

Progressives appeal to the system of checks and balances and to the protections of the Constitution because they are the best way to maximize liberty while protecting us from the selfish interests of the powerful.

Progressives shy away from unprovoked military action overseas because we understand the reality of blowback and difficulty of imposing one culture on another through military force. We do not, however, oppose military action when truly necessary to defend ourselves, or because we are anti-war in general: after all, there really are some very bad people out there who do want to do us harm.

Progressives fear the power of corporations more than that of governments because governments can ostensibly work for the common good when an effective watchdog media is in place, while corporations will only ever work for the bottom line.

Progressives are content to let the free market do its thing when the market is truly free and the consumer is best served--but we are also quick to intercede when the markets are manipulated or cornered, and the consumer is being abused.

Progressives want to do something about the climate crisis if for no other reason than because the cost of inaction will be far greater, on a pragmatic basis, than the cost of action.

Progressives understand that while no one race or people are superior to any other, fundamentalism of any stripe or creed is always dangerous and must be opposed at every turn.

------------------------------------------

In short, a Progressive uses a pragmatic approach to solving the world's problems, one step at a time and without regard to ideology, with an eye toward the common good. A Progressive is not a starry-eyed liberal who believes in the essential goodness of human nature, or that all wars can be avoided through better diplomacy, or that all cultures and creeds are created equal.

Progressivism is, in short, a real new way forward that upends traditional divisions between the left and right, liberals and conservatives.

And if we make that distinction clear, we can establish ourselves as the vision of optimism and clarity that will lead in the 21st Century. If we fail to do so, we will be painted as pie-in-the-sky idealists unfit to lead the nation in times of peril when liberalism is once again shown to be an inadequate theory for solving the problems of the human condition.

You MUST see this film

2007-10-08T15:06:00.000-07:00

It has taken some time, but Hollywood is finally taking the gloves off and punching hard at the administration with unveiled force. Buoyed by artists, actors and producers passionately committed to promoting a serious political message of desperate straits and a need for public activism, this newfound courage has resulted in at least one film that deserves highest praise both for artistry of cinema, depth of emotion, and complexity of message. The film to which I refer is called Lions for Lambs, and will be distributed for general audience on November 9th and stars Meryl Streep, Tom Cruise and Robert Redford (who directs as well). To use a trite but appliacable cliche, if you see only one non-documentary film this year, make it be this one--you won't be disappointed.

It is interesting to see the evolution Hollywood has taken over the last couple of years. Whereas before we were treated to thinly veiled allegorical and not-so-allegorical critiques of Republican ideology and American foreign policy in films such as V for Vendetta, Syriana, Children of Men, or even Star Wars Ep. III: Revenge of the Sith, it seems that this fall we are starting to see an explosion of films that are explicitly targeted at and based in current events. In addition to Lions for Lambs, there is also the upcoming Rendition, a film starring Reese Witherspoon, Jake Gyllenhaal and Meryl Streep about NSA wiretapping, harsh interrogation techniques and extraordinary rendition; In the Valley of Elah starring Tommy Lee Jones, Susan Sarandon and Charlize Theron, which looks at the psychological impact of the war on soldiers returning home; and The Kingdom currently in theaters and starring Jamie Foxx and Jennifer Garner, which explores the complications of American foreign policy in Saudi Arabia and beyond. It will be interesting to see how the public reacts--both at the box office and in the general culture.

Not having seen The Kingdom, In the Valley of Elah or Rendition as of yet, I cannot speak for their merits. I can, however, speak for Lions for Lambs. I was invited to see the film at a small private screening at MGM's tower in Century City: the producers are showing the film to select members of the political establishment, as well as the traditional and new media. Mickey Kaus of Kausfiles at Slate had been invited to see the film but couldn't make it--and after our BlogTalkRadio debate a couple of weeks ago he decided to refer the invitation to me.

I'm glad I was invited, and it is clear why the producers are showing people this film in advance with great confidence. Lions for Lambs is an extroardinary film that deals unflinchingly with our current political predicament, covering nearly every aspect of societal failure and distributing blame across the board in a plea to the American public to get out of their fantasy-land doldrums and get involved in the political process. The film follows three threads: Robert Redford as a UCLA political science professor attempting to motivate a privileged, apathetic but brilliant student; two young soldiers surrounded by enemy forces in a botched "new strategy" mission in Afghanistan; and Tom Cruise as an ambitious, talented, warmongering Republican Senator giving Meryl Streep's seasoned political reporter exclusive access for a story on the "new strategy."

It is a testament to the beauty and complexity of the film (and the subtle, incisive quality of the performances) that no one comes away looking good from this film, and yet no one comes away as a blackhearted villain, either. Tom Cruise's Republican Senator is perhaps the most despicable character in the film--and yet, he comes across less as venal and corrupt than he does arrogant and wilfully ignorant of history in his desperation to find a solution to the intractable foreign policy problem he and his Party helped create. Robert Redford's professor is perhaps the most likeable, and yet the consequences of his influence have mixed results, and we are left to wonder whether he himself might not be capable of doing much more to make a difference. The film provides no easy answers, or even easy targets; while there are a few important public policy points that I would quibble with (removing forces from Afghanistan is painted as equivalent to removing them from Iraq for some strange reason, and invading Iraq was painted more as a product of post-9/11 hysteria than as the direct result of neoconservative malice aforethought), the overall effect remains complex, powerful and mostly on target.

The painful lesson of the film is that the greatest evils are those that we do just in the name of getting by and going along: the apathy of students who fear a lifetime of debt and figure that their lives will be unaffected by whether they attempt to make a difference or not; the near irrelevance of educators ensconced in their institutions; the corporate media hierarchy serving up entertainment rather than news because it helps feed the bottom line; the reporters themselves unable or unwilling to report real stories for fear of their jobs; the soldiers and generals simply acting on the orders of civilian politicians not qualified to be ordering them; and the politicians trying to get re-elected while supposedly making the best of a botched situation.

The film's title is taken from a quote relayed by Redford's character and attributed to a German commander from World War I, stating that the British soldiers were like lions, but that their bravery was wasted by British commanders who were like lambs. The reference was, of course, to the American servicemen and servicewomen in Iraq and Afghanistan whose heroism is being wasted by cowardly and incompetent civilian "leadership" here at home--and betrayed by the apathy and cowardice of the American population at large, and by the Democratic political opposition (though the film only barely touches upon the last point). The parallel is strikingly apt, and the call to action, while late at this point entering the fall of 2007, could not come at a better time as we prepare for the Iraq Supplemental fight in January of 2008.

It is a rare thing for a fictional film to achieve the heights of complexity and clarion call to action of a progressive documentary--but this one gets the job done in a way that I believe will be palatable to the average American in both Red and Blue areas. The drama, editing and riveting performances are the sugar that may help the medicine of activist change go down a little easier for the general public. Every little bit helps when it comes to affecting public opinion and driving change: I encourage everyone to see this movie when it comes out in November, and to tell all your non-political friends to see it as well.

If you're interested, the trailer for the film can also be found here.

Why It's So Important that Hillary be Defeated

2007-09-28T01:16:00.001-07:00

I have refrained so far from explicitly coming out in favor of any Democratic presidential candidate, or of explicitly bashing any of our presidentials. In fact, many may remember my post I would work hard for a Hillary/Lieberman ticket, in which I took the position that getting Republicans out of the White House was too imperative to allow intra-party fights to sour our work ethic and enthusiasm.

But now I must insist on the importance of explicitly coming out against the Hillary juggernaut. As is obvious from observing the recommended list on any given day, many here are already boosting their own preferred candidates in a hope of defeatign Hillary for the Democratic nomination. But the majority of progressive bloggers here and elsewhere are taking more of a wait-and-see approach to this primary--partially, I am sure, in a desire to avoid the sorts of meltdowns that took place in the wake of Howard Dean's ~~narrow~~ loss in the 2004 primaries.

The first reason for my change in attitude about this election can be found in my post from yesterday titled The Time for Radical Change is NOW. As much as America cannot afford 4 to 8 more years of Republican leadership, America cannot much better stand 4 to 8 years of middling lack of leadership on ticking time-bomb issues that require immediate, radical attention: reversing the income inequality gap, significantly curbing carbon emissions, and defunding the military-industrial complex (which includes, of course, withdrawing troops from Iraq.)

But the second reason is one that strikes close to home for the netroots: if Hillary wins, it will not be seen as a victory for both progressives and Democrats, or a mandate for progressive values. No matter how far to the left Hillary tacks in the primary to make herself seen as a viable agent of change (laughable as that may seem to us), her eventual victory will be seen as nothing less than a huge slap in the face to the netroots progressive movement, and a vindication of DLC ideology.

If you doubt this, look no further than today's preening and repulsive column by Washington darling David Brooks in the New York Times. In the tauntingly titled "The Center Holds", Brooks takes the opportunity to disparage the entire progressive movement and the netroots by using a single cudgel: Hillary's increasing lead in national Democratic Party polls.

In the beginning of August, liberal bloggers met at the YearlyKos convention while centrist Democrats met at the Democratic Leadership Council’s National Conversation. Almost every Democratic presidential candidate attended YearlyKos, and none visited the D.L.C.

At the time, that seemed a sign that the left was gaining the upper hand in its perpetual struggle with the center over the soul of the Democratic Party. But now it’s clear that was only cosmetic.

Now it’s evident that if you want to understand the future of the Democratic Party you can learn almost nothing from the bloggers, billionaires and activists on the left who make up the “netroots.” You can learn most of what you need to know by paying attention to two different groups — high school educated women in the Midwest, and the old Clinton establishment in Washington.

The reason, says Brooks, is Hillary's lead in the national polls--which stands in opposition to the prevailing preference of the progressive blogosphere and many of the educated activists in Hollywood and elsewhere. Meanwhile, says Brooks, the DLC is still firmly in the driver's seat when it comes to making policy in the Democratic Party:

Clinton has established this lead by repudiating the netroots theory of politics. As the journalist Matt Bai makes clear in his superb book, “The Argument,” the netroots emerged in part in rebellion against Clintonian politics. They wanted bold colors and slashing attacks. They didn’t want their politicians catering to what Markos Moulitsas Zúniga of the Daily Kos calls “the mythical middle.”

But Clinton has relied on Mark Penn, the epitome of the sort of consultant the netroots reject, and Penn’s approach has been entirely vindicated by the results so far.

In a series of D.L.C. memos with titles like “The Decisive Center,” Penn has preached that while Republicans can win by appealing only to conservatives, Democrats must appeal to centrists as well as liberals. In his new book, “Microtrends,” he casts a caustic eye on the elites and mega-donors of both parties who are out of touch with average voter concerns.

Fourth, the netroots are losing the policy battles. As Matt Bai’s reporting also suggests, the netroots have not been able to turn their passion and animus into a positive policy agenda. Democratic domestic policy is now being driven by old Clinton hands like Gene Sperling and Bruce Reed.

Moreover, Brooks argues that in spite of the lip-service Democratic politicians may offer the netroots, the kowtowing and cowardly votes that the Congressional Dems make are reflective not of fear of Republican retaliation, but rather of their own (outdated) views of the electorate.

The fact is, many Democratic politicians privately detest the netroots’ self-righteousness and bullying. They also know their party has a historic opportunity to pick up disaffected Republicans and moderates, so long as they don’t blow it by drifting into cuckoo land. They also know that a Democratic president is going to face challenges from Iran and elsewhere that are going to require hard-line, hawkish responses.

My point here is not to argue with Brooks' self-satisfied pompous idiocy. It would be too easy to point to polls showing that voters prefer Democrats to Republicans on handling terrorism. It would be too obvious to point out that the electorate can no longer be described as conservative, or that the views of the public do not reside in vaccuum, untouched by recent events and experiences. It would be too simple to point out the victories of self-described progressives and the losses of DLC dems in 2006, or to indicate that Clinton's strong name recognition among those who barely pay attention to politics may be helping her significantly--especially since the attack ads haven't yet begun. It would be too facile to demonstrate that preference for presidential candidates is dependent on a variety of factors, arguably the least important of which is specific policy views.

None of that is the point. The point is that in the noxious air of Washington, D.C., in which the major decisions are made, people like Brooks will misguidedly see a Hillary victory as a reason to breathe a sigh of relief and remain comfortable with a lack of serious change in the way business is done in American government. Regardless of the reality of the situation, Hillary's inauguration will be nothing less than confirmation of the prevailing wisdom of the status quo--just with a little less swagger and explicit giveaways to Wall Street, the oil industry, and military contractors.

Hillary, unfortunately, has made her stance clear--and that tiger isn't going to change its stripes. She is the DLC candidate, and she is intending on staying that way. And as far as she has swung left in order to capture the Democratic primary, she'll swing just that far back to the center in the general election, working under the misguided theory that she must do so in order to appeal to "moderate" voters (who, by and large, actually stand to the left of the Party overall on most issues).

And because she has chosen that strategy, the actual repercussions of her hypothetical victory are beyond the control of us, the Congress, or even Hillary herself. The message that will be sent to America at large is that while Bush's excesses will be gone, nothing major will actually change--and "the adults" like Broder will still be firmly in charge.

For that reason, if for no other, there can no longer be any ambivalence about Hillary's candidacy among the netroots. This is not an issue of some better and some worse candidates from among a good field. The battle has been pitched by the Beltway class: either she wins, they get vindicated, and we lose--or we win, she loses, and people like David Broder are forced to explain just what happened to their precious conventional wisdom.

There's just no other way.

The Time for Radical Change is NOW

2007-09-28T01:15:00.000-07:00

I want to make a frank admission today: I'm beginning to lose faith in the power of political change. I'm beginning to lose faith in the power of activism. I don't feel like blogging, or supporting candidates, or uncovering the latest Republican scandal (though there seems to be a new one every day.) Attempting to shame the media once again into reporting some real news with regard for the actual truth, instead of serving yet again as a corporate infotainment venue, seems a notion so futile at this point it's almost quaint. I certainly don't see why I should bang my head against a wall hounding some braindead Democratic politician to support the most obvious, politically popular and strategically astute pieces of legislation.

I'm losing faith because the timelines even of progressive bloggers are too damn slow to make a difference. I'm losing faith because the minor changes being proposed to the way we do business as a nation are going to be utterly overpowered by the radical changes that will be forced upon us by external necessity. The time for demanding radical change, in short, is now--or there's little point in being politically engaged.

The principal reason for this goes to the very heart of why we have a government. The government exists for the purpose of long-term planning: primarily to protect its people from the byproducts of their own shortsighted ignorance, greed and stupidity, and to provide services that the people could never provide of their own accord without the benefit of long-term planning. Left alone and unregulated, the "free market" will accrue wealth and influence among the very few, whose shortsighted greed eventually causes a democratic system to collapse into oligarchy and tyranny--just as surely as the lack of an urban police force will cause the rise to power of criminal gangs and mafias. Without the influence reality-based, far-sighted thinkers, society is doomed to lurch from crisis to crisis, and entire civilizations to the cyclical rise and collapse that seems depressingly endemic to the human condition.

Today, any intelligent attempt at long-term planning for America and the world literally cries out for radical change. By any objective measure, the time for drastically changing the way we do business in this country is already well past due--and the gulf between what is seen as politically feasible, and what we need to do to save our skins, is simply enormous. Let's look at the issues, shall we?

The Climate Crisis

With every new emerging report, our deadline for acting to mitigate the climate crisis draws shorter and shorter--and the effects of failure to act become more and more severe. With every new report, the predictions of temperature increases and ice melts predicted for years or even decades from now are proving to be happening already. The latest report, published in the British paper The Independent (h/t to dkos diarist Barcelona for bringing this to our attention yesterday), put it in starkest terms yet:

A rise of two degrees centigrade in global temperatures – the point considered to be the threshold for catastrophic climate change which will expose millions to drought, hunger and flooding – is now "very unlikely" to be avoided, the world's leading climate scientists said yesterday...

Two years ago, an authoritative study predicted there could be as little as 10 years before this "tipping point" for global warming was reached ...

"Even if we achieve a cap at two degrees, there is a stock of major impacts out there already and that means adaptation. You cannot mitigate your way out of this problem... The choice (now)is between a damaged world or a future with a severely damaged world."

It's not just that the climate is changing increasingly for the worse: the rate of detrimental change is rapidly increasing. Even if we made major legislative changes today, it is unclear just how much effect we would be able to have on the problem by the time those changes in the law resulted in changes to corporate and popular behavior.

Certainly, if we wait until the expiry of George Bush's term in office, the effect will be that much more muted, and the problem that much more severe. If we wait over a decade until we have courageous progressives in office (and presuming that cyclical political winds haven't shifted back in conservative directions by then), the train will have already left the station with no hope of recall. And none of this even gets into the problem that controlling our own behavior is only the first step: putting pressure on China and other nations in Asia to do their part is also necessary to deal with the crisis--something that can only be done once we have the credibility and moral high ground on the issue to make any demands.

Meanwhile, our Democrats can't even put increased CAFE standards or a decent feebate system into their latest energy bill. Unbelievable.

The Economy

The Republican Party has so screwed over the American People that it is difficult to know where to begin, or even what measures to take in attempting to mitigate the problem. The upward redistribution of wealth in the United States has occurred at such a rapid pace over the last 25 years that it is genuinely surprising that there is a middle class left. Certainly, Bill Clinton was no economic saint, as he did less than nothing to stem the collapse of the American manufacturing sector or to close the increasing gap between rich and poor. Even so, he left us with a balanced budget and huge economic surpluses--in spite of the landmines and booby traps left for him by the Republican Congress.

Meanwhile, the economic surpluses and strengthened middle class left to us by Bill Clinton have been transformed by Reverse Midas Bush into massive deficits, a huge national debt, and an American Dollar now being sunk into an inflationary spiral in a vain attempt to mitigate the housing and liquidity crisis caused by (surprise!) a shortsighted and greedy lending, banking and finance industry. Not, of course, that America has an exporting sector left to take advantage of a weak Dollar. And, of course, the Republican Party, aided and abetted by spineless Democrats, have ensured that declaring bankruptcy is now next to impossible.

The only real economy left now is that of the Plutonomy: as long as the rich spend money like water and the American middle class goes deeper and deeper into debt, the GDP continues to hum along nicely even as the system itself hollows out like a rotted tree. As I stated in my post The Economy of the Rich, by the Rich and For the Rich, all the industries that cater to the wealthy are performing beautifully, even as the rest of us take the dregs of what they provide and struggle (usually underemployed) in recessionary conditions. It was difficult to know whether to laugh or the cry as I watched CNBC yesterday, and the commentators were expressing shock that rising energy prices didn't seem to be having a dampening effect on economic growth: the idiots who currently run the system don't seem to understand the economics of a Plutonomy--if only the rich are driving economic growth, little things like rising energy costs that don't affect them, won't affect economic growth.

What is required to even attempt to fix this situation is a far-sighted plan to reward work instead of wealth, to reverse the trend of income inequality, and to invest in the sorts of biological and energy technology fields that will provide the good jobs of the future.

Obama and Edwards have each come out with some good-looking plans to accomplish some of these things. The problem (beyond the fact that neither of them, unfortunately, looks set to win the Democratic nomination) is that by the time they take office and fight to pass some of these programs through Congress, it will already be late 2009 or 2010: far too late to undo the damage occurring to the American Economy at incraesingly rapid pace.

The War

It is obviously important to stand and fight to end the Occupation of Iraq as soon as possible. And yet, while the Senate and the President bicker over just how many American troops stay in Iraq and for how long, the bigger and much more important picture is going completely unaddressed. While progressives fight to end this war/occuaption, we are leaving ourselves completely vulnerable to going into the next war on the slightest pretext or excuse.

Progressives are failing to address how we got dragged into Iraq in the first place. Anyone who has read American Theocracy by Kevin Phillips and Sorrows of Empire by Chalmers Johnson knows that we are in Iraq for two reasons: 1) to protect oil resources, and 2) to help perpetuate the military-industrial complex.

As long as America continues to be hopelessly dependent on oil, and as long as America continues to increase the amount of money and the size of its economy dependent on warmaking (the film Why We Fight is a must-see on this topic), America will continue to wage oil wars overseas. It might be Iraq today, but it will be Iran tomorrow. Or maybe Venezuela. Or maybe a Caspian nation. Or perhaps an oil-rich nation in Africa. Heck, maybe even China a decade from now.

Until and unless we make the major structural changes and bold moves necessary to decrease military spending, create an Apollo Program for new energy, and devolve the military-industrial complex, Iraq will be just one in a long series of expensive and crippling oil wars that bring our nation to its knees just as surely as the overreaches of the Roman and British Empires destroyed their ability to thrive and function.

And yet, as things stand politically today, the popular move of withdrawing forces from Iraq is seen as too radical a goal to achieve, while reducing military spending is seen as political suicide. If that is truly the case, then there is little point in political advocacy on foreign policy: by the time we wait the decade or two we need for real progressive leadership, Americans will already have endured two or three more destructive oil wars. By then, it will be too late.

-----------------------------------------------------------

In short, the stepping-stone changes we as progressives are attempting to make in American politics are too little, too late. We don't have five, ten, twenty years to do something about global warming, about the hollow economy, about the oil-military-industrial complex.

The time for demanding radical change and serious guts from our politicians is now. Small-scale gains and trading out Republicans for Democrats on a case-by-case basis, election by election, isn't even close to enough. We need major, serious change--and quickly. We need the current crop of Democrats to stand up and fight; we can't wait another ten years.

Otherwise, the long-term planning required of government will be superfluous: the painful changes that are demanded of us now, will be forced upon us tomorrow or else we, as a democratic nation, will fall into the dustbin of history. Either way, it won't be pretty.

The Economy of the Rich, by the Rich, and for the Rich

2007-09-10T15:56:00.000-07:00

As anyone closely following economic news knows, the American economy lost 4,000 jobs in August, even as analysts had expected job gains of over 100,000--a fact that caused tremors in the markets, even as fed bank presidents played down the results as a temporary aberration from a strong economy.

These assertions of a strong economy are based on a variety of misleading indicators, but principally rest on retail sales and consumer spending. As Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank president Dennis Lockhart said today, the recent bad news

should be evaluated with recently positive reports in retail sales...readings from July show that consumer spending remained strong.

Ignoring for a moment that heavy retail spending by the American consumer is only made possible by increases in consumer debt, it is important to note that consumer spending accounts for 70% of U.S. GDP; if Americans slow their spending significantly, the consequences for the global economy would range from harsh to dire.

The only problem is, consumer spending is propped up almost enitrely by the rich, while the middle class and certainly the impoverished struggle on valiantly in conditions that are little different from those of a recession. This disturbing but unsurpising phenomenon was reported on this Friday in a fantastic article by Daniel Gross in Slate, titled Will the Rich Save the Economy? The full article is fairly short and well worth the read--it's dificult to pull the juiciest parts and still fall within fair use. As Gross says, the incomes of the wealthy have increased dramatically; with those increases have come a concomitant rise in spending at the shopping venues they frequent.

First, the incomes:

And how are the rich doing? Quite well, thank you. Median income has been stagnant lo these many years, as the Census Bureau reported last month, and it is still below the level of 1999. But as David Cay Johnston reported (article purchase required) in the New York Times last month, people making more than $1 million "reaped almost 47 percent of the total income gains in 2005, compared with 2000" and "received 62 percent of the savings from the reduced tax rates on long-term capital gains and dividends that President Bush signed into law in 2003." Jonathan Chait's excellent new book, The Big Con, smartly argues that such outcomes are the intentional results of economic policies designed to redistribute income upward. (Few members of the Bush economic team will cop to the intent.)

Actually, I can verify this intent with more than just numbers. I had the personal opportunity to hear Commerce Secretary Gutierrez tell an audience of CEOs and CFOs in Washington D.C. (more on this to come in future posts, I promise) last month that he viewed it as the federal government's job to allocate as much capital as possible in their hands in order, ostensibly, to spur investment and growth in the global economy. Most progressives would argue that this upward redistribution of wealth is pure theft by Republicans to reward themselves and their wealthy donors. I am convinced, however, that it goes beyond even that: Republicans, by hollowing out the middle class economy, have created a situation wherein the rich must continue getting richer, or else the entire economic house of cards will collapse on their heads. Consumer spending is the most prominent example of how the rich are the only ones keeping the American economy from sputtering into the ground. After all, even as sales figures from mainstream retailers such as Wal-Mart, JC Penney and Sears have faltered, retailers catering to the wealthy are booming:

At Saks, same-store sales in August were up a stunning 18.2 percent; at Tiffany, same-store U.S. sales rose 17 percent in the second quarter. Indeed, luxury retailers are in an expansive mood. The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this week (subscription required) that "this year, some 30 high-end retailers have opened boutiques in Austin [Texas], including Tiffany & Co., Michael Kors, Ralph Lauren, David Yurman, Louis Vuitton and Burberry." These stores are located in a new mall anchored by Neiman Marcus, where same-store sales rose a healthy 4.6 percent in August. Among the strongest performers: "designer handbags, shoes, designer jewelry, women's fine apparel, and men's."

This phenomenon has been written about extensively, of course. My favorite term for it is Plutonomy: an economy that is driven by and/or that disproportionately benefits wealthy people. In a plutonomy, energy prices or unemployment numbers have muted impact on overall consumer spending, since they don't significantly affect the wealthy. In a plutonomy, retail sales in mainstream stores fall, but consumer spending remains "strong" due to heavy spending on ultra-expensive items and niche investments. In a plutonomy, asset bubbles that fall in the general market continue to rise in the tony markets. Another such example of this plutonomy, as Gross says, is in real estate:

Nationwide, the housing sales market may be a bust. But the Journal reports (subscription required) Friday morning that while many California housing markets suffer, "[e]ye-popping sales are spreading along a 40-mile stretch of southern Santa Barbara County." In July, sales in the area, "the only region of California where the median sales prices surpassed $1 million," rose nearly 28 percent. Publicly held home builders that cater to middle-class buyers are faring poorly. But the very wealthy are still building. This 50,000-square-foot home under construction in West Hartford, Ct., is worth 20 starter homes—and probably more, given the amenities. Or take personal transport. While auto sales are down, "the market for private jets is stronger than it has ever been," said Richard Aboulafia, analyst at the Teal Group. Economically speaking, a Gulfstream G550, which is made in the United States and goes for $48 million, is worth the equivalent of 3,200 Ford Focus coupes, which go for about $15,000 each.

This is the product, of course, of a redistribution of income and economic power from the middle class to the wealthy--a redistribution that has been taking place on massive scales virtually unabated since Reagan, and accelerated under George W. Bush. This trend has been partly due to the pressures of global trade, but mostly due to an intentional scheme of income displacement fostered and brought about by hyper-conservative and corporate ideology. Reagan, Bushes I and II, Norquist, Gringrich, Rove and corporate K-street have conspired each in their own way to create an economy in which Main Street is no longer connected to Wall Street--unless, of course, Wall Street suffers major losses. In that case, Main Street becomes a Brazilified place of increasingly disquiet desperation.

And that is exactly what we are in danger of today. While the American middle class suffers in a recessionary environment, the only things that continue to prop up the house-of-cards economy are the stock market and real estate gains of the wealthy. The stupidity, greed and sheer incompetence of the uber-rich and their Republican allies, however, has resulted in exploitation of the middle class through the very credit and mortgage ponzi schemes that are now causing such fear and even panic in the financial markets. Add poor employment numbers, a declining dollar, an unpopular, expensive and disastrous foreign occuption, huge trade and national deficients, and slow mainstream retail sales to the list of economic downward pressures on the investment markets, and the situation becomes even more precarious.

In the old days, if stocks lost significant value, the country could count on the resilience of the American middle class to absorb Wall Street's shock and excess, take cuts, send more family members into the labor force and rely on savings during periods of income instability. No longer. Now that the entire economy, such as it is, depends on the spending of the very wealthy, it is almost unthinkable to imagine what will take place once the trust find kiddies lose their trust funds and the rich get spooked by evaporating paper wealth. And yet here we are.

But that's what you get when you create an economy of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich.

Hear me on Meet the Bloggers

2007-09-09T10:07:00.001-07:00

Just got off a great Meet the Bloggers show hosted by Joh Padgett, where we discussed Iraq, the presidential candidates, and the shaky state of American Democracy. Give it a listen!

Hear nyceve LIVE @ 8pmEST talking healthcare w/ me & clammyc!

2007-09-06T19:25:00.000-07:00

You've read her magnificent diaries time and again on the rec list over at Daily Kos--now hear nyceve in her own voice talking about this all-important issue with me and clammyc tonight at 5pmPST/8pmEST on BlogTalkRadio!

As many here may already be aware, clammyc and I have regular internet radio shows every week on BlogTalkRadio which we also post to our radio blog Political Nexus. In addition to our regular shows Framework and Don't Hijack My Thread, we also do hour-long interviews with netroots candidates and bloggers: click the links for our interviews with Digby on Impeachment, Armando on the first Iraq Supplemental this year and MSOC on abortion.

Tonight will be nyceve's turn in the spotlight to talk about the failed American for-profit healthcare system. Among the issues we will be touching on include:

Personal stories from nyceve's professional experiences in medicine
nyceve's panel at YearlyKos 2007 in Chicago
Michael Moore's Sicko
recent actions by the American Cancer Society
SCHIP
the benefits and drawbacks of various solutions to the growing healthcare crisis in America
and much more

Again, don't miss this opportunity to hear nyceve in her own voice live on Blogtalkradio. Click here tonight at 5pmPST/8pmEST to listen to the show, or you can come back later and get the interview off our blog at Political Nexus.

See you there!

Top 4 GOP Candidates Refuse "Moral Values" Debate

2007-09-06T19:24:00.000-07:00

Much as tonight's laughable GOP debate has garnered media and blogosphere attention today, it may have been easy to overlook yet another telling GOP debate story: the snubbing of a social conservative so-called "values voter" debate. This debate, scheduled for September 17th and hosted by ultra wingnutty ValuesVoter.org (I refuse to provide a link), will be attended by most of the 2nd-tier contenders for the GOP nod, but will be avoided by McCain (though he's pretty much 2nd-tier now), Romney, Giuliani and Freddy.

The Murdoch-infested New York Sun has the story:

If self-styled "values voters" have felt snubbed by the Republican presidential candidates this election season, that snubbing is now official.

Mayor Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, and Senator McCain are all declining to participate in a September 17 debate in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., that's being hosted by an umbrella social-conservative group called ValuesVoter.org. Social conservatives will be upset; other conservatives might well be heartened by the waning power of the religious right.

A number of second-tier Republican candidates have confirmed attendance at the event, according to the news site WorldNetDaily.com, whose editor, Joseph Farah, is slated to moderate the debate. They include Rep. Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee, Rep. Tom Tancredo, Senator Brownback, Rep. Ron Paul, and John Cox.

Much as the top-tier GOP candidates scrambled tonight to please the Neanderthal Christianist mirror-image of the Taliban that comprises an increasingly large portion of the Republican base, their refusal to attend this event was extremely telling: several major players in the Christian Conservative movement including anti-feminist icon Phyllis Schlafly will be asking questions, and the debate will be streamed over the Internet and on satellite television. In many ways--from media coverage to political environment (strong activist base), failure to attend this debate would be similar to a Democratic candidate refusing to attend YearlyKos. It's a duck of extremely significant proportions.

Not that Rudy McRomneyson aren't stuck between a rock and a hard place:

Without any of the top-tier candidates in attendance, the ValuesVoter.org debate is unlikely to garner much attention from the mainstream press. The question is whether skipping the debate will hurt the Big Four more with the base than attending it might have hurt them with the rest of the country. Given the agenda of those who will be asking the questions-- anti-abortion, anti-stem-cell-research, anti-judicial-independence, anti-immigration, and pro-censorship--it's likely the Fantastic Four made the right decision.

While they may have saved themselves from the stinging questions from these nuts, they haven't escaped the wrath of the base for evading the forum. Just look at the thread over at FreeRepublic:

Freeper Sun:

What a bunch of chickens.

Now we know that Rudy McRomney are part of the RINO establishment.

Freeper puroresu:

If social conservatives are losing power in the GOP, then the GOP is history and we’ll be a full socialist nanny state in twenty years.

Freeper jsdude1:

Lets see the Republican Party (and their liberal donors) Win without Christians..I WILL ACTIVELY PORTRAY THEM AS TRAITORS/AND CAMPAIGN FOR THE CONSTITUTIONL/LIBERTARIAN CANDIDATE-AGAINST THEM!! If they support a liberal RINO as Republican POTUS Standard Bearer-08.

Freeper Man50D:The Republican party has been incrementally replacing Conservative core values with Socialism for many decades. Conservatives are the minority RINOS because they have been pushed out of the party. Consequently the GOP and the Socialist Democrats are essentially one party. Conservatives only logical alternative is to leave the GOP and unite with the large number of unaffiliated Conservatives.

Freeper AD from Springbay:

If this: GOP Candidates Snub Social Conservatives is true in September of 2007 then this: GOP Candidates Fail to Win Election in December 2008. As a 'social conservative' I'm tired of being a Republican step-n-fetchit.

Of all the candidates to take heat from the Freepers, however, Freddy seems to have come off the worst, because he would have been expected to attend:

Freeper GhostofFreepersPast

That’s a deal breaker for me. Fred is on my won’t vote for list rigth along with Rudy McRomney. Game time is over. These are the issues I take most seriously.

Freeper puroresu:

Fred should participate. I don’t understand why he’d avoid this. The other three have good reason for being busy elsewhere that night.

Now, it is true that some have with some reason argued that the major candidates cannot attend every forum--but with base conservatives already worried that the probable do not respect them or their "values", every evasive move like this carries increased significance. Personally, I think it's extremely enjoyable to watch the "moral values" party of Vitter, Craig, and Mark Foley excoriate their head candidates as they attempt to dance on the head of a pin.

Pass the popcorn!

Also at MLW

If Dems Give Inches on Iraq, GOP May Take Miles--Into Tehran

2007-08-31T11:31:00.000-07:00

There is nothing I would love better than to wake up in the morning and have nice things to say about the Democratic Leadership. I mean that--really, I do. I would love to read the news, read the blogs, and give a congratulatory pat on the back those we progressives worked so hard to elect and represent the interests of justice, fairness, and the reality-based community

But I can't. I find myself once again astounded at the cowardice and/or cluelessness (take your pick) of the Democratic leadership and their braindead messaging teams.

As I write this, two extremely important and confluent events are occurring side-by-side in real time. On the one hand, both Durbin and Reid appear set to cower before lame-duck president George Bush and his soon-to-be-shrinking Republican minority in Congress and grant them an additional $200 billion on top of the $120 billion of the People's Money already appropriated for the Iraq fiasco. On the other, serious rumors are abounding from various sources that there is a coordinated effort about to be pushed for an attack on Iran after Labor Day--which is, as Andy Card reminded us, when new products like a new war are to be launched.

That the Democratic Leadership does not understand or pretends not to understand the close connection between these two events is both astonishing as a political observer and infuriating as a progresive American. One need not believe that the supplemental money will be directly used an assault on Iran--though Gates' surprise at hearing about the extra $50 billion is extremely disturbing--to understand that the Bush Administration's success in getting its way on Iraq will be directly proportional to Dick Cheney's success in staging a successful push for an attack on Iran.

It's very simple: if Democrats bow to Bush now continuing our Occupation of Iraq and running roughshod over the will of both the American and Iraqi people even in the face of unequivocal poll numbers and insurmountable evidence of failure, corruption, incompetence and treachery, there will be no way for us to oppose Cheney on the much murkier and less obvious question of Iran. If Democratic foreign policy is to be waged on the basis of fear of Republican accusations of "weakness" on an issue as clear and easy as Iraq, how much more difficult will it be to break that pattern when it comes to deciding how to proceed in Iran? As long as the Democrats refuse to use the power of the purse or challenge/overtun the 2002 AUMF when it comes to Iraq, how will they propose to do when it comes to Iran? With impeachment "off the table", what hope can we have of even distracting, much less threatening or stopping, Dick Cheney from his own stated goals?

The Democratic Leadership believes that it can continue to give the Bush everything it wants on Iraq while pretending to stand its ground enough to keep Democratic voters motivated. The Democratic Leadership believes that it cannot safely politically achieve a change in Iraq policy until George Bush leaves office. The Democratic Leadership believes that if it does nothing to stop the Occupation until 2009, the election will be about Republican failures--whereas, if the Democrats do step up to the plate, the election will be about Democrats stabbing our soldiers in the back. The Democratic Leadership does not understand that more is at stake in Iraq than just Iraq--and that failure to stand up on Iraq will have disastrous consequences that their apparently small minds still do not understand.

Unlike many in the progresive blogs, I have not stood up and screamed that the sky is falling every time rumors came along of a war with Iran. I was skeptical when Sy Hersh was claiming an imminent attack back in 2006, and my skepticism proved to have been well-founded. Now, however, there is more reason for concern about a strike on Iran than ever before--the primary being that a cornered animal has no choice left but to attack. Beyond the recent rumors and the stationing of carriers at strategic points in gulf, the circumstantial reasons for suspecting an imminent attack are numerous:

The "surge" is failing--and will continue to fail whether or not the Administration receives the supplementals it is requesting. The need to blame an external enemy for this failure will only grow stronger over time.

The economy is teetering on the brink of a collapsing asset bubble in the midst of a credit crunch, and the heroic efforts on the part of the Fed and major banking institutions to stem the tide of worried investors will only last so long. There is nothing like a new war to stimulate an economy and take the minds of American people off of economic uncertainty.

Republican hopes for 2008 are in a tailspin. Now that God, Guns and Gays don't quite have the same effect that they used to, the GOP is turning to increasingly desperate dirty tricks to attempt to maintain power. With Independents, Hispanics and Young Voters--three of most rapidly growing demographic segments in America--moving steadily away from the GOP, they will need to do something drastic to attempt to scare the American people into somehow voting for them again. There is nothing to do that like an exciting new war against a supposedly dangerous new enemy.

Nearly every Republican candidate refused to rule out pre-emptively using nuclear weapons on Iran to prevent Ahmadinejad from getting his hands on nuclear weapons. More than an astonishing deficit of irony, it was a clear indicator of where the Republican Brand stands on the issue of attacking Iran: sooner rather than later, and as forcefully as possible

The Religious Right is all but completely deflated in the wake of the scandals surrounding Foley, Vitter, Craig, Gannon, and the like. Larry Flynt supposedly has his hands on 30 others as well, whose names he will be leaking in a slow-drip fashion. Without a strong turnout from the Religious Right, the GOP doesn't stand a chance. Given the current state of things, the only thing that could motivate the Christianists at this point is another all-out crusading war against a Muslim nation.

Even if all of these pieces of direct evidence, rumors and circumstantial fears about an Iran attack turn out to be little more than hot air, it must be conceded that given what we know now, the danger of a last-ditch Republican assault on Iran cannot be discounted by any rational observer.

Give the GOP its inch on Iraq, and it will take a mile--quite possibly into Tehran. By allowing Bush to do what he wants on Iraq, the Democratic Leadership believes it is giving the GOP the rope with which to hang itself, at the expense of the lives a few thousand more U.S. soldiers and countless more Iraqis. That is a not only an immoral gamble, but a foolish one: for the rope that the Dems give the GOP will not be used to hang just the GOP, but rather will be used to hang all of us in one way or another.

The time for courage is now--before it is too late.

Getting In Front of the Economic Elephant in the Room

2007-08-25T00:53:00.000-07:00

It has often been said that intelligence is the ability to learn from one's mistakes and not repeat them. If we take this postulate as a given, it would appear that most congressional Democrats suffer from an epidemic of intelligence deficit disorder.

Time after time, the majority of Democrats fall into a familiar pattern:

1) Watch as Republicans start to push or do something disastrous, shortsighted, and/or evil;

2) Say nothing for fear of being called unpatriotic or inadequately optimistic;

3) Observe in stunned silence the inevitable rotor-driven fecal storm;

4) Express feigned indignation after the fact at the callousness and shortsightedness of Republican policy--thereby prompting actually intelligent observers to ask where said Democrat had been before the worst repercussions of Republican policy took place.

We saw this pattern in the lead up to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, as Democrats cowered before Bush Almighty, failed to exert oversight of any meaningful nature, and then finally began to take the Administration to task about three years too late--well after their opportunity to take a morally consistent and meaningful stand had long since passed.

We saw this pattern in the authorization of the Patriot Act and its spawn, as Democrats too afraid to vote against anything with the word "patriot" in it stood by in tacit approval so long that their credibility in denouncing its obvious excesses was utterly shot.

We saw this patten with FISA (can't be seen as coddling terrorists!); with tax cuts (can't be seen as tax-and-spend liberals!); with trade (can't be seen as protectionists!); the list goes on and on. It's almost enough to make one question, as an aside, whom our "leadership" is hiring as their communications directors--and how much they are getting paid to internalize GOP talking points without pushback.

And yet, we see this happening yet again right in front of our eyes--and on an issue that is likely to be the most important focus of any campaign in 2008. If, as has often been said, the biggest difference between human and machine intelligence today is a wide gap in pattern recognition, then it would appear that many elected Democrats--or at least their communications directors--have the brains of an Etch-a-Sketch.

While I don't pretend to be an economist, it is a near certainty that the American economy is headed into some pretty rough times in the near future. While the Fed's extroardinary efforts to quell immediate investor panic and sustain credit flow, combined with recent surprisingly strong growth (albeit misleading) have led to the veneer of temporary stability in the marketplace, the overall trends for the next 12-18 months are not good. There isn't enough money to service debts; the indebted and overworked American consumer is in a historically poor position to withstand an economic downturn; and real estate numbers are expected to fall for at least the next six months. Consumer comfort has decreased sharply. As Henry Paulson and even our own bonddad are quick to remind all of us, the American economy has proven very resilient--but fundamentals are still fundamentals, and it is conventional wisdom even among bullish investors that the American economy is due for a correction.

Not, of course, that the majority of regular Americans have enjoyed the fruits of Wall Street's recent ride of prosperity. Average incomes have fallen over the last five years as productivity has risen and the incomes of the wealthiest 1% have increased dramatically. But it is the unfortunate fate of those of average and below-average incomes that while Wall Street gains may not help them, Wall Street losses will certainly hurt them as corporations eager to maintain their ridiculous profit margins begin to cut jobs in an environment of weakened consumer spending.

Whether the economic turbulence is contained to a credit crunch leading to rough patches over the short term (less likely) or instead leads to broader economic recession over the upcoming three to four quarters or more (more likely), the fact is that the state of the economy is going to be a major campaign issue as we approach the November 2008 elections.

Yet Democrats are silent. Democrats are silent even though many of these economic difficulties can be laid directly at the feet of the Republicans. It is, after all, Republican policies that have:

managed the economy over the last six years or more
aided and abetted the inflation of one asset bubble to the next
precipitated an historic upward redistribution of income from the middle class to the wealthy, weakening the structural supports of the economy
plunged the United States into record budget and trade deficits through suicidal tax and trade policies
aided and abetted the destruction of manufacturing jobs in the United States while failing to invest in education, broadband access, or alternative energy jobs--all of which are necessary to survive as a service-sector economy in a globalized world
embedded the United States in a military quagmire in Iraq, preventing the United States from even taking the immoral route of warring itself out of an economic slump

Most of all, Republicans knew that this was coming: that's why they were so eager to pass the Bankruptcy "Reform" bill. They needed to make sure that the over-leveraged consumers with negative savings rates and no ability to earn extra income would not be able to escape their debts to the bloated bottom lines of corporate America. And where were the Democrats when the Republicans were making these preparations? Nowhere to be seen until it was far too late.

And why are Democrats silent? They are silent because, as with Iraq, the Patriot Act, FISA, tax cuts and all the other examples of Democratic fear of the negative, Democrats do not want to be seen as contributing to an economic downturn by blaming Republicans for what everybody knows is the coming economic downturn.

The time has come to end that silence and--for perhaps the first time--to get in front of the elephant in the room for a change. It is time for Democrats running for election from every office from the presidency to the local mayor's race to hammer Republicans for scandalous mismanagement of the American economy--before things go really sour. The time has come for Democrats to cease being afraid of Republican accusations of insufficient optimism, and instead go on the attack. The time has come to learn from our previous mistakes and claim the policy high ground in advance. If our candidates position themselves correctly, they will be able to do much more than say, "see what the Republicans have done?" They will instead be able to say, "See? Didn't I say this would happen?"

And that could make the difference in 2008 between a year of Democratic victory, and the sort of landslide we need to turn this country back around and get it on its feet again.

We May Need Moderates, But We Don't Need Centrists

2007-08-15T03:32:00.000-07:00

Watching the debate between Markos and Harold Ford yesterday was a bit like watching a rerun of Rocky IV, wherein Sylvester Stallone's Rocky Balboa goes to the Soviet Union to fight Dolph Lungren's Ivan Drago. Not because Markos took the fight into the hostile territory of Meet the Press, or because Markos endured Ford's blather patiently before emerging victorious, or because the entire spectacle was brimming with the expectant propaganda of two competing ideologies.

Rather, the resemblance lay in the fact that the fight was already over before it started: we already know who wins in the end, because the end of the debate already took place. As everyone knows, Rocky wins at the end of Rocky IV; in the case of Markos and Ford, the debate was over when labor unions, issue groups, and seven Democratic Presidentials came to YearlyKos, overlooking the DLC's annual convention. There is no more doubt as to whether triangulators or the people-powered, reality-based movement will wield more influence within the party: we won that one already--whether the traditional media realize it yet or not.

It is curious that Ford would choose to attempt to debate on ground that he not only knew he would lose, but that he had already lost in advance. The DLC's sun has set in terms of the party's overall strategy going forward, and it is unlikely that they will return to the height of political influence, only to be rendered weak-kneed and sucked of their courage by the strong political winds and rarefied air they find there. No matter whom the party nominates in the upcoming primaries, they will forced to adapt to the changed political landscape regardless of their previous predilections--and should ~~she~~ they fail to do so, ~~she~~ they will lose, adding yet more fuel to the blazing fire of people-powered influence.

The question that remained unresolved during and after the debate, however, was the proper role of moderates and centrists in the party and within the new movement. This was a question that David Gregory, whether he realized it in his unflattering framing or not, feebly attempted to ask without receiving a completely satisfactory answer. This was primarily because Mr. Gregory failed to understand the question in the right way, but even more so because Markos and Mr. Ford were both using different words to convey what appeared the be the same idea, when in fact the two ideas are quite distinct from one another.

For, you see, the traditional media (and many in the netroots as well) does not quite understand the distinction between a moderate and a centrist. The first problem started when David Gregory framed the debate as between "Liberals" and "Centrists", when in fact those terms describe not apples and oranges, but rather entirely different food groups. When Markos told Mr. Gregory that we would need more conservative candidates in places like Kentucky where we had little other choice, both Mr. Gregory and Mr. Ford were taken somewhat aback; Mr. Ford, somewhat disconcerted, promptly ignored Markos' endorsement of moderate candidates to claim that the party needed not to go "too far to the left" and instead embrace a centrist agenda. It was clear that two intelligent men were talking right past one another about very different things (though I suspect Markos understood this, while Ford did not.)

The key to clearing this confusion and resolving this conflict lies in gaining a more precise understanding of the dichotomies involved. As diarist and Calitics frontpager dday and I will be discussing on our FrameWork show over at Political Nexus today, there are really two axes of division at work:

MODERATES vs. PROGRESSIVES

and

CENTRISTS vs. PROUD DEMOCRATS

The first mistake is to believe that a "moderate" and a "centrist" is the same thing. A "moderate" is a person who is neither ideologically left nor ideologically right, but rather has policy positions which set squarely within the middle of the Overton Window of popular political possibilities for the mainstream American public. Thus, a moderate may want lower taxes, be pro-death penalty, and desire slightly stricter controls on abortion, but be fairly progressive on a number of issues where public opinion resides squarely with us--issues from guaranteed healthcare to Iraq to the environment to even national security at this point.

A "centrist", on the other hand, is a person who stands squarely between the two major political parties. A "centrist" is a person like Joe Lieberman, who assumes a smorgasbord of policy positions taken from each of the parties, and has no compunction about trashing his/her own party if it benefits his/her political career. Due to the rightward shift of both political parties over the last 25 years, a "centrist" is guaranteed to stand to the right of the American Public on most issues, while trashing the overall image of the Democratic Party brand. Joe Lieberman is no "moderate"; rather, he's a crazed "centrist."

This crucial distinction was the source of the miscommunication between Markos and Mr. Ford. While Markos was conceding the necessity of backing moderates in areas weak in progressive voters, Ford was insisting on the necessity of taking a centrist line that minimized divisions between the parties. When Markos stressed the need for the candidates to be "proud Democrats" regardless of their specific positions on specific issues, both Mr. Gregory and Mr. Ford looked flummoxed and confused. It was as though they could not understand how a "moderate" could also be a "proud Democrat" emphasizing divisions in the party. The confusion was further intensified when Mr. Ford attempted to take ideological credit for the victories of James Webb in VA and in Jon Tester in MT, ostensibly because they had conservative positions on a few key issues, much to the astonishment of Markos and most of us here in the netroots. What neither Mr. Ford nor Mr. Gregory quite understand is that Tester and Webb are not centrists, but rather moderates on a few key issues: their popular positions on some issues do not prevent them from drawing sharp distinctions between themselves and the out-of-touch, corrupt Republicans they oppose.

It is an unfortunate byproduct not only of politics itself but also the way congressional districts have been gerrymandered, that we will certainly need moderates to win in many areas--especially when it comes to House races in red districts. The last thing we need, however, is centrists who serve only to weaken the Democratic Party's core brand and core values while selling both moderates and progressives down the river if ever they manage (rarely) to win elected office. The vision of Harold Ford and the DLC is moribund because the politics of "centrism" have been proven an absolute disaster. That says nothing, however, of the politics of "moderation" when necessary, especially in deeply red areas.

It is an important distinction to keep in mind as this debate continues into the future--past Harold Ford and his increasingly irrelevant organization, and into the trickier territory of swing states, purple Senate races and uphill Congressional races. The temptation of resorting to "centrist" rhetoric to win these races will be great, but it must be avoided. If, on the other hand, we maintain proudly progressive candidates in blue areas, with moderate but proudly Democratic candidates in red areas--and they speak directly and honestly to their constituents all the while, without DLC-style packaging--we will succeed in taking back our country.

The Economist: Republicans in Big, Big Trouble

2007-08-09T15:30:00.000-07:00

After a long six and a half years of watching almost helplessly as the Republican Party loots, rapes and pillages everything from the Constitution to the middle class to non-threatening countries overseas, it's always satisfying to see rats call a spade a spade and jump off the pirate ship known as the modern GOP.

But rarely has the sense of schadenfreude been more poignant to me than when reading the latest Economist article today about the woes of the Republican Party and American conservative movement in general.

Today's article, titled The American Right Under the Weather, is but one piece in the new overall issue covering the leftward shift of American politics in recent months. As anyone who has read the magazine knows, the editorial staff of The Economist is certainly no friend to Democrats, favoring a decidedly corporatist agenda valuing "free trade over "fair trade" and a foreign policy usually at odds with progressive values. As a result, however, they find themselves increasingly at odds with the social conservatives who have all but taken over the Republican party's activist base: in fact, they say so directly in the cover article:

The Economist has never made any secret of its preference for the Republican Party's individualistic “western” wing rather than the moralistic “southern” one that Mr Bush has come to typify. It is hard to imagine Ronald Reagan sponsoring a federal amendment banning gay marriage or limiting federal funding for stem-cell research. Yet Mr Bush's departure hardly guarantees a move back to the centre. Social liberals like Mr Giuliani and Arnold Schwarzenegger are in a minority on the right. On the one issue where Mr Bush fought the intolerant wing of his party, immigration, the nativists won—and perhaps lost the Latino vote for a generation.

As a result, The Economist's temporary post-mortem on the enthusiasm and dynamism of the American right is a strange mix of joy and tears: it contains equal doses of worried regret, tempered with palpable glee at the overreaching failures of the social conservatives whom they blame for much of popular rejection of Republican ideology. But it's nothing if not utterly brutal--and well worth the read.

The sheer numbers are staggering. Some key statistical points from the article include:

40% of Republicans think that Democrats will win the next presidential election, compared with only 12% of Democrats who think the reverse
Q2 money to the Democratic presidential contenders nearly doubled that given to the Republican contenders
As has been frequently mentioned by Markos, the DSCC and D-Trip are vastly outraising the NRSC and NRCC
61% of Democrats are happy with our choices of candidates, while only 36% of Republicans can say the same
Young voters and Hispanic voters are trending overwhelmingly Democratic
Registered Democrats and Democratic-leaners are now 50% of the population, while registered Republicans and Republican-leaners only comprise 35%--a strong swing from an equal 43%-43% tie in 2002.

And the list goes on and on. Things are so bleak for the pirates on Capitol Hill right now that many prominent Republicans are simply manning the lifeboats and looking for the best way to weather the storm. This little bit about former RNC chairman and self-hating closet-dweller Ken Mehlman is really poignant:

No wonder Ken Mehlman, a former Republican Party chairman who oversaw George Bush's 2004 victory, is now advising hedge funds on how to deal with a Democratic-leaning America.

Most intriguing, however, is the article's nearly ferocious rejection of the idea that GOP woes are entirely the fault of Bush, the occupation of Iraq, or the corruption of specific Republican party officials. Instead, the Economist is unafraid to lay the blame squarely where it belongs: the embrace of a hyper-conservative agenda of social moralizing, beyond-the-pale cronyism, an unhealthy dose of nativism and racism, corruption so blatant it has become institutionalized, a borrow-and-spend budgetary philosophy, and redistribution of wealth to the very rich that has appalled all but the Christianist right and some very wealthy allies:

In fact, the Republican Party in Congress is just as responsible as Mr Bush for most of the recent troubles. The Republican majority routinely appropriated more spending than the president asked for. It also larded spending bills with as much extra pork as possible. The number of congressional “earmarks” for projects in members' districts increased from 1,300 in 1994, when the Republicans took over Congress, to 14,000 in 2005.

The Republican majority also cheered Mr Bush all the way to Baghdad. Add to this the corruption of congressmen like Tom DeLay, a conservative hero, and the semi-corrupt institutional relationship that the Republicans formed with lobbyists, and you see that Mr Bush was only part of a much bigger problem.

Nor can conservatives claim that Mr Bush is a country-club Republican like his father. He has devoted his energies to giving “the movement” what it wants: the invasion of Iraq for the neoconservatives (who had championed it long before September 11th); tax cuts for business and the small-government conservatives; restricting federal funding for stem-cell research for the social conservatives; and conservative judges to please every faction.

This desire to pander to the conservative movement is partly to blame for the administration's practical incompetence. Mr Bush outdid previous Republican presidents in recruiting his personnel from the conservative counter-establishment. But this often meant choosing people for their ideological purity rather than their competence or intelligence. Some 150 Bush administration officials were graduates of Pat Robertson's Regent University, including Monica Goodling, who put on such a lamentable performance before a House inquiry into the firing of nine US attorneys. A more pragmatic president would surely have sacked many of the neoconservative ideologues who have made a hash of American foreign policy.

And as the editors astutely observe, the Republicans are now locked in a civil war for supremacy between their corporatist paymasters, the closely allied NeoCons, the Christianist base that actually mobilizes the votes, and the few die-hard libertarians who used to make up the bedrock of American conservatism and are the GOP's only hope of holding onto the rapidly changing West. Whoever prevails in that fight, however, two things are certain: the party will be weaker than it was before, andthe fight will be very, very ugly and very, very public. After all, there is no honor amongst thieves.

In the end, though, The Economist makes the excellent point that Democrats have yet to convince the American public that we are anything more than the lesser of two evils. Certainly, failing to stand up for progressive values such as we saw recently the with FISA capitulation won't do much to help that. Further, Republicans have always been more at home and more comfortable as a minority party than they have been in the position of actual governance. Like the moral and intellectual children they are, it's far easier to complain and snipe at those attempting to actually govern, than to attempt to put a failing ideology in place that gets the job done. Still, I would rather be in our shoes than in theirs. As the article correctly points out:

But even when you enter all the qualifications the right's situation is dire. It is a sign of weakness that the conservatives are retreating to their old posture as insurgents, and need a bogeywoman like Mrs Clinton to hold them together.

The Republicans have failed the most important test of any political movement—wielding power successfully. They have botched a war. They have splurged on spending. And they have alienated a huge section of the population. It is now the Democrats' game to win or lose.

Indeed. Things are looking extremely bleak for the GOP pirates, and it's fun watching the rats jump off the ship. Now all we have to do is stand for what we believe in and do the difficult work of holding ourselves accountable, standing in the way of Mr. 23% for the remainder of his term, and passing legislation that will benefit the American People for a change, rather than GOP monied interests.

Personally, I'm looking forward to the challenge.

Froomkin Scourges Cowardly Dems, Explains Horrific FISA Law

2007-08-07T16:19:00.000-07:00

Dan Froomkin has a must-read article over at the Washington Post today in which he takes the cowardly Dems to task for their appalling failure to stand up to Mr. 25% in passing the so-called "Protect America Act". His intro is brutally appropriate:

We won't have President Bush to kick around anymore in about 18 months. But until then, Bush has someone he can still kick around: the Democratic Congress. At least when it comes to terror issues.

Despite his 65 percent job-disapproval rating, Bush was able to cow congressional Democrats over the weekend into granting him unprecedented authority to eavesdrop on the international telephone calls and e-mail messages of American citizens without warrants.

As I said yesterday, this appalling capitulation was not inevitable; it came, rather, in a rhetorical environment in which Bush and the Republicans were able to come out on offense accusing Democrats of weakness on the "war on terror", while Democrats could do nothing better than argue in defense of the constitutional rights of those being spied on (presumably terrorists). But without the courage to come out on offense beforehand by accusing the Administration of spying on Americans with no links to terrorism whatsoever and demanding to know what the Administration was trying to hide, it was almost a foregone conclusion that many on our side would cave to political pressure once placed on the defensive.

And it was certainly being on the offense that gained Bush this unnecessary and far-reaching victory. Froomkin quotes Jim Rutenbergy in the NY Times:

"For a president who has played defense most of the year, relying on veto threats and, in terms of Iraq, almost plaintive pleas for time, it was a rare, winning use of offense. The victory points up an enduring challenge for Democrats, even as they have gained other advantages over Mr. Bush and his fellow Republicans. . . ."

And once again, of course, the Democrats claim to have been taken utterly by surprise:

In interviews, Democratic leaders and their aides acknowledged being outmaneuvered by the White House, which they accused of negotiating in bad faith, and portrayed the bill as a runaway train. . . .

"Everybody was afraid they might be branded as soft on terrorism,' Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, a Democratic presidential candidate, said Monday while speaking to Iowa voters."

The "we were blindsided" meme that Democrats have been taking for the last six years of the Bush Administration is getting as old as the Bush Administration's own Nobody Could Have Predicted meme. It was enervating enough to hear Chris Dodd mar an otherwise fine performance by claiming to have been blindsided by the Alito and Roberts nominations at the YearlyKos Presidential Leadership Forum. It's worth remembering that these people get paid to be in public office: to continue to claim to be taken by surprise by an obviously bad-faith Administration means that they are not doing the basic job of earning their paychecks, much less standing up for the country.

It's not even as if this is a particularly new gameplan or political strategy for the Bush Administration: they've pulled this same "get it done now or else" stunt multiple times before. Heck, even a 6-year-old child could see this coming by now and be prepared for it. Froomkin quotes Charlie Savage in the Boston Globe:

"Legal specialists who have criticized the expansion of executive power during Bush's tenure compared the law to the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which expanded the White House's power over detainees in the war on terrorism, and the Iraq war authorization in 2002.

"Both times, Bush abruptly urged Congress to give him greater national security powers shortly before lawmakers went on recess, warning that there was no time to wait. That strategy was echoed in the White House's sudden rush to enact the Protect America Act last week."

Unfortunately, unless we can accomplish a major shift in our rhetorical stance, as well as hold accountable those cowardly Dems who were cowed by a lame-duck Administration with 25% approval ratings, our citizens are now subject to the arbitrary spying authority of some of the most corrupt political appointees currently working in our government. As James Risen notes:

"Congressional aides and others familiar with the details of the law said that its impact went far beyond the small fixes that administration officials had said were needed to gather information about foreign terrorists. They said seemingly subtle changes in legislative language would sharply alter the legal limits on the government's ability to monitor millions of phone calls and e-mail messages going in and out of the United States.

"They also said that the new law for the first time provided a legal framework for much of the surveillance without warrants that was being conducted in secret by the National Security Agency and outside the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the 1978 law that is supposed to regulate the way the government can listen to the private communications of American citizens. . . .

Remember J. Edgar Hoover's FBI and it habit of spying on such well-known "subversives" as MLK Jr.? Looks like that will be small potatoes compared with what's in store for us from Bush, Cheney, Gonzales and the rest of their merry crew.

Froomkin then spends multiple paragraphs with quotes from various media figures detailing the various underhanded subterfuges now being attempted by the Republican Noise Machine to obscure the issue in the traditional media, and to intimidate major newspapers from publishing the truth of the matter to the confused and apathetic public. As with the the 2002 AUMF, the Patriot Act, the Patriot Act II, and countless other pieces of war and "national security" legislation, there is a sharp division between the actual text of the law as written and interpreted by Administration officials, and the more innocuous stated intent of the law that the WH Press Secretary coos to an all-too-willing WH Press Corps. Greg Miller of the LA Times states it perfectly:

But officials declined to provide details about how the new capabilities might be used by the National Security Agency and other spy services. And in many cases, they could point only to internal monitoring mechanisms to prevent abuse of the new rules that appear to give the government greater authority to tap into the traffic flowing across U.S. telecommunications networks. . . .

"[I]ntelligence experts said there were an array of provisions in the new legislation that appeared to make it possible for the government to engage in intelligence-collection activities that the Bush administration officials were discounting.

"'They are trying to shift the terms of the debate to their intentions and away from the meaning of the new law,' said Steven Aftergood, an intelligence policy analyst at the Federation of American Scientists.

"'The new law gives them authority to do far more than simply surveil foreign communications abroad,' he said. 'It expands the surveillance program beyond terrorism to encompass foreign intelligence. It permits the monitoring of communications of a U.S. person as long as he or she is not the primary target. And it effectively removes judicial supervision of the surveillance process.'"

Froomkin closes by included a variety of furious quotes from editorial boards and major bloggers across the nation, ranging from the New York Times to the LA Times to the Washington Post to Glenn Greenwald and even the normally feckless USA Today, whose editors unequivocally state:

[T]he attorney general and the director of national intelligence will decide without any court review when it's OK to monitor certain phone calls, e-mails, faxes and text messages between foreigners and U.S. residents. Such surveillance can go on for a year. Left on the books long enough, this is not just an invitation to abuse; history suggests it is a guarantee...

It's dangerous to give any administration permanent powers to fight a temporary war, even one that could last as long as the one against Islamic extremism. It's just as dangerous to trust an administration to police itself without court supervision.

A skittish Congress allowed itself to be stampeded last week into granting the president unfettered surveillance power. When it returns to Washington, it should do what it can to make sure that the sun goes down on this flawed measure.

Go read the entire Froomkin article: it's worth it. Then get to work. We've got six months until this horrible Frankenstein bill comes up for sunsetting. Let's start by reframing the debate so that we're playing offense rather than defense for a change, and putting the necessary pressure on the cowards who caved to bad-faith authoritarian politics rather than stand up for progressive values, the Constitution and the American people. You know their names. You know their phone numbers and email addresses.

Now let's get to work.

How To Handle FISA Next Time

2007-08-05T01:01:00.000-07:00

As we are all aware by now, cowards in the Democratic Party in the Senate yesterday and in the House today voted to give more power--yes, even more power--to the Bush Administration. Well, not just the Bush Administration; they gave more power to Alberto Gonzales, a self-admitted perjurer who barely survived a no-confidence vote and should by all rights be impeached and thrown in jail. And the power they gave this evil man in an even more evil administration? Just the power to wiretap phone calls without any significant oversight of any kind. And why did they do it? To avoid being seen as weak on terrorism, of all things--even though Dems poll higher on national security than do Republicans.

Those who voted to do such a thing deserve to be called spineless imbeciles, regardless of their personal histories. It is unconscionable that senators such as Dianne Feinstein or Jim Webb should have done such a thing.

But in a very large sense, this is not their fault. The fact that they voted the way they did is all of our fault. It's our fault because, from the beginning of this issue right up until our bitter post facto recriminations, we have been talking about the whole FISA issue in entirely the wrong way.

Some of you may remember my post almost a year ago on the FISA issue, titled What Are They Hiding, Anyway?. In that post I make clear a point that should have been heeded long ago before this travesty of a capitulation. It is a point that, if internalized by Democrats and Progressives on the correct side of this issue, will prevent us from capitulating again when the preposterously named "Protect America Act" is due to sunset in six months.

That point is simple: while the "rule of law" and "defense of the Constitution" are indeed at stake in this issue, that must not be how we talk about it to the American People. In a battle between a post-9/11 President--even one as disastrous, deceitful and unpopular as Dubya--taking a stand to defend America from evildoers overseas by monitoring their calls, and the constitutional legal principle of getting a warrant from a FISA judge first, the American People will side with the President well over half the time. That may be unfortunate. It may be infuriating. But it's just the political truth, no matter how many heartrending posts may be made by brilliant folks like our own Kagro X.

As I said way back then:

t's high time that Democrats made something very clear to the American people: THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE OF BALANCING SECURITY VERSUS CIVIL LIBERTIES. In a battle between Security and Civil Liberties, Civil Liberties usually loses. ON THE CONTRARY: We think it's a great idea to wiretap terrorists--just get a warrant so that we know you're actually spying on terrorists...

More importantly, however, if I'm a Democrat with a national voice, here's what I say: "The whole purpose of getting a warrant--and they're really easy to get--is to make sure that the person being spied on is really a terrorist suspect, and not a political opponent or ordinary American. The ONLY reason NOT to get a warrant is if they wanted to spy on somebody who wasn't a terrorist. My question is, what are they trying to hide?"

This is what it all comes down to: THERE IS NO REASON NOT TO GET A WARRANT IF YOU ARE LEGITIMATELY SPYING ON TERRORISTS. This is not an issue of abuse of power alone. This is not an issue of trampling the Constitution alone. This is not an issue of rule of law alone. It is all of those things, but none of them are or ever will be enough to convince enough Democrats to stand tall in the face of accusations that they are standing with the terrorists.

This is instead an issue of trust. We all know good and well that Bush, Cheney and the gang aren't being this secretive just for the sake of being secretive. Rarely do they go to such lengths unless they are hiding something truly awful--and rare is the individual short of the 9/11 conspiracy theorist who has gone wrong by assuming the worst of this corrupt batch of thieves, villains and scoundrels occupying the White House.

As I said last year, the only reason for them to be this secretive is if they were spying on people they shouldn't have been--people they knew good and well weren't terrorists or anything resembling terrorists. We all know it; our leading Democrats just either don't have the guts or the smarts to say it.

The proper question to be asking here is not, "shall we uphold the Constitution and rule of law?" but rather "what are they trying to hide?". As I said last year:

What we have to erode in the minds of the American public is TRUST. And we don't do that by screaming about civil liberties or Constitutional niceties.

We erode TRUST by letting the American people know that the Republicans are HIDING something. They're spying on ALL of us--if they weren't, why wouldn't they just get a warrant? WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?

If the law as written weren't good enough, why wouldn't they just change the law? WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?

Erode trust, and you win. Whine about constitutional liberties, and you lose.

"WHY NOT GET A WARRANT?" "WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?" "CAN YOU REALLY TRUST THEM?"

These are the questions that will turn this issue into a progressive victory; failure to ask them will turn this issue into a GOP club against Democrats.

This issue is really cut and dried. The criminals in the White House act like a mafia gang, and ask us to trust them with our secrets, our privacy, and our basic human rights and liberties. The proper response is not to say that they are taking too much power, or that we should have a vigorous discussion about the balance between safety and liberty (whatever that means). The proper response is to tell them to go to hell because we know that they're using that trust against us, not for us. It's not about protecting the constitutional rights of suspected terrorists: it's about protecting America from Bush, Cheney and Gonzales listening in on anyone they damn well please, including their political opponents.

Like so many other issues from Iraq to healthcare, the only way to win this fight is by going on the offensive in a way that not only evokes our core values, but makes clear once again that the Bush regime stands in opposition to oppresion of not only the American constitution and American values, but the American People themselves. Only when our Democrats--even those who vote the right way--begin to do that, will we begin to back Bush far enough into a corner to make real headway to protect the American People from his long train of abuses and usurpations.

Now Faux News is attacking...The Huffington Post?

2007-07-28T14:46:00.000-07:00

If you're not watching Fox & Friends right now, you're not going to be believe this: Sean Hannity is doing his best to channel the recent insane ramblings of Bill O'Reilly--but this time about the Huffington Post. Not content to beat its stick on the hornet's nest that is DailyKos, Fox apparently believes it's an intelligent move to rouse the entire progressive netroots into a virtual storm of frenzy by attempting to discredit every last one of our popular hangouts. Apparently, the recent loss of Lowe's as an advertiser hasn't scared them off: it seems they want to start up broader war on the blogs in order, I suppose, to drive away more of their advertisers. You would think that the same people who started an attack on Iraq after failing to finish the job in Afghanistan would know better by now--but then, intelligence and learning from one's mistakes was never a wingnut forte.

And the tactics they're using on HuffPo? The same patently laughable ones they're using on DailyKos.

After a red herring attack on Arianna for her use of private jets (and before another "expose" on Hillary Clinton and Vince Foster), Hannity put Arianna Huffington on his "Hot Seat". He took, like O'Reilly, one dumb comment made on the site by one commenter wishing for Darth Cheney's mechanical heart to stop, in order to attempt to impugn the entire HuffPo site. He then went on to attack Arianna for not stepping in to remove the offending the post. Arianna responded by saying, quite intelligently, that Cheney has made a lot of enemies in this country and shouldn't be suprised--and that if she had seen the offending post, she would have asked that it be removed.

Of course, the same hypocrisy that plagues Bill O'Reilly unsurprisingly afflicts Hannity as well: just a quick look over at Sean Hannity's own forums brings up the following gems, which remain blissfully undeleted by our valiant paragon of moderated political discourse:

A poster with a secret-service emulating avatar asking whether Obama isn't a terrorist plant:

Did The Terrorist Plant Obama?

Do you believe that Barak Obama is a sleeper working for al Qaeda?

If not, why not?

Another post calling Democrats the "Party of Genocide":

About time to expose Liberalism for what it is. The willful acceptance of mass murder and the complete lack of willingness to take action. Even now, Democrats in Congress are working furiously to engineer another mass murder by pulling out of Iraq and letting the region spiral into chaos.

Quote:
Almost all the large-scale genocides of the past century have occurred during Democratic administrations...

Or a post that says that those who wish to take action on the Climate Crisis are members of a death cult, talking about deaths from hot European summers:

People dying of heat aids the AGW religious cause. I'm sure liberals everywhere look on the dead with pride in their courage to die for the cause.

The list goes on and on--just go to Hannity's site to see the copious amounts of hate that goes unmoderated and undeleted. The morans at Fox News are so hubristic that they don't even think to scrub their own websites in advance of making such idiotic attacks on progressive sites with far higher traffic.

More important, however, is the implications of this move: Fox News, having gotten a taste of war with DailyKos, apparently wants to broaden that war to include the entire progressive blogosphere. So far, they're bringing knives to a gunfight.

If the prospect of war between the entire progressive blogosphere and Fox News makes you as giddy and excited as it makes me, head over to join the army of volunteers at Fox Attacks to pressure Fox News' local advertisers and show these one-note morans what we're capable of.

Get Off The Internet!

2007-07-28T14:45:00.000-07:00

At the risk of sounding melodramatic and of telling some in the Netroots what they may already know, I think it's necessary to highlight something that may not be adequately clear to many here in Left Blogistan: We have a nearly unprecedented opportunity to SWAMP the Republicans--but only if people will commit to getting off the blogs, and on the ground for significant portions of the next 15 months.

Now, don't get me wrong: most people who have read my posts over the last couple of years know that I tend to be a blog triumphalist: I know that simply electing Democrats doesn't solve everything, that the media must be held accountable for progressive electoral messaging to gain traction, and that, as Al Gore says in his must-read Assasult on Reason, blogs on the left and right create a much-needed two-way conversation between the government and the people--a conversation that has been sorely lacking for almost a century.

That said, however, there have been three recent events that have changed my perspective and priorities in a large way. These events are the reason why I haven't been around the blogs as much over the last few weeks, and why I haven't slept more than 6 hours in I can't remember how long. These events have crystallized a cold, hard fact to me that makes me giddy with excitement and drunk with the passion to evangelize everyone I can to understand the following fact: This election, in 2008, we have the opportunity to crush the Republican Party in a way that may not be repeated in our lifetimes--but we need your time and volunteerism to do it.

The first of these occasions was attending training sessions put on by Democracy for America here in Orange County. A two-day crash course in the nuts-and-bolts of running a successful electoral campaign, this training is the best money and time that I can remember spending anywhere. DFA is also conducting training at YearlyKos--something people may want to consider doing as part of their stay in Chicago.

Among the many key points impressed upon me at the training was the cold, hard mathematical realities involved in running a campaign: everything--and I do mean everything--comes down to a simple calculation of

Votes needed
The time to persuade and GOTV
The money to persuade/GOTV them with
The people to do the persuading/GOTV

Once you figure out how many votes you're going to need to reach 52% based on previous comparable election and where those votes are, it's really just a simple math problem of volunteer hours, number of volunteers, and amount of money to spend on reaching voters. It's really that simple. Sure, a candidate like Paul Hackett who runs a true grassroots populist campaign can gain traction and do better than the numbers would indicate, and a corrupt Republican can do worse, and one major gaffe can throw everything off. But in most cases, it's just a matter of of time, people, and especially money.

The second key occasion was mentioned by Markos on the dKos frontpage just yesterday: The GOP money advantage has all but disappeared in 2008. I cannot begin to express how important this is. Throughout the past several decades, the Republicans have had weaker positions and an uphill road in convincing the American people of electing politicians actually contrary to their own self-interest. Pulling that off requires an extraordinary amount of time, money, volunteers and discipline--and in that respect, Dems actually have it easy: all we have to do is go out there and tell the truth, and we automatically tip the playing field in our favor. Even so, the Republicans have largely been able to overcome this disadvantage by doing two things:

Organizing an army of volunteers through churches and other conservative organizations, while weakening our own organizations such as unions
Taking the time to build their party infrastructure all across America even when it wasn't campaign season
And most importantly, outspending Democrats by factors of 2-1, 3-1, 4-1 and more during every election cycle

Now, everything has changed. As of today, the DCCC has over 10 times as much cash as the NRCC. In 2006, the NRCC had a $40 million fundraising advantage over us. As of today, the DSCC has almost 4 times as much money as the NRSC. In 2006, the DSCC did better, but not by a factor of four. And this year, the RNC's advantage over the DNC is shrinking--and will be almost entirely spent on the Presidential election. As Markos says,

Making matters worse for congressional Republicans, the RNC, which was able to focus on House and Senate races in 2006, will be refocused on its usual mission in 2008 -- the White House. So while the RNC was able to make up some of the 2006 shortfall experienced by their Senate committee, and the smaller than usual advantage by their House committee ("only" a $40 million advantage), they can't be expected to make up this year's dramatic shortfalls while still focusing on winning the presidency.

Meanwhile, Democratic presidential candidates are showing that their own fundraising negates the necessity for leaning on the DNC.

Meanwhile, Howard Dean's 50-state strategy is building the local parties, as well as concentrating on doing some important behind-the-scenes work, such as getting our voter files up to speed with those of the Republicans.

The third event to change my perspective has been working on the Ron Shepston campaign against Dirty Gary Miller in CA-42. The amount of complacency and corruption that has taken hold of the Republican party in many of their "safe" districts like Miller's is absolutely unbelievable. Most people in these areas (unless they're dominated by SBC evangelical Christians) hold centrist or even progressive values--they just haven't been given the opportunity to consider voting for a real Democrat who shares their values. Ron Shepston--and many other candidates like him--can definitely win if we pull together and provide the support they need, because the traditional advantages that the Republicans have used to crush great candidates like him are disappearing fast.

The conclusion is inescapable: as Democrats, we are drowning the Republicans with our fundraising. All the issues are lining up in our favor. The American people are with us. Every time the GOP opens its mouth, it is on the defensive. We are poised to make substantial gains in the Senate. Our presidential candidates are far more inspiring than theirs.

All we need is the time and volunteers to get out there and canvass, phonebank, drop literature, etc., to make the final push to convince wavering voters--those undecideds and leaners we call the 2s, 3s, and 4s--to get out there and vote for Dems in '08.

And it's NEVER too early to volunteer. If you have a candidate in your area facing an uphill battle against a GOP incumbent, or a candidate in your area facing a tough re-election battle in a conservative district, get off the internet for a minute and figure out how much time you can schedule to volunteers for that candidate over the next 15 months today. Some candidates may even have tough primary fights and may need all the support they can get right now. But in any case, contact your local candidates today to ask them what you can do to help provide them that crucial time and volunteer help they need.

And then when you're done, get back online and keep holding the media and the government accountable to the people. Because this election is an opportunity like we may never see again in our lifetimes.

Why We Can't All Just Get Along

2007-07-23T19:45:00.000-07:00

When, in the course of human events (no, not that Human Events), the members of an activist community decide to lose their minds and throw feces at one another with indiscriminate abandon, a reasonable respect for human dignity and sanity impels us to more thoroughly examine the causes of said monkey-like behavior. It is going to be practically impossible to make peace between the increasingly divided pro-impeachment crowd and the focus-on-other-priorities crowd without a basic understanding of what is even at issue, and what it is we're trying to fix. Markos' recent "Can't We All Just Get Along, or Else?" post is a noble sentiment, but it won't fix much until we dig to the structural root of what the community is trying to accomplish.

The problem with the impeachment debate is that both sides are talking past one another, and usually trying to accomplish either different goals without knowing it, or--worse yet--the wrong goal for the tool in question (be it impeachment or elections).

For the last many years leading up to the 2006 elections, progressives across the blogosphere have been fighting on many fronts: from human rights to civil liberties to defense of the Constitution to privacy rights to anti-war issues and everything in between. Some of us set out to most specifically focus on getting Democrats elected, as is the purpose here at DailyKos. Some of us set out to raise awareness of issues not on the Democrats' radar, even if it came at the temporary expense of Democratic electoral fortunes. Still others of us, like Chris Bowers & Matt Stoller at MyDD and now at Open Left, have set our sights on broader movement-building among progressives.

Almost all of us, however, had a fairly single-minded objective no matter the specific focus: to prove Karl Rove wrong about his math. Most of us remember Karl Rove's famous asserations that while the rest of us were looking at our silly polls showing Americans supporting Democratic positions and distrusting Republican "leadership," he had THE math. Karl Rove's delusional math told him that America is a fundamentally "conservative" country--a beliefshared by many top Democratic consultants in the DLC mold who continue to believe that 2006 was an exception, rather than a proper reflection of American sentiment--where progressive opinions are eschewed and the ultra-conservative base free to dictate policy with impunity. No matter whether we were getting specific Democrats elected, building a broader movement, or pushing the Overton Window even farther left, our fundamental goal was the same: kill Rove's math dead and prove that this is really a majority Progressive country after all, if people will only vote their beliefs rather than their fears.

Fortunately for us, there was a definitive accountability moment for Rove's Math: it was called Election Day. And while not everyone, of course, was completely convinced by the results, we have the opportunity to prove Rove's math wrong again and again every two years: 2008, 2010 and beyond. With each victory for Democrats (whether at the Presidential, Congressional, State or Local levels) and for progressive values (usually but not always one and the same), we can convince more and more of the country that Rove's Math is, will be, and was always wrong--so long as a cadre of progressives with a spine is willing to stand up to the corporatists, NeoCons and other Republican allies. Someday soon, perhaps even the recalcitrant David Broders of the world will be forced to acknowledge that the "reality-based community" is and was always respectable, correct, and on the right side of history and American opinion--disrespecable idiots like Bill Kristol notwithstanding.

But Rove's Math is not, now, the only force we must combat: now that we have our first major electoral victory in years under our belts, we also have to deal with something I like to call ROVE'S LAW (it's really more Cheney's law, but Rove also has a heavy hand in it, as with everything). Rove's Law is just as delusional and destructive to this country, if not more so, as belief and trust in Rove's Math. Rove's Law is not all that different from Nixon's Law: When the President Does It, That Means It's Not Illegal. We can see a clear-cut example of the thinking behind Rove's Law in former White House counsel John Yoo's editorial today in the WSJ asserting that Bush's only role from here on as President is to "protect" the "Constitutional rights of Executive Privilege for future presidents." Rove's Law states that the President is a Monarch elected on four-year cycles, able to do whatever he pleases without oversight or consequence beyond the next election.

Historians understand that demagogues who are allowed to take republican or democratic (note the small r's and d's) governmental systems and subvert them under the sorts of dogmatic executive rules being pushed by proponents of Rove's Law inevitably detach governments from the accountability of their people and lead to de facto dictatorships. Rove's Law must therefore be rejected just as explicitly as his math has been.

Unfortunately, however, unlike Rove's Math, there are no number of elections that will provide a rejection of Rove's Law. We can prove by means of elections that the American people are fundamentally progressive in their beliefs; we cannot prove by means of elections that Rovian theories of presidential power are illegitimate. And this is where the fundamental crux of the misunderstanding between impeachment advocates and impeachment opponents within the Progressive community comes.

All too often, those who promote impeachment do so as a means of getting rid of George Bush and/or Dick Cheney. That is, frankly speaking, deeply misguided and ill-considered. If you want to get rid of George Bush and people like them, there's an answer for that: it's called an ELECTION. Work to win the elections you can influence, or pipe down about it. On Jan. 20, 2009, either a Democrat or another Republican will take office--and no, the world isn't going to end in the meantime because Bush stayed in office.

Yet all too often again, those who oppose impeachment believe that we can reject Rove's Law by putting Democrats in power. That is also, frankly speaking, deeply fallacious and utterly naive. Without an explicit condemnation of and especially accountability moment for Rove's Law, this problem will never be truly resolved. As much as George Bush makes Richard Nixon look like Thomas Jefferson, so will the next Executive to use this authority make Bush look like Nixon--unless something drastic is done to thoroughly reject the premises of Rove's Law.

Perhaps impeachment is not that rejection. Perhaps, as Digby said in the radio conversation with myself and clammyc, a failed impeachment drive would be worse for that accountability than doing nothing at all. But if impeachment is not answer, I have yet to hear anything coherent that would be a more significant or long-lasting approach to solving the problem.

We must be aware, of course, that there is a possible conflict between rejecting Rove's Law and rejecting Rove's Math--but we must also acknowledge that both are critically important and fundamentally separate.

When we take our positions on impeachment, we must be aware of which piece of delusional Rovism we are attempting to reject with what priority, and using what tools. We should acknowledge the progressive legitimacy of those who believe that Rove's Math is still a bigger problem than Rove's Law, and vice versa. We should acknowledge that impeachment is a bad way to get rid of Rove's Math (and Bush and Cheney), and that elections are no way to rid of Rove's Law (and the Unitary Executive theory).

Only then can we all begin to truly get along again.

Tom Tomorrow Pwns the New York Times

2007-07-19T00:37:00.000-07:00

Tom Tomorrow is your god. Bow down now.

Because this latest cartoon is among the best I've seen in years.

Just. Simply. Brilliant.

Why Not Privatize the Police and Firefighters?

2007-07-14T16:06:00.000-07:00

It is the year 70 BCE. You have worked your entire life as a hotelier with a small establishment near the Circus Maximus, offering room and board to those who come from far and wide to see the chariot races. It's not a great living, but it keeps you in bread and circuses without the need for government handouts. One night, to your horror, a fire breaks out in your hotel--who started it or how you don't know, but that doesn't matter now: you do your best to extinguish the blaze with pails of water and dirt. Unfortunately, the blaze is too much: your feeble efforts are in vain.

Suddenly, out of nowhere comes your salvation: the Fire Brigade arrives. Except that this is no ordinary fire brigade financed by the Senate and People of Rome--for no such entity exists. The very concept is a novel one to you and your fellow citizens. No, this particular Fire Brigade is run by one Marcus Licinius Crassus, one of Rome's richest and most powerful men and eventual member of the Triumvirate with Julius Caesar and Pompey. Crassus' firefighters are his personal slaves; they're not only the best at what they do--they're the only ones who do it.

Crassus steps down from his chariot, looking his usual glorious self, and asks you if you wouldn't mind filling out a bit of papyrus-work while his men prepare to fight the fire. No problem, you say--except that then you see the terms: "I hereby sell my hotel to Marcus Licinius Crassus for 5,000 sesterces (less than 1/5th its market value)." At first you scoff--"these terms are outrageous!" you say. "It's extortion!" Crassus sighs and says, "ok, have it your way" and calls his slaves off to go back home. Suddenly turning back as yet another room bursts into flames, your spirit breaks--and you call for Crassus to return with his men. And in one fateful moment, you sign away your life's work to a man with no scruples.

This is not legend: the history is all there in Plutarch's Lives and elsewhere in the record of Roman historians. This scene played itself out time and time again in the waning years of the Roman Republic, as Crassus made of himself Rome's principal landlord through the use of this private fire department. It is even alleged that Crassus also had his own arson brigade, which he utilized judiciously when nature itself was too slow in starting the desired conflagrations.

It is a scene that played on a continuing feedback loop in my mind as I watched Michael Moore's brilliant film Sicko the other night. Throughout the film, the barbaric extortion practiced by the United States healthcare system on those in desperate straits seemed as foreign and as repulsive to the citizens of Canada, France and Great Britain as Crassus' "fire brigade" seems to us. Why, they feel, must one hand over one's life savings for a service that is properly in the public domain? Why should one be forced to pay when one is least able or prepared to do so? If we have public police and firefighters, why not a public healthcare system?

I am not the first to raise this point, of course. Moore himself raises it in the context of the boogeyman that is "socialized medicine": in the film, he points out that we already have a number of "socialized" services, ranging from the police to the firefighters to the armed forces to the post office. The poignancy of this issue as it relates to the military is even the subject of a panel for YearlyKos '07. And certainly, the applicability of the model of such needed social services to the common good that is public health has been stressed by many a Democratic politician.

It is too easy, however, for conservatives to dismiss such a comparison. They point out, in proper conservative fashion, that police and fire have always been taxpayer-funded services in America, and medicine always private. They say that, unlike police or fire, healthcare is a purchaseable commodity--and as such, best handled with the famed efficiency of the "free market." They claim especially that the costs of making public such a system would be significantly greater to the average citizen than those of keeping the system private. Of course, these latter two claims are utterly spurious: the "free market" in healthcare is anything but free, while guaranteed health coverage costs less in the long run. Nevertheless, conservatives are able to kick just enough sand in the face of the public and muddy the waters just enough with these and other arguments to keep Americans in the Crassus-era of extortionary health coverage. The fact that conservatives are always on the wrong side of history--they're still calling the New Deal Unamerican to this day--troubles them not a whit: back in Ancient Rome, they'd be defending Crassus' fire department if there was money in it for them.

There is a clever reverse argument, however, that can be extremely effective and is grossly underused by proponents of guaranteed health coverage: If the free market is so effective and cost-efficient in providing critical social services, why not privatize the police force and the fire department?

This line of argument is particularly effective because it forces conservatives to explain when and why privatization is a bad thing, rather than arguing the drawbacks of making such systems public. I have used this argument many times against conservatives, and the results have never failed to be absolutely devastating. Responses to this argument tend to run along the following five lines:

1) "Because it's always been that way!" This is not a terribly clever argument, of course, nor would any major political figure use it. Nevertheless, Crassus' fire brigade is an effective couter-attack.

2) "Because health care is so much more expensive than police and fire departments!" Also a not-too-intelligent argument, the easy counter is that public healthcare saves more long run, just as public police and fire departments do.

3) "Because doctors don't make enough money under public healthcare!" This argument is simply a bold-faced lie. What actually happens is that disparities between the incomes of various types of doctors decrease--those earning the most do end up earning less.

4) "Because I don't want to pay more taxes!" To which one simply asks if they would be willing to accept a tax cut that got rid of the fire department. If no, why not? Rinse and repeat...

5) "Because I want to be able to choose private insurance!" Of course, this choice is never removed from them under a guaranteed system, just as one can always supplement the police with a private security force.

--------------------------------

The truth of the matter, of course, is that none of the above arguments are the real reason a conservative doesn't support the privatization of the police or firefighters. The real reason is that if such large systems so essential to the public good were privatized, the private companies would find that it was only worth their while to secure the lives and property of the very rich--or to extort everyone else. Just as the salaries of private contractors in Iraq dwarf those of publicly funded soldiers at great cost to the American Public, the only people who benefit from such privatization are the privateers themselves and those bought off by them. In other words, in the absence of a State Fire Department, the only private fire departments tend to act like Crassus' noble enterprise.

Every American understands this principle on a fundamental level, whether they can articulate it or not--but rarely are Americans allowed to tap into this commonsense understanding when it comes to healthcare.

In my experience, the best way to get even conservative Americans to understand the necessity of a public healthcare system is to make them confront their own distaste for a private fire and police system--and to force them to attempt to articulate their reasons for that distaste. It's a simple process from there to applying the same reasoning to public health.

Because in the end, only the most hardened sociopath can defend the Crassus way of running a healthcare system.

Why Are Good Progressives At Each Others' Throats?

2007-07-03T18:08:00.000-07:00

There comes a time when two parties, after arguing in earnest and with the best of intentions, find that all their superficial disagreements and conflicts of point of view are boiled down to irresolvable and fundamental philosophical differences about the nature of human events. Indeed, when two otherwise reasonable and strongly allied factions argue passionately at cross-purposes, it is essential to discover once and for all why they differ, and to resolve the philosophical differences that divide the parties.

There are few better examples of such an argument than today's conflict over impeachment, succinctly expressed in MissLaura's frontpage post today. After no fewer than six recommended diaries yesterday advocating impeachment (including my own) and a frontpage post by Meteor Blades, Digby laid out in her brilliant and incomparable fashion the best possible counterargument to those demanding this extroardinary political act.

Digby's argument is one that I made in poorer fashion many times prior to my conversion to the pro-impeachment camp. To quote Digby:

But even so, that's not necessarily a good enough reason not to do it. It could be useful, if only to tie the administration up in knots until they leave the scene. But the risks are high that if you don't have a specific (and somewhat simple) crime to point to and a good chance of at least getting a quick impeachment vote in the House, that it could blow back pretty hard on the Dems. This is not because people like Bush and don't want him out of office. It's because they see that the presidential campaign is in full swing and know that Bush will be out of office soon anyway. That means many of them will likely be susceptible to the inevitable GOP screeching that the petty Democrats are playing politics, going for payback, wasting time etc. And the media will be thrilled to help the Republicans make that case.

That's not the only case that can be made against impeachment. There are many other concerns as well, including that the future is more important than the past, that the public wants solutions rather than partisan recriminations, that we actually have an opportunity to frame ourselves for a change rather than let the public be told what we stand for by Republicans, and that Bush's/Cheney's replacement would likely be Republican--and that I wouldn't want Nancy Pelosi installed as president through impeachment. Finally, as MissLaura says:

When we remember that impeachment is a nuclear political act, also remember that nuclear explosions produce nuclear fallout. We need to know the winds before we launch. To me, it's too likely the fallout would blow right over our heads. Would that really be a defense of the Constitution?

So much, so good for the arguments against impeachment. The standard arguments for impeachment, meanwhile, are well-known to all. These include:

That Bush/Cheney must be removed as soon as possible
That history will judge poorly those who did not stand against criminal action
That the Constitution is worth defending at all costs
That justice itself demands prosecution for crimes
That Dems will look stronger, rather than weaker, for having stood up to Bush

My intent here is not to advocate for or argue against any of these positions for or against impeachment. Some of them are well-considered; others less so (on both sides.)

My intent, rather, is to highlight why there can be such fundamental disagreement among these parties, and what the fundamental philosophical difference may be.

The answer, as it so happens, is not a terribly complex one--but it is an answer that goes to the very heart of what the Progressive movement at large and the Netroots in specific is attempting to accomplish. At the heart of the divide between the pro-impeachment progressives and those who remain skeptical of it is a fundamental dichotomy of trust. In the end, every argument for and against boils down to whether one trusts more in the power of individuals and ideologies, or in the power of structures and the constraints they place upon power itself.

Those who oppose impeachment are desperately afraid--and I don't necessarily blame them--that using up the oxygen of time, media coverage and political power on impeachment proceedings will harm Democrats irreparably as we enter the 2008 election season. They argue somewhat convincingly that all the strong stands against Bush/Cheney in the world will not serve anyone of any political stripe when Rudy McRomneyson takes the oath of office in January 2009, and the Bush/Cheney approach to governance receives a popular mandate. They argue, quite rightly, that a successful impeachment is unlikely--and that even if successful, it would be lengthy process that would not effectively cut short the rule of Bush/Cheney for more than a few months.

It is not my purpose here to poke holes in these arguments--though they are by no means unassailable. Certainly, the Republicans did not face dire electoral consequences for impeaching a very popular Bill Clinton. But let us instead take these arguments at face value, and take it as a given that Democrats will suffer somewhat electorally as a byproduct of a failed impeachment drive, while doing little to actually defray the consequences of Republican control of the White House.

These arguments rest on one presumption and one alone: That the election of Democrats in 2008 is the paramount and highest political goal over the next 18 months. That we can do little to preserve our Democracy while Bush remains in power--but that once we get Democrats in power with the right governing priorities and ideological stances, we'll be back on track. It is the same idea as that presented on a DCCC fundraising request I received today in the mail from Nancy Pelosi:

Democrats are determined to end the war in Iraq, move forward on energy independence, address global warming, start tackling America's health care crisis, and take all the other long-overdue steps needed to lead our nation out of the Bush morass. But, the Bush Administration and its Rubber Stamp Republican allies in Congress are throwing everything they've got into holding onto power and putting the special interests ahead of the American people.

As Speaker of the House I am asking you to stay with us. Don't yield to cynicism or frustration, like the Republicans want you to do. Help us win the hard-fought struggles we need to win in the days and weeks ahead that can help us make lasting real change to take America in a New Direction.

We need your steadfast support as we confront an Administration that long ago lost touch with reality. And, even as we work side by side to force the Bush Administration to face the facts in 2007, we need you to help our Democratic candidates take their message to voters in 2008.

In other words, Democratic ideologues are being blocked by Republican ideologues; don't get angry with us because we aren't getting anything effective accomplished--just work with us to get rid of the Republican ideologues in '08 so we can move forward on Iraq, energy and healthcare. In sum, they say, put the right people in power with the right ideas, and everything will be fine.

Those of us who favor impeachment, on the other hand, find all such arguments utterly hollow and tragically misguided. We do so because we understand that this battle is not, fundamentally, a partisan one but rather a structural one. We believe that any individual--regardless of party affiliation or ideology--who usurps authority and obliterates balance of power as Bush/Cheney have done is just as dangerous to Democracy as Bush/Cheney themselves. As I said in To Impeach or Not to Impeach: That is Not the Question:

The question at hand is not "What Do We Do About Bush?" or "How Do We Move America Forward in a Progressive Direction?" or even "How Do We Put Bush Behind Us and Create A Lasting Democratic Majority?" The real question at hand is instead "How in the world did this happen in America--and more importantly, how do we stop it from ever happening again?"

As evil as the NeoConservative agenda has clearly been, as utterly deficient in competence and moral compass as the Religious Right has been, as predictably disastrous as placing a formerly cocaine-addicted sociopathic dry drunk with a silver spoon in his mouth and serious daddy issues has been, and as monumentally insane as having former Nixon protégés be in charge of Executive secrecy and power has been, it should still shock Americans with a sense of civics and history how easy it has been for a nutso Commander-in-Chief and his morally-challenged cronies to subvert the Consitution, the will of the American People, and the very foundations of Democracy in a few short years. Had you told me back in 1999 that this could have happened in America even with the worst of leaders, I would have laughed in your face. I had confidence in the power of our structural institutions back then that I utterly lack today. For me, the key question--indeed, the only question--is how to effectively stop even the worst of madmen from ever having the power to wreak such havoc again.

Now, while it is true that impeachment itself does not necessarily block Unitary Executive theories of governance in and of itself, it certainly is a step in the right direction. Specific legislation or even Constitutional Amendments clarifying once and for all the exact limits of executive power may be necessary. But any impeachment proceeding does far more to address these issues than simply standing by and hoping for the election of a Democratic President.

Many of us who support impeachment, indeed, would rather elect a Giuliani who does NOT use Unitary Executive powers than a Hillary/Obama who DOES use them. That is utter heresy to ears of many--especially at a site whose ostensible goal is getting Democrats elected. But history has seen far too many Republics fall into Empire for our taste: Augustus may have been a good Emperor, but it doesn't matter; Caligula's always right behind.

For structuralists like us, the election of the right individual or ideologue in the context of the erosion of limits on power themselves is but a salve on an open wound. For us, individuals will never salvage anything. Individuals are corrupt, weak and short-lived; ideologies come and go, mutable with the change of times, circumstances and public whim. The framers understood that structure was everything and trumped political ideology or factional affiliation--re-read the Federalist Papers if you don't believe this. Individual elections and individual officials are but tumbleweeds passing through the pillars of structure. Either this question of limits on executive power gets resolved permanently, or our Republic will have a dictator elected on 4-year cycles. Tyranny is only a short milepost ahead on this road.

-----------------------------------------------------------

This question goes beyond impeachment. It is a fundamental divide that is at the heart of what it means to have a progressive movement. It is at the heart of many divides and bitter arguments between progressive blogger communities.

Are we a collection of activists dedicated to the maximum success of the Democratic Party at all costs, or do we seek to do what we believe necessary to preserve the Republic even at the price of potential electoral cost? Shall our calculus be only that of the impact on the next election, or shall it be on that of the impact on the nation at large? Do we believe that Republican rule is the greatest evil to be feared, or that unchecked power itself is the greatest evil to be feared?

This argument to me is similar to that of the two protagonists in the outstanding film Crimson Tide: with hot nuclear confrontation looming between the United States and a crazed Russian coup leader, there is a power struggle on a U.S. nuclear submarine between the Captain played by Gene Hackman and the XO played by Denzel Washington. With orders in hand to fire nuclear missiles at Russia, the sub loses contact with Washington headquarters even as another aborted message was just arriving. Hackman's captain, looking to defend the United States at all costs against its enemy Russia and follow orders to the letter of the law, insists on firing the nukes. Denzel's XO insists that nuclear war itself is the danger to be feared, and demands that the sub do everything in its power to regain contact with the Pentagon--even at the expense of danger to the crew and to American lives at home. After twin mutinies on board and near catastrophe, Denzel wins and the final message arrives not to fire the nuke. While both men were right, both were also wrong--and it is a question that plagues anyone charged with the possible use of nuclear power to this day.

The similar question for Progressives is as follows: are Republicans the greatest danger we face? Or do we face an even greater danger in allowing Unitary Executive Power and utter disregard for the laws of the United States to go unchecked, unpunished and unrebuked?

It is a fundamental question that we must resolve--and quickly.

As the Curtain Falls, the Villains Exit Stage Right

2007-07-02T17:46:00.000-07:00

With the breaking news of Bush's commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence still rolling hot off the presses, the curtain has finally fallen on yet another depressing piece of Bush Administration kabuki theater. All that is left in this sordid spectacle is the predictable reaction of the audience: the outraged jeers and hisses from the left, the thunderous applause from the right, and the final, painfully evenhanded judgment from the pompous theater critics in the media.

The stage was set from the beginning, when the Administration's fatal character flaw set in motion a chain of events with predictably tragic consequences. Joe Wilson chose to try to set things right in Denmark insofar as he could, and stab through the veil of Administration secrecy and lies, only to be rewarded for his effort by treasonous blades and men poisoned by lust for power. An Administration that came to power through royal coup and was obsessed with invading Iraq at all costs has reaped the inevitable electoral consequences for their transgressions, but the career suicides under a river of evil and the poisoned bodies of betrayed heroes are already too heavy to bear and too numerous to undo. The law, embodied by Fitzgerald, did what it could to hold the guilty accountable--but no more. And in the final act came the inevitable and totally forseeable denouement: illegal obstruction of justice was commuted through the twisted power of legal obstruction of justice, as those who first conspired to pour toxic lies into the ears of the American People walk as free men.

Unfortunately, that will no doubt be the final scene in this foul drama: the villains will exit stage Right, still standing and taking bows to the clamorous approbation of their fans, as the majority of the audience looks on in shocked horror and disbelief, and a vocal segment of the audience makes its displeasure clear. And the critics will turn in their remarks on the whole business with typically dispassionate false objectivity.

The reason this play will end thus is that we have no Hamlets and no Horatios willing to take the risk of committing career suicide and taking arms against this sea of evil. Our Democratic princes and princesses see themselves in quick line for the succession to the throne of our criminally wanton King George; just a few more years, they tell themselves, and this nightmare will be over and all will be well in Denmark again. In the meantime, they would prefer to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous deeds than engage in the sort of swordplay that might endanger their precious political futures. And all the while, the people perish under the weight of abject lawlessness and blatant treason.

-----------------------------------------

It does not have to be thus, of course. A stark choice lies before each and every one of us--a choice by which we will be forever judged in the annals of history.

We can choose to ride out the Bush presidency, in the naive hope that the next Democratic nominee will be our Fortinbras to wipe away the darkness and make of these evil transgressions mere unpleasant memories of a bygone era, even as Claudius, Gertrude, Polonius and Laertes all walk free to wreak their havoc in other capacities.

Or we can choose to be heroes and rush headlong where angels fear to tread in defense of our honor, the Constitution, and the principles of freedom and justice to which our country is so famously and supposedly committed.

But please, elected Democrats, spare us your feigned outrage. All the soliloquies and well-publicized indignation in the world; all the legalistic and parliamentary motions of investigations, senses of the Senate, and no-confidence votes in the world accomplish exactly nothing without decisive action in their wake. Even little children know the difference between a hero and a bureaucrat.

One day those little children--the kids and grandkids of those of us young enough never to have lived in the decade of Vietnam--will ask us what we did, and what our parents did.

Long after the 2008 election is but a distant memory written about only in history textbooks, generations to come will ask not what strategies we used to achieve electoral victory in some House or Senate race somewhere, but rather what we did to stop these villains and hold them accountable for their crimes.

As a child of the Reagan years, I neither know nor care what was done in any given Senate race to win Democratic victory in the wake of Watergate. I neither know nor care how the House leadership chose to play the issue of Vietnam to achieve maximum electoral benefit.

I care instead about Bernstein. I care about Woodward. I care about Frank Church. Because those men were heroes unafraid to cross swords with the most powerful man on earth. Those are the men history will remember. Those are the men who defended America when it needed defending most.

At some point we must, as a Party and as a Movement, decide what is more important: simply winning elections, or being the extraordinary heroes that are required in these extraordinary times?

-------------------------------------------------

The evidence is already patently clear enough to impeach Gonzales and Dick Cheney. The outrageous lies and clear obstructions of justice are bright as day. Perhaps Bush still has far too much plausible deniability--and if so, so be it.

The only question that remains is for the Democratic leadership: will you be the heroes your nation requires in its hour of need, or will you instead sell your birthright for the mess of pottage that is the next election cycle? Will you truly allow these villains to walk off stage without feeling the blade of their own karma?

The choice is stark, and your actions will be remembered for generations to come.

Why Impeachment Isn't Happening: It's Not What You Think

2007-06-30T14:49:00.000-07:00

What do you do when even the boldest actions necesssary for the salvation of the Republic are seen as nothing more than banal political games?

It has become clear by now that there is currently an enormous groundswell of support for impeachment proceedings throughout the progressive blogosphere, as traditionally "pragmatist" opponents of impeachment are falling one by one by one. The shift in sentiment towards impeachment has been especially strong in the face of a couple of crystallizing events, most notably Cheney's late fourthbranch defense and the White House's adamant refusal to obey subpoenas.

Predictably, the failure of Congressional Democrats to make serious moves toward the submission of Articles of Impeachment--and no, neither Leahy's subpoenas nor the support of eleven representatives count as serious moves--has ignited a firestorm of criticism from all corners of the blogosphere.

Typically, the blogosphere's critiques of both our progressive and not-so-progressive Democrats in office focus on their supposed cowardice in the face of the Bush Administration and their Republican opponents. These Democrats are supposed to be risk-averse DLC-infested reeds in the political wind, taking the least controversial stands possible in the hopes of winning elections by the backdoor of the Republicans' own political suicide. And certainly, it would appear that this portrait of ineffectual and pusillanimous "leadership" was on full display during the so-called Iraq Supplemental battle in which Democrats pretended to stand against Bush's illegal Occupation, and then caved for fear of being seen as failing to "fund the troops." Our Democratic leadership does have a history of betraying its own base and even a majority of the American People in order, it would seem, to avoid making waves.

But there is another explanation besides simple weakness and aversion to risk that explains the Democrats' stance on both the Occupation of Iraq, and on Impeachment. Fear of the Bush Administration itself is hardly motivating Democrats: we know that Bush has lost all credibility with even his base, much less the American public. Fear of policy-centered counterattacks from Republicans in congress and their corporatist allies in the media is somewhat more compelling--but even this is not so scary, given that the public supports the Democratic position on every major policy issue. And Democrats like Rahm Emmanuel are not afraid to take otherwise strong stands against such abuses as Cheney's FourthBranch arguments with brilliant counterattacks.

More than anything else, it seems, the Democrats are afraid of being characterized as playing petty politics with critical issues of governance. When we distill the arguments against defunding the Occupation and against submitting Articles of Impeachment down to their core, the same fundamental arguments always rear their ugly heads. On Iraq, everyone knows that the Surge is a disaster; everyone knows that the public has soured against it; everyone knows that the "flypaper defense" is discredited. But the argument that stops defunding in its tracks is the one in which Democrats are accused of playing politics with the lives of our troops.

On Impeachment, it would seem that this argument would be harder to make. How, after all, could the grave and solemn process of the impeachment of a sitting Commander in Chief (and/or his Vice President and/or Attorney General) be seen as a game of petty politics? How could anything be more important and worthy of discussion than an argument over whether the nation's leading official and so-called Leader of the Free World has violated his oath of office and trampled our sacred Constitution? How could such a grandiose undertaking pale in importance compared with any other piece of business considered by the Legislature?

It is in the answer to this question that we see the rotten fruits of the Republican effort to impeach Bill Clinton for trivial sexual escapades based on a long-running and hugely wasteful investigatory witch-hunt. Just as the Ann Coulters and Bill O'Reillys of the world have soured the American appetite for political debate and lowered the bar for political discourse to nearly subhuman levels, so too has the Republican slash-and-burn way of doing politics trivialized and cheapened even the most monumental decisions made in representative government. Impeachment today is seen not as political capital punishment to be prosecuted only under the direst of constitution-threatening circumstances, but rather as just another toy in the partisan political sandbox.

American distaste not only for Republican rule but also for partisan games is at an all-time high right now. We have a record number of Independent-affiliated voters, while both the Presidency and the Congress both have shockingly low confidence ratings indicative of a broader crisis of confidence; meanwhile, the candidacy of a relatively unknown New York corporatist billionaire is attracting far more public support than it otherwise should--even as partisan members of both parties look to candidates not currently running (Gore, Thompson) to save them from the current crop on both sides. Obama's rhetoric of Purple Power is attracting otherwise non-political voters all across America.

It is the great tragedy of the Clinton years--and of the failure by Democrats to stand adequately strongly against Republican abuses of political processes during the '90s and beyond--that Impeachment itself has come to be seen not as an essential tool of accountability for an executive run amok, but rather as another distasteful partisan ploy.

Most incredibly, what we are seeing from various sources in conversation with officials ranging from Nancy Pelosi herself to House staffers is that Democrats see a greater opportunity for boldness and political impact in the passing of legislation--even in the face of vetoes from Mr. 26%--than in moves toward impeachment. To the minds of those who purport to represent the American People, actually passing effective legislation after years of Republican misrule is considered more novel and less like politics-as-usual than the most momentous actions possible in defense of the United States Constitution. Impeachment is not being avoided due to its boldness, but rather (shockingly enough) due to its banality.

So what do we do?

With all due respect to Major Danby, a good friend whose opinion I greatly respect, a minimalist impeachment agenda is the worst of all possible worlds. It's not that the Overton Window doesn't need to be moved on the subject of impeachment; it does. But it needs to be moved in a way that most progressive bloggers aren't currently considering. The problem isn't that the American Public does not oppose the Bush Administration strongly enough to make impeachment politically viable; they do. It's that impeachment itself is seen as too petty and partisan for what currently ails the country. Attempting to make impeachment palatable to the American Public and to fence-sitting Democratic legislators through a gradual, minimalist stance focusing on obstruction of justice will not work, because impeachment is already seen as too petty and political an action for what ails our democracy. Moreover, a minimalist approach to impeachment will not serve as adequate warning to the next out-of-control President who chooses to arrogate to him/herself Bush's theory of Executive Power.

If we want impeachment to work, we have to throw the book at these people in a way that is not currently being done at the highest levels. If we want the public to understand that impeachment is a necessary duty to hold Bush and his allies accountable for deeply criminal actions rather than a cheap political ploy, our legislators must not be afraid to accuse them of deeply criminal action. We must make it clear to the American people that we are not defending some idealistic notion of the defense of Constitutional Principles, but rather opposing an Administration responsible for villainy and criminality unprecedented in modern American History. The Articles of Impeachment themselves must look less like Fitzgerald's case against Scooter Libby, and more like Thomas Jefferson's case against King George III.

Most importantly, our legislators must be made to see not only the necessity of impeachment itself, but of not mincing their words when it comes to describing Administration activities. They must not be afraid to use the words "liars", "blatantly illegal and unconstitutional", "criminal activity", "unprecedented abuses of power", or even "treason". Until we see our legislators actually using these sorts of words and phrases, we will know that they do not consider the state of affairs in America desperate enough to require impeachment. More importantly, the public will not be inclined to see the Bush Administration as dangerous enough to our way of life to merit the necessity of impeachment as a means of national self-defense, rather than as a petty partisan tool.

The hard work is just beginning. If we want to defend our Constitution and our country, the political discourse is going to have to get worse before it gets better. If we want our legislators and the American People to see impeachment not as a partisan move for naked political power but as a bold move for freedom, we must first convince them of its sheer necessity through some fairly ugly (if painfully accurate) words. If impeachment is to become extraordinary again rather than banal, we must convince the people that the times themselves are extraordinary.

Obviously, we still have a great deal of work to do.

Also at MLW

Wtih Enemies Like These, Who Needs Friends?

2007-06-27T17:43:00.000-07:00

Republicans and their allies just don't seem to get it. Nothing that they do actually works. Don't get me wrong--they can be successful in the short term at winning elections and enriching their fat-cat friends. They can scare and defraud enough people into voting them into office a couple of times; they can stop American action on global warming for a decade or invade non-threatening countries in the hopes of delaying peak oil.

But like a CEO who manages only with an eye toward better stock prices for the next quarter, everything that Republicans and their allies do is counterproductive over the long term--not only to the American people, but to their own interests as well. This is not only true of their self-destructive policies (the immigration disaster being chief among them), but even of their political tactics.

There's an old saying in politics: "You meet the same people going up the elevator that you do on the way down." The message? Be honest but civil; be direct but courteous; don't stab people in the back or subvert your alliances.

It's a message that has been completely lost on Republicans during the Karl Rove/Tom Delay era--presumably because they had themselves convinced that they would never be coming down that elevator again as they ascended toward a permanent Republican Majority. Unfortunately for them (and fortunately for the rest of us), the price of ignoring that wise dictum has been that their own greed and hubris has ensured the arousal of an activist, motivated population just itching bring them down a notch and see them fail. Now, like desperate villains trapped in quicksand, their every frantic move only hastens their own demise.

Nowhere is this more true than in the tactics of hatred, division and greed that they have used to earn their short-lived and ill-gotten gains. What used to work so well for them in the past now only brings them misery.

Three cases in point stand out most obviously:

1. The Joe Lieberman Fundraiser.

Republicans have been eager to use pathetic old Joementum as a wedge against Democrats. Joe's eager willingness to betray Democrats not only on policy but in the media has been legendary, and led to his eventual expulsion as the Democratic nominee in the Connecticut Senate race and his electoral rescue by the Connecticut Republican voters. The GOP and Lieberman apparently thought it would be a good idea for Joe Lieberman to host a fundraiser for the embattled Susan Collins, one of the two Republican and supposedly moderate Senators in Maine.

It was a severe miscalculation. Instead of turning into fundraiser gold and an opportunity to show the division among Democrats and the supremacy of Broderist/Mickey Kaus-style Centrism, it turned instead into a show of force by the progressive netroots for Collins' Democratic challenger, Tom Allen: by the time it was all over, MoveOn.org had raised over $355,000 for Allen, while a 24-hour ActBlue dkos fundraiser put on by multiple kossacks including myself netted over $23,000.

While no tally is available for the actual Lieberman-Collins fundraiser, it obvious that the event totally backfired on both Lieberman and the GOP, raising substantially more money for Collins' challenger than for Collins herself.

2. Coulter's vicious attack on John Edwards

By now everyone has heard of Ann Coulter's latest idiotic and nerve-wracking statements about John Edwards. First she famously called him a "faggot". Then two days ago in an interview which can be seen here, she said the following:

Coulter: Oh, yeah -- I wouldn't insult gays by comparing them to John Edwards. That would be mean. --laugh-- But, you know, around the same time, Bill Maher was not joking when he wished Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack. So I've learned my lesson: if I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot. --laugh--

Now, we can argue about whether this constitutes an actual threat to John Edwards or not. What is inescapable and unarguable, however, is the new publicity, positive imagery and fundraising ability it has given the Edwards campaign. John Edwards' much-beloved wife Elizabeth got the opportunity to attack Coulter on TV with much more restraint than I could have mustered; CNN has the story up on its front page; and the Edwards campaign is using Coulter yet again in fundraising letters as a method of propping up and increasing what would otherwise have been a middling Q2 report.

To make a long story short, the more Coulter and her ilk attack Edwards, the more likely they are to be saluting him as their next Commander-in-Chief.

3. The Money Game

Republicans have long been instrumental in ensuring that as much money as possible sloshes around Washington--the better to ensure corruption and hand-outs to their corporatist paymasters.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the Capitol: conservative mismanagment of government has combined increased political activism made possible through the Internet and the appearance of increased numbers of small donors (as well as some very concerned big donors) to change the balance of power of money game.

Today, Democrats are not only outpolling the GOP in every way, we are also (with the lone exception of the RNC/DNC battle outraising them by substantial margins. As Markos says:

It's not just the DSCC kicking ass anymore. The DCCC is also running ahead of its Republican counterpart -- $26M to $23.6M. Throw in debts, and the NRCC is at negative $5M while the DCCC has nearly $7M -- a $12M advantage for the good guys.

Meanwhile, at the DSCC, the advantage is also big $22.7M versus $12.4 raised this year. And taking debts into consideration, the DSCC has about $9M compared to the NRSC's $4.3M.

Of course, one can hope that once Democrats are fully in power, we will drive the money out of politics through publically financed elections. Until that day comes, however, the Republican insistence on putting big money into elections has only helped ensure that Americans rich and poor alike are donating as much as their beleaguered wallets will allow toward the removal of said GOP operatives from public office.

----------------------------------------------

Every day and in every way, it seems that the noose grows tighter and tighter around Republican necks. Worst of all for them, they don't seem to know any political tactics beyond those of hatred and division. Those twin tactics have now played themselves out to the point where every time they are used, they do little but backfire on their own kind, just as has happened with the deadly immigration football. Every political action they take generates as much blowback domestically as have their foreign policy actions in the Middle East. Just about everything they do, in fact, just puts them further and further into a corner.

I say, with enemies like these, who needs friends?

To Impeach or Not to Impeach: That is NOT the Question

2007-06-25T13:15:00.000-07:00

As I have reluctantly stated before, I am in favor of impeaching the President, the Vice-President and Alberto Gonzales. Of course, I am not alone in this opinion; in fact, I came to it rather late. And certainly, it appears that more and more people are getting comfortable with the idea of impeachment--so many, in fact, that the impeachment drive can no longer be ignored by the traditional media. The Bush Administration's radical reinterpretations of the definitions of the Office of Vice-President as an island of government, and the range of authority of Executive Orders as not applicable to the Chief Executive will certain add even more fuel to what is becoming a raging Impeachment wildfire.

Of course, the "Impeach Now" crowd is not the only one capable of reasonable Progressive thought. Well-meaning, intelligent progressives may also come down on the side of what they see as Pragmatism; I myself was proud to be a member of this camp until not very long ago. Markos himself has been and may continue to be of this opinion (he hasn't written much on the subject lately). So-called Pragmatic arguments against Impeachment come in a variety of forms, including that:

Democrats have a chance to frame ourselves and what we will do for the country--and that given a limited amount of media oxygen, the Party will not be able to walk and chew gum simultaneously.
Partisan recriminations will only further divide an already deeply divided nation.
Above all, bitter impeachment proceedings won't help accomplish the primary goal stated in the DailyKos FAQ: to help get more Democrats elected.

The oft-cited counterargument, of course, is that in the face of an out-of-control executive that believes it has imperial powers overriding all judicial and legislative authority, impeachment is the only pragmatic recourse. The counter-counter argument is that America has largely weathered the Bush storm; we only have 18 months of this bastard left; our democracy is largely intact and Democrats just need to prove themselves the competent party of adults who can get things done rather than play partisan games. And so the wheel of question-begging arguments turns round and round.

Both sides of this argument, however, are missing the only point that really matters. Both sides are right--right in the sense that impeachment is the only way to restrain the Bush Administration's mad lust for power, and in the sense that Bush is essentially a lame duck with little time left to play Oval Office demi-god, and is already being cast to the wolves by members of his own party, while Democratic victories in 2008 are the paramount objective. But both sides are also wrong. Both sides are wrong because they are both asking themselves the wrong questions. The question at hand is not "What Do We Do About Bush?" or "How Do We Move America Forward in a Progressive Direction?" or even "How Do We Put Bush Behind Us and Create A Lasting Democratic Majority?" The real question at hand is instead "How in the world did this happen in America--and more importantly, how do we stop it from ever happening again?"

As evil as the NeoConservative agenda has clearly been, as utterly deficient in competence and moral compass as the Religious Right has been, as predictably disastrous as placing a formerly cocaine-addicted sociopathic dry drunk with a silver spoon in his mouth and serious daddy issues has been, and as monumentally insane as having former Nixon protégés be in charge of Executive secrecy and power has been, it should still shock Americans with a sense of civics and history how easy it has been for a nutso Commander-in-Chief and his morally-challenged cronies to subvert the Consitution, the will of the American People, and the very foundations of Democracy in a few short years. Had you told me back in 1999 that this could have happened in America even with the worst of leaders, I would have laughed in your face. I had confidence in the power of our structural institutions back then that I utterly lack today. For me, the key question--indeed, the only question--is how to effectively stop even the worst of madmen from ever having the power to wreak such havoc again.

Because, you see, impeachment does not answer that question. If that blessed day does finally come when Bush, Cheney, Rove and/or Gonzales are finally held to account for their crimes in House and Senate impeachment proceedings, it will not stop such abuses from happening again. As much as we would like to throw the entire book at President George just as Thomas Jefferson did to King George before him, that is not likely to happen. Instead, impeachment is likely to hang on some relatively minor crime of obstruction or other. In the context of an administration that has deceived the American people into the disastrous military occupation of a non-threatening nation, obliterated checks and balances, eliminated habeas corpus, enshrined torture into our interrogation practices, and assumed the ability to invade privacy without a warrant (among a host of other crimes), nailing George Bush for covering up the real political reasons for the firing of a few U.S. attorneys he appointed (a crass, damaging and unprecedented though not illegal move in and of itself) would seem even more hollow and anticlimactic than jailing Al Capone for tax evasion.

Most importantly, impeaching Administration officials for one offense or another will only serve to warn the next administration to avoid that offense on which the impeachment proceedings were based, rather than the entire Unitary "we create the history you'll write about later" theory of Executive Power that is the source of the trouble. Instead, rightly or wrongly, the next Administration is likelier to learn in the wake of consecutive impeachments of Clinton and Bush that an Executive who loses control of Congress is at risk of losing his/her job in an overtly rancorous and hostile political climate--perhaps leading to increased attemnpts at Executive power consolidation.

Neither, however, does the anti-Impeachment side have any better answers. Even the most optimistic political observer knows that there is a pendulum in American politics that usually works in fairly regular cycles: Democrats and Progressives won't be in control forever. God forbid, in fact, that we should create permanent institutional majorities, else we would soon need yet another revolution to rid ourselves of the Pigs who took over Manor Farm. Further, authoritarianism comes not only in the red flavors of fascism, but in blue Stalinist ones as well. Simply ensuring the election of Democrats does not and will not ensure that Bushist theories of executive power will not rise from the dead yet again.

Preventing the nation from being torn asunder through vicious partisan strife will not rescue us from an actually competent Straussian Philosopher-King removing our liberties for own good in his/her infinite wisdom.

And finally, enacting progressive policies such as guaranteed universal health care, publicly financed elections, marriage equality, progressive taxation, corporate regulations, privacy protections and the like, will do nothing to prevent the next authoritarian freak and his merry band of cronies from replaying this sordid history like an unwelcome recurring nightmare.

-----------------------------------------

No, the great challenge for American democracy is neither impeachment nor corporate corruption: it is the curtailment of the power of the executive branch itself. America can survive the depradations of Republican legislators and jurists; it cannot so easily survive many more years of maniacally out-of-control chief executives and their lieutentants. That challenge will remain with us regardless of whether Democrats win in '08, or whether George Bush is impeached before then.

From this moment onward, the Presidency of George W. Bush must serve not only as a monstrous enemy to block and stymie at every opportunity, but more importantly as an object lesson: What we have witnessed here must never happen again so long as we have memories to share, eyes to see, and the will to fight.

From this moment onward, our primary political focus must not only be on passing progressive legislation in the traditional sense, but more importantly on codifying the balance of powers in such a clarion way that not even the love child of Samuel Alito and Dick Cheney could possibly mistake it for a fragile bird to shoot down with a stroke of their "Unitary Executive" pen.

From this moment onward, the specter of George Bush must hover over our government as an ever-present reminder of the frailty of our institutions, and the clear and present danger imposed not only by Republican ideology, but by unchecked Executive Power itself.

From the 2008 election onward, Progressive Policy must be defined as much by its explicit curtailments on executive power as by its work on behalf of the beleaguered middle-class and underclass.

Let us, therefore, impeach if and when we can. Let us work to elect Democrats. Let us work to pass progressive legislation.

But let us also remember that to impeach or not to impeach is not the question over which our slings and arrows should fly at one another. Because the question that should drive us, keeping us awake at night on our computers, is instead How do we stop even a mad hatter like Bush from ever sending us down this rabbit-hole again?

Interview w/ Raven Brooks of YearlyKos' UnConventional

2007-06-25T03:19:00.000-07:00

For the Kossacks among my readers

If you had the misfortune of missing last year's YearlyKos Convention, words alone cannot describe the magic of the experience: the extraordinary panels, wonderful people, political and blogging celebrities, eye-opening workshops, inspiring speeches, lavish parties, and just all-around fun. Describing the experience would take an amalgam of words, photographs, personal stories, recountings of the events day by day, and insights from some of your favorite Kossacks. It would take, in a nutshell, exactly what has been done in UnConventional, the official and unparalleled chronicle of the first of what promises to be a long series of exciting gatherings of bloggers and political activists. UnConventional first came out in e-book form last year, but has just become available in print form: you can either have it shipped to you sometime in late July, or simply pick it up at the YearlyKos 2007 Convention in Chicago if you are coming (and I hope you are--if not, register today!).

Best of all, any and all proceeds from the sale of the book go to help fund the YearlyKos convention--so not only do you get a great book, you also get to contribute to a good cause (I myself purchased two e-book copies and two physical copies!) As it says on the UnConventional website:

YearlyKos: Citizens, Focus and Action, an in-depth book covering the first YearlyKos convention is available NOW. A team of four brilliant photographers led by Mona Brooks along with an editorial staff led by Hunter of Daily Kos fame, documented every aspect of the convention, from caucuses to keynote speeches, from volunteers to political heavy-hitters, so many Kos bloggers, and more.

The 292 page book combines complete convention coverage with personal essays about why so many of you are here--Kossack personal stories about what being a progressive means (with beautiful portraits to boot, so you can finally see how fabulous the people you communicate with on dKos look in the reality-based world!).

All proceeds from the sale of this book will go to funding future YearlyKos conventions, so buy this gorgeous book today and secure the future of this (UnConventionally) important movement! (Also available in ebook format.)

UnConventional was put together with the help of several photographers and editors--Hunter had chief editorial duties, and Raven Brooks, former president and founder of the now-defunct BuyBlue.org, had the job of photographing (with help from four other great professional photographers, including chief photographer Mona Brooks) the Kossacks included in the book and putting those photos into book form. clammyc and I had the good fortune of talking to Raven at the convention during our photo sessions for the book--and now that Unconventional is available in print format, we had the opportunity to interview him about the book on our blogtalkradio show Political Nexus.

Some of the issues we discussed:

What makes UnConventional so special

Discount, pickup and shipping options

The self-publishing process for the book (including help from Jane Hamsher's and Markos' Vaster Books

The experience of photographing the Kossacks and politicians at the convention, and putting the book together

What's in the works for a chronicle of YK2007

Check out the interview online at Political Nexus--and more importantly, please consider buying this fantastic book and helping out a good cause at the same time.

Hope to see all of you in Chicago!!!

Join in the anti-Lieberman fundraiser

2007-06-22T02:16:00.000-07:00

Joe Lieberman (Douchebag-CT) is holding a fundraiser for endangered Republican Susan Collins of Maine. The netroots are trying to show him where he can shove that.

See here for details, and donate to Tom Allen of Maine!

A Major Crisis of Confidence in America

2007-06-21T14:22:00.000-07:00

Reading partisan blogs can often be a painful and depressing experience. Each side engages in "gotcha" blogging, attempting to catch some figure or other from the other side in a contradiction. Each side nitpicks the traditional media for some little piece of news that is supposedly of great importance, but then dies into oblivion a week later.

Most recently, the progressive blogosphere and the wingnutosphere have been engaged in one-upsmanship to see who can laugh hardest at the other guy's sinking approval/confidence ratings. We progressives cheer with derision at George Bush's atrocious all-time low 26% approval rating; meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle, the wingnuts applaud with contempt at the 14% all-time low confidence rating of congress.

But what should frighten members of both parties is the shocking loss of confidence that Americans have in any American institution right now, devoid of partisan significance or repercussion.

While the wingnuts merrily tout the low confidence ratings for Congress in the new Gallup Poll, Americans of any political stripe should be shocked at the overall trendlines showing that confidence in Congress has fallen right on pace with confidence in every other major public or private institution polled. And while it is true that Congressional confidence ratings are at the bottom of all institutions polled, that is nothing new: Congress has had consistently low confidence ratings for years, largely due to GOP demonization of government. Also, while the wingnuts proudly tout the high comparative confidence ratings for the military compared with other institutions, what they fail to point out is that the military, too, has lost clout with the American people at almost the same rate that Congress has. In fact, Congress' confidence ratings seem to be falling slower than those of many other institutions.

The confidence rating numbers are below (it's simpler to read in graph format at Gallup's site, but I'll present the numbers in a table):

Institution	June '06	June '07
The Military	73%	69%
The Police	58%	54%
Church/Organized Religion	52%	46%
Banks	49%	41%
The U.S. Supreme Court	40%	34%
Public Schools	37%	33%
The Medical System	38%	31%
The Presidency	33%	25%
Television News	31%	23%
Newspapers	30%	22%
Criminal Justice System	25%	19%
Organized Labor	24%	19%
Big Business	18%	18%
HMOs	15%	15%
Congress	19%	14%

Indeed, if any partisan conclusions can be drawn at all from this poll, it is that most insititutions considered more in line with Republican support have been falling faster than those more in line with Democrats: organized religion has fallen by 6%; banks by 8%; the medical system by 7%; the Presidency by 8%. Meanwhile, the television and newspaper media have lost major credibility as well to the tune of 8% each.

But what these numbers say more than anything is that neither party has large reason to rejoice: the truth is that Americans are sick and tired of the status quo, and they don't believe that anyone is working in their best interests right now--not the schools, the courts, the churches, the government, business, the media, the police, not anybody. That is fundamentally a very scary thing because our entire society runs on trust in major public and private institutions: without that trust, democracy, representative governments and entire economies fall into ruins. While we Democrats laugh at Bush's low approval ratings and the Republicans laugh at Congress' confidence ratings, America is falling into grave danger of a crisis of confidence in itself and its ability to maintain a functional society.

But there is still hope--at least for Democrats willing to govern and run as progressives--especially on the issues of Iraq and the middle-class economy. According to another Gallup poll just released, Iraq remains the most important problem for the Gallup by a wide margin--more than double that of the next most important problem, immigration (though it is important to note that the numbers for immigration are artificially high due to its recent coverage in the news). A whopping 70% of the country also says that the economy is getting worse--largely due to healthcare costs and wages that have not kept pace with productivity or inflation.

The message is clear: the American people are upset about the situation in Iraq. They're upset about job insecurity and low wages. They're upset about illegal immigration--largely because they feel it impacts their wages and jobs. They're upset about healthcare costs. And they don't think anyone out there is helping them or doing anything about it.

Thankfully, because these issues are fundamentally Democratic issues to make progress on and Republican issues to obstruct, the opportunity for political gain is enormous and one-sided in our favor. Unfortunately, our Democrats in Congress are wasting that opportunity by being timid and risk-averse, passing mostly pointless legislation and refusing to take a chance on standing up for causes that might make Americans actually believe in their government again.

Democrats in congress have nothing to lose by growing a spine: their own confidence rating can't get much lower, the American people are quickly losing trust in any of the public institutions that make this country great, the public policy wildfires are burning out of control, and the opposition party is stuck in a deep political ditch.

The American people, meanwhile, are stuck in a burning building with no way out. The
Republicans are not only incapable of putting it out--they're the arsonists who started the blaze. The Dems have the power to put out the fires and rescue the people, but are too afraid to do it lest they get singed. So both parties are standing there, laughing at how close the licking flames are coming to torching their opponents' hides. That is a sad state of affairs that can end only in tragedy.

The time for action is now. Because when confidence in all of our institutions is weakened beyond repair, there won't be anything left to save.

An American Capacity for Evil

2007-06-18T13:58:00.000-07:00

How could this have happened in America? How did we get into this horrible mess? Why is there not more outrage from the American people? Why is the traditional media so compliant? Why are the Democrats so timid?

As the full rotten fruits of the Bush Administration's contempt for democracy, constitutional process, human rights, international law, middle-class economics and just plan basic human decency become increasingly apparent with each passing day, coherent and convincing answers to these questions become increasingly necessary. It should be deeply troubling to anyone who cares about America as a nation and the principles upon which it was founded that our institutions could have become so easily subverted, and our national will so broken that we not only did nothing to prevent these disasters, but failed to act decisively to right the wrongs once they had become so appallingly obvious.

It is these questions that Al Gore attempts to answer in his outstanding book Assault on Reason. Gore's answer in a nutshell is that representative democracy only functions based on a two-way conversation between its government those being governed; that in the days of pamphlets and the written word such communication was commonplace and easy (at least for the bourgeois); and that radio and especially television have broken down that communication into a one-way street from government to the people, with an ever decreasing attention span.

Al Gore is right about all this, of course--yet as I turn it over in my mind, it is clear to me that this explanation alone does not suffice to explain how we got to such a dreary state of affairs. America has a long history of horrific corruption, appalling deficits of accountability, and immoral acts of oppression and war that predates radio and television. Slavery, the Trail of Tears, Andrew Jackson's final "victory" in the war of 1812, the massacres of Native Americans at Wounded Knee and elsewhere, the brute aggression of the Mexican-American War, the Confederacy on the wrong side of morality and history, the lies of the Spanish-American war, the social injustice and government corruption of the Gilded Age and robber baron eras, Jim Crow and the White Man's Burden of Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson--all of these took place well before the advent of radio and television. And nearly all took place with the fairly quiet consent of the governed.

No, the answer lies deeper. While America's ability to project might, together with the secrecy and corruption made possible by the unprecedented power of multinational corporations, has ensured that the Bush Administration's misuse of both capacities will earn it the award of Worst Administration Ever, the uncomfortable truth is that the difference between Bush and many of his American predecessors is not one of quality, but rather of quantity. One shudders to think what sort of damage might have been done by a President Jackson, President Grant or President Nixon, given Bush's military power, post-9/11 national cohesion, and pressure from corporate interests. Bush and his Republican corporatocratic cronies do so much damage because they have the power to--not because they are a uniquely destructive breed.

But even that is not enough. Regardless of the power that can be wielded by an unholy alliance of religious dogmatism, military-industrial complex influence and corporate power, there still remains the question of how the American people, its media, and its supposed opposition parties could have remained so compliant for so long.

The answer, I believe, lies in the fact that most Americans simply do not believe their leaders and their government to be capable of sheer evil. Certainly, we as Americans acknowledge the past sins of slavery, native exterminations, Jim Crow and the like--but we view these actions as a product of inadequate social enlightenment at the time, simply reflected by our leadership. And certainly, we believe our politicians to be venal consummate liars who are inherently corrupt and self-serving. But we are incapable of allowing ourselves to admit that we as a nation are capable of playing an utterly immoral role on the world stage.

Most other industrialized nations do not have this problem. The nations of Europe learned the lessons of colonial exploitation, empires established and lost, and brutal world wars fought due to greed and stupidity. Japan (in spite of its official refusal to acknowledge it) understands and is fairly contrite for the negative role it has played in military and economic exploitation of its neighbors. Russia certainly is sadder but wiser for its experiences with state-run Communist Empire. Even China has a storied history of imperial cruelty and rebellion from such--though its lessons tend to be internally rather than externally directed.

But America has not yet had its often heavy hand slapped by the forces of karma. The impossibility of the maintenance of both military colonial empire and domestic democracy have not yet become apparent to the average American. In fact, most Americans are still sitting on the laurels of overtly beneficial military campaigns overseas in World War II and in Korea--perhaps the only truly just wars America has fought since the war of 1812 (with the possible exceptions of Kosovo and Gulf War I). Even when our actions are overtly aggressive, Americans have always found a way to justify them to ourselves.

Perhaps the best example of the philosophy that most Americans hold when it comes to foreign policy is presented by Trey Parker and Matt Stone in their 2004 comedy Team America: World Police. Apologies for the crudeness here, but the words are Parker's and Stone's. Shortly before the following speech in the film, the American heroes have foiled a plot of world domination by North Korea's Kim Jong-Il, who has made unwitting allies of the Hollywood celebrities the Right loves to hate (unless their running as Republicans for president, of course):

We're dicks! We're reckless, arrogant, stupid dicks. And the Film Actors Guild are pussies. And Kim Jong Il is an asshole. Pussies don't like dicks, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes: assholes that just want to shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can fuck an asshole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is: they fuck too much or fuck when it isn't appropriate - and it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes, pussies can be so full of shit that they become assholes themselves... because pussies are an inch and half away from ass holes. I don't know much about this crazy, crazy world, but I do know this: If you don't let us fuck this asshole, we're going to have our dicks and pussies all covered in shit!

As clammyc and I will be discussing tonight on our radio show Political Nexus, this speech, crude and filled as it is with misogynist sexual politics, underlines the American theory of domestic and foreign policy: we may be over-the-top sometimes, but our hearts are in the right place. Our leaders stand up, we believe, to evil wherever it is--and sometimes some weaklings get hurt and offended in the process--but if it weren't for our strong decisive leadership, all those weaklings would get abused by those evil people in the world. This ethic applies just as much to our law-and-order attitude towards drugs and a variety of other crimes (leading to horrific incarceration rates) as it does to our foreign policy in Iraq. In the minds of most Americans, we can always be overly aggressive dicks--but never assholes. And the worst thing we could possibly have, we believe, is a President who is a "pussy". Indeed, it would be difficult to surmise how dickish an American president would have to be for us consider him/her enough of an asshole to actually impeach.

And that is why Chris Matthews can't believe Americans don't like George Bush. That is why the idea of impeaching George Bush for war crimes and crimes against the American Constitution is so distasteful to so many Americans. That is why our Democratic candidates have such difficulty saying that occupying Iraq is wrong, or that Bush deliberately lied to get us to invade; instead, they say their vote was a "mistake", that they wish they had "known then what they know now", that we were "misled". That is why Americans were so utterly shocked by Abu Ghraib, and why they did their best to forget about it just after it happened. That is why Americans were so utterly shocked by the callous and incompetent response to the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, and why they did their best to forget about that, too, just months thereafter. That is why it takes a Michael Moore to say explicitly that American healthcare isn't just in need of adjustments, but is structurally bad.

In sum, Americans cannot hold George Bush accountable for his evil actions if they refuse to acknowledge the possibility that any American president could be capable of using our power towards evil ends. So long as conventional wisdom dictates that no politician or major media figure can speak badly of his/her country's position on the world stage, no politician will truly be able to speak badly of the leadership that put us in that position.

This is why Al Gore cannot decide whether or not to run for President. As an outside figure, he can hold George Bush's and America's feet to the fire for dragging its feet on global climate change, and for abusing the awesome power of its military might. As a politician, however, he knows that doing so is the kiss of death.

As Americans, we deserve the leadership that we get. So long as we are incapable of admitting evil of ourselves, we will be incapable of having principled leadership like Al Gore is demonstrating today. At best, we will get the calculated platitudes of a Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama; at worst, we will get the utter depravity of a George Bush or Dick Cheney.

If we want to save our country, however, we will need to admit the truth. We will need to be able to call a spade a spade, and acknowledge that great evil has indeed been done in our names. I only hope that we as a nation can do so before it is too late.

Interview with Armando/Big Tent Dem posted

2007-06-15T21:02:00.000-07:00

It was a fantastic discussion. Download it here at the On Topic page for Political Nexus.

Look for our next Framework show recording on Monday June 18th.

You've seen Armando/BTD Spout Off on Iraq: Now Hear Him Roar!

2007-06-12T14:52:00.000-07:00

Say what you will about former DailyKos frontpager Armando/Big Tent Democrat, you cannot dispute that he he has a razor-sharp intellect, an acute understanding of Democrats need to do to win important political battles, and an outsize personality not afraid to mix it up with those who disagree with him.

What many in the progressive blogosphere may not know is that, in the wake of the kerfuffle that led to his 2nd departure from Daily Kos, he has been doing outstanding work on Iraq, Libby and a host of other issues over at TalkLeft. Together with fellow contributors and attorneys John Wesley Hall and T. Christopher Kelly, Armando has been scathing in his coverage of GOP criminal and moral malfeasance, and of the weak-kneed Democratic enablers who fail to adequately stand up to it.

And today you have the opportunity to listen to him spout off on my and clammyc's radio show On Topic at Political Nexus. The show will begin tonight at 5pm PST--those who wish to listen live can do so at the "On Topic" BlogTalkRadio page (the only show currently listed is the one we did with MSOC on abortion; it will appear when the show goes live.) Otherwise, you can access the archives of the show either at Political Nexus or at the BlogTalkRadio On Topic page.

Among the topics we'll be discussing during the half-hour show include:

What was the Democratic strategy on the Iraq Supplemental going in? Was the capitulation always in the works, or was it the product of an inability to secure enough votes from conservative Democrats?

Regardless of the actual consequences for Iraq and our troops, why was the capitulation bill such a bad move politically?

Democrats are currently banking on the "helpless bystander" theory that the Congress has no power to curb the Executive on Iraq. Will this fly with the American Public? If not, why not?

If we could force the Democrats to vote any way you wanted, would we have them simply defund the Occupation?

Where do we go from here? What should the Democrats do come September--and what do we expect them to do?

How will the Republicans handle all of this? Can they get out in front of Democrats to oppose Bush on Iraq? Will they even try?

So feel free to join us for what promises to be a fascinating discussion on the most important political topic of the 2008 election. I'll close this piece today with a quote from BTD himself:

Certainly pinning Bush on the GOP helps the Democrats, but political grandstanding alone will not cut it for the Dems now. They control the Congress. They can end the Iraq Debacle. And if they do not, the GOP will try and neuter them on Iraq by saying they did not - Dems were all partisan bluster and no action. And the GOP would be right.

As Greg Sargent points out, Dems hold a 20 point polling edge on Bush on Iraq, 54-34. But if Dems do not do anything about ending the Iraq Debacle, then why SHOULD the American People trust Democrats on Iraq? snip

Come 2008 -- when faced with the question "What did a Democratic Congress do to end the Iraq Debacle?", when the answer is nothing, what do you think the voters are going to say?

Spineless Dems ALWAYS lose. Always.

I still think that. More than ever.

Amen, my friend. Amen. Keep roaring, and hopefully the world will begin to listen.

Gallup: 7 in 10 Republicans don't believe in Evolution

2007-06-11T14:15:00.000-07:00

Gallup has just released a scary new poll that indicates just how much work still lies before us as a nation--and just how frightening is the prospect of Republican rule. The majority of Americans are still likelier to believe in creationism than in evolution--with an amazing 7 out of 10 Republicans holding fast to their literalist beliefs.

Most depressingly, the figures for the American people in general have not moved significantly since 1982--both according to the Gallup polls and a number of others. The fantastic site Polling Report has a rundown of the major polls on just about every major sociopolitical issue, including evolution and politics. The numbers are anything but encouraging: in 1982, 38% of Americans thought that human beings were created over the course of millions of years, but God guided the process; 9% thought God played no part; and 44% said we were created by God in our current form (9% stated "other"). In 2007, those numbers have shifted only slightly, with 38% for divine guidence, 14% for no divine role, and 43% for creationism. A 2005 Harris poll showed 6% fewer Americans believing in human evolution than they had in 1994.

While the overall numbers for Americans are depressing, the political divide is nothing short of astonishing. As Gallup says:

The majority of Republicans in the United States do not believe the theory of evolution is true and do not believe that humans evolved over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. This suggests that when three Republican presidential candidates at a May debate stated they did not believe in evolution, they were generally in sync with the bulk of the rank-and-file Republicans whose nomination they are seeking to obtain.

Independents and Democrats are more likely than Republicans to believe in the theory of evolution. But even among non-Republicans there appears to be a significant minority who doubt that evolution adequately explains where humans came from.

The partisan numbers are 68% creationism to 30% evolution among Republicans, and 57% evolution to 40% creationism among Democrats. Of course, the divide between those who attend church regularly and those who do not is far larger (74% creationism to 24% evolution among those who attend church weekly, compared with 71% to 26% the other way), but that is largely to be expected. It is also important to note that many Americans appear to hold somewhat conflicted and contradictory beliefs. As Gallup goes on to say:

The data indicate some seeming confusion on the part of Americans on this issue. About a quarter of Americans say they believe both in evolution's explanation that humans evolved over millions of years and in the creationist explanation that humans were created as is about 10,000 years ago...

It might seem contradictory to believe that humans were created in their present form at one time within the past 10,000 years and at the same time believe that humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. But, based on an analysis of the two side-by-side questions asked this month about evolution and creationism, it appears that a substantial number of Americans hold these conflicting views.

While I have no direct evidence to support this claim, I think it stands to reason that more moderates, independents and Democrats are likely to hold contradictory beliefs on this issue: I know several religious Democrats who stick to the principle that science and faith are entirely separate, and willing to live with a contradictory dichotomy between the Bible's literal words and the scientific evidence. Such contradictory beliefs are not generally in keeping with the dogmatic views of the fundamentalist Christians who tend to reject scientific evidence entirely.

Most interesting and underreported in stories covering this issue, however, are the numbers among independents: a full 61% of independents believe in evolution, compared to 37% for creationism--a higher belief in evolution than among Democrats. Factoring in the stunning increase in the number of voters who call themselves Independent (32.9% of the population), this is but another example of a strong majority of "swing" voting population moving away from bread-and-butter Republican beliefs in some pretty fundamental issues. It is a scary thing for a rightist political party when Independents actually stand to the left of the bulk of the Left's party constituents.

Gallup sums it up nicely:

Being religious in America today is strongly related to partisanship, with more religious Americans in general much more likely to be Republicans than to be independents or Democrats. This relationship helps explain the finding that Republicans are significantly more likely than independents or Democrats to say they do not believe in evolution. When three Republican presidential candidates said in a May debate that they did not believe in evolution, the current analysis suggests that many Republicans across the country no doubt agreed.

To me, the upshot is this: we have an increasingly hostile ideological divide in this country between the two parties, with one side avowedly in favor of Luddite ignorance when it comes to evolution, and the other with a solid majority of more reasoned (if often contradictory) beliefs. And while the views of the American public at large in this deeply divided country have not shifted dramatically, the views of Independent voters have swung sharply in the direction of Democrats--and on a fundamental issue that is not subject to prevailing political winds or current events.

Once again, we have a situation where the differences between the two parties could not be more clear; where the Republican Party is showing itself to be increasingly irrational, dangerous, and in hock to the extreme Christianist right; and where the Democratic Party has little to lose with crucial swing voters by standing strong on its principles.

Because to put it bluntly, in the year 2007, a party accountable to constituency with a supermajority of believers in Biblical literalism simply cannot be allowed to rule. We have seen the consequences of such willful ignorance for the last 6 years, and we can no longer afford to be patient with it.

Panicked White House Posts on RedState, Lies to its Base

2007-06-07T17:04:00.000-07:00

I never thought I would see the day when the White House would be so panicked at the derailment of a particular bill by its own base that it would feel to need to post about it on the front page of a conservative blog in its own name.

I also never thought I would see the day when a respected community blog would simply allow a White House official to post on its frontpage--not even a promoted article or quote from an email, mind, but an originally authored piece.

Finally, I never thought I would see the day that George Bush had to defend himself from Republicans on charges of letting terrorists into America unsupervised and uncontrolled.

Apparently, I was wrong. Apparently, a fractured corporatist/xenophobic base can lead to some seriously strange results: a mendacious takeover of a right-wing blog by the very White House it was supposed to be holding accountable.

Case in point: today's frontpage post by Kerrie Rushton of the White House Office of Strategic Initiatives with the amazingly defensive title, Are Convicted Criminals And Terrorists Barred? Yes!

Wanted to take a moment to clarify what is in the bill regarding the Z program and convicted criminals and terrorists. The contention that they are not barred from the Z program has been making the rounds today.

The range of crimes that disqualify applicants from the Z program extends into the thousands and includes any felony (murder), any three misdemeanors (theft, although felony theft would be covered in the prior category), any aggravated felony (rape), any serious criminal offense (assault), most crimes involving moral turpitude (fraud), and any violation of a law relating to a controlled substance. These bars are not waivable by anyone -- period. You can view the bill language on this provision on pages 282 to 284.

Terrorists are not eligible for the legalization program. Period. And this bar is not waivable by anyone. Period. Again, this is spelled out on pages 282 and 284 of the bill, without ambiguity or room for debate. The bill also contains a whole host of new tools to fight criminal, dangerous, and terrorist aliens.

Thanks,
Kerrie Rushton
White House Office of Strategic Initiatives

Of course, today is ground zero for the White House on this bill: George Bush desperately wants it to pass to please his corporatist, cheap-labor-loving base. Karl Rove and other GOP strategists desperately want to pass it in the hopes of winning the hearts and minds of the growing Latino voter population. Harry Reid, meanwhile, is taking a standoffish approach and calling it George Bush's bill--a brilliant political maneuver that leaves Republicans in a lose-lose situation. With a second cloture vote coming up tonight in the wake of the first failed cloture vote and major arm-wringing going on behind closed doors, it's now do-or-die desperation time for the bill's White House backers.

And the xenophobic base isn't buying. Most of the angry comments in response to this post point out that many undocumented immigrants have probably broken a number of laws ranging from trespassing to tax evasion to the use of fradulent government documentation such as social security numbers and driver's licenses that would not show up on the government's registry. Further, others point out the improbability of all of these background checks' occurring within the 24-hour period mandated by the bill. Yet others make the obvious declaration that terrorists are already barred from citizenship in any case.

While many of these comments skirt around why this propaganda effort on the part of the White House is such a lying bamboozle, none of them really get to the heart of the matter. The one major overlooked key to this is, as many of the wingnuts point out, the fact that only convicted terrorists are excluded from the "amnesty" provisions of the bill. What it doesn't exclude from this process is that uniquely Bush Administration status so often defended by these very same wingnuts: the suspected terrorists on the vaunted Terrorist Watchlists.

Some of you may remember my writing about Senator Lautenberg's brilliant legislation entitled "Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2007", granting Alberto Gonzales the direct authority to prevent those on the terrorist watchlists from purchasing firearms or explosives. This legislation was crafted in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings and was met with strong uproar from the gun nuts, putting Republicans in the uncomfortable situation of either dismissing their gun nut base, or seeming to to be unconcerned with suspected terrorists' access to high-power weaponry.

This little legislative loophole in the immigration bill has the same effect: the White House is only disbarring convicted criminals from obtaining Z-Visas, while saying the bill contains tough anti-terrorism measures--all while insisting that terrorist watchlists, Patriot Acts and warrantless spying on Americans are necessary for the nation's very survival.

Regardless of the fate of this immigration bill, the Bush Adminsitration must be called on this two-faced, lying hypocrisy. Either strict use of the terrorist watchlists is necessary to defend America or it isn't. Even if this bill dies in the Senate today, the desperate pleading on behalf of the White House to conservative bloggers to ignore the issue of terrorism as it relates to immigration in spite of its past horrendous authoritarian overreaches in name of "keeping America safe", provides the single best wedge since the Dubai Ports Deal to drive between the Republicans' twin corporatist and xenophobic bases.

Meanwhile, the comments on the part of the RedStaters border on the furious--both towards the White House itself and towards the RS editors for allowing the White House to post onto the front page:

Regardless, the bill is by jyaklin
Regardless, the bill is terrible and does significant damage to the country. Prove you can fix the crossing problems and maybe then we'll listen. As for Bush, it's too bad the Democrats won't impeach him.

With all due respect to the REDSTATE staff... by ChiefMinion
I'm curious as to how this post ended up on the front page. If some White House hack states that this is not "amnesty", is that going to get posted as well?

With all due respect by Achance
and we can argue about what respect is due, what on Earth would make any sane person think that the federal government could not only do something right, but do it right in 24 hours? This is a sham and the Administration is playing the American people for fools. Anyone who believes that the US will make even the slightest attempt to enforce the border crossing and criminal acts pieces of this bill is so stupid as to be fit only for slavery. The Bush Administration and the Republican leadership have ZERO credibility on this subject, so write away. Do appreciate the time you took to try to give us a snow job, though.

Pass the popcorn, because things are just starting to get interesting...

Dem Debate much more-watched than GOP Debate; Drudge owns self

2007-06-06T16:52:00.001-07:00

It's official, folks: the American people are far more interested in Democrats right now than in Republicans. It's not just that Republican Party identification at an abysmally low 30.8%; it's not only that Americans trust Democrats more than Republicans on every major issue; it goes beyond the fact that Dems have a huge generic ballot lead as well as strong likely voter stats. We now learn from just-released numbers that well over 800,000 more people watched the Democratic debate on CNN than watched its GOP counterpart.

The numbers from the Democratic debate are over at Media Bistro:

Debates: Dems Get 2.78 Million Viewers On CNN; Most-Watched Debate Yet
CNN's Democratic debate averaged 2,783,000 million total viewers on Sunday night -- "more than any other presidential debate of this election season," the network notes.

Now, while it is true that the Fox News GOP debate garnered 2.55 million viewers, it is also true that Fox News' ratings as a whole are higher than any other news network (though their numbers are in decline), which makes the comparison somewhat akin to the proverbial apples and oranges.

According to Drudge, on the other hand, last night's GOP debate received a scant 1,974,000--a comparative deficit of 809,000 viewers.

In a piece of comic relief, however, Matt Drudge attempts to put his best lipstick on this pig by not comparing the two debate's numbers side by side (though he had reported the Dem debate numbers only two days earlier), but rather breathlessly comparing CNN's debate numbers with those of O'Reilly's on Fox:

O'REILLY BEATS CNN REPUBLICAN DEBATE... O’Reilly at 8pm on FONEWS CHANNEL averaged 2,291,000 viewers -- more viewers than CNN’s entire debate from 7-9pm which had 1,974,000... MORE... At 9pm, Fred Thompson’s appearance on FNC HANNITY/COLMES out-rated CNN/Anderson Cooper’s analysis of the Republican debate --- FNC averaged 1,628,000 viewers to CNN’s 1,178,000 from 9-10pm...

While it is commonplace for Drudge to make a big deal out of every time Fox beats out CNN for viewership in a desperate attempt to continue to pretend that America has a silent majority of conservatives in spite of every poll to the contrary, this particular bit of propaganda is extremely amusing. First, it doesn't speak well of the Republican base's intellectual curiosity or of the GOP candidates themselves that more Republicans would prefer to watch Bill O'Reilly blather on about the topic of the day with commercials and all, than watch their own candidates in an uninterrupted two-hour debate. Second, it should surprise absolutely no one that Fred Thompson's H&C appearance should garner more viewers than Anderson Cooper's post-debate analysis: Fred Thompson is another candidate getting free airtime! I myself switched over to watch Fred--not out of any great love for Republicans or Fox News, but because it was actually new information on the 11th perjurer-pardoning, torture-loving wingnut for president.

The irony of Drudge's pushing these numbers wasn't lost on some Freepers, either:

To: rednesss
To: RDTF
Goes to show that O’Reilly’s fans are not conservatives...

Most conservatives would choose to watch a GOP debate over O’Reilly tooting his own horn.

In fact, most conservatives would rather watch paint dry than O’Reilly tooting his horn.

10 posted on 06/06/2007 3:27:48 PM PDT by pissant

To: RDTF
Hannity gave Fred close to half an hour. Way more exposure than he would have gotten on a stage with 10 stiffs in a row. At least we got to see how he responds and he sure did not duck questions or answers.

7 posted on 06/06/2007 3:26:02 PM PDT by lexington minuteman 1775

At this point, the Matt Drudges of the world can't spin the bad news fast enough to even make Freepers take the bait. And the bad news for them is this: It's not just that America doesn't like Republicans; America isn't really even interested in Republicans.

It's a good day to be a Democrat right now--and just think how much better it would be had it not been for the Capitulation bill. The debate numbers and desperate spin attempts of the rightwing media hacks are yet another addition to a mounting pile of evidence leading to one conclusion: Democrats have nothing to lose by acting like Democrats. It's what the people want. It's what the people are looking for. It's what the country needs. And as long as we stick by our principles, I don't see the Republicans' being able to do anything to stop us.

Bush at 36% in Rasmussen (ALL-TIME LOW); Independent Voters Increase

2007-06-01T16:06:00.000-07:00

This post won't be as substantive as some of my others, but I figured I'd give everyone a whack at the new numbers to come out of Rasmussen.

Bush's approval rating has always been higher in Rasmussen than in other polls, largely due to discrepancies in weighting methodologies. Today, however, Rasmussen reports that Bush dropped another 3 points in the month of May to an all-time Rasmussen month-over-month low of 36%. This drop comes as a sharp tumble from his previous all-time low of 39% set in April.

Not only that, there is an increasingly large discrepancy in the extremes: the number of those who strongly disapprove of Bush's performance is almost triple that of those who strongly approve. As the report says:

During the month of May, President George W. Bush’s Job Approval rating fell to the lowest level ever recorded by Rasmussen Reports--36%. That’s down a full three points from April’s 39% which had previously been the lowest rating for the President.

During the full month of May, just 16% Strongly Approved of the way the President has performed his role and 45% Strongly Disapproved. Both those figures are also the worst ever recorded for the President who lost ground across all partisan and demographic groups.

However, not everything is coming up roses for Democrats: a separate Rasmussen report states that Republican party identification seems to still be dropping (now at 30.8%, down from 31% at the end of April)--and has been in a freefall since the 2004 election--but at a slower rate than Democratic party identification, which has dropped to its lowest total in seventeen months (to 36.3%, still a good five and a half points higher than the GOP). The number of those who are registered as independents has skyrocketed, however, to a full 32.9%--with possible implicatons for a Bloomberg candidacy. As the article says:

A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of 15,000 adults in May found that just 30.8% now say they’re Republicans. That’s down slightly from last month and down more than six percentage points from the GOP peak of 37.3% during Election 2004. The number of Republicans has been falling fairly steadily since the middle of 2005.

However, the survey also found that the number of people identifying themselves as Democrats has fallen to its lowest level in seventeen months (since January 2006). Democrats gained about two percentage points of support during 2006 and peaked at 38.0% in December of last year. Since actually taking control of Congress, Democrats have given back most of those gains. Today, 36.3% say they belong to Nancy Pelosi’s party.

As a result, the number not affiliated with either major party has jumped to another all-time high—32.9%. That’s up nearly nine percentage points since Election 2004 and means that there are now more politically unaffiliated adults than Republicans...

My personal take on this is as follows: the Republican Party is continuing to bleed support from independents who are seeing through the ineptitude of conservative ideology put into practice. What was a mass exodus is now a steady trickle. Bush's support, however, is drying up very quickly among his wingnut base that still considers itself Republican, partly because of his failure in the Occupation of Iraq, but more importantly because of his push on the immigration bill which is driving his base absolutely insane. Even so, the Dems gained many new voters in the run-up to the '06 landslide election on their promises to end the occupation of Iraq or at least hold Bush accountable; their failure to do so has unsurprisingly resulted in an exodus of voters in frustration.

Nevertheless, American still trust Dems more than Republicans on all ten of Rasmussen's key issues, including a three-point lead on the issue of national security and a five-point lead on taxes (!):

Democrats are currently trusted more than Republicans on all ten issues measured in Rasmussen Reports tracking surveys. Democrats even have slight advantages on National Security and Taxes, two issues “owned” by Republicans during the generation since Ronald Reagan took office.

On National Security, 46% now trust Democrats more while 43% prefer the GOP. On taxes, the Democrats have a five point advantage, 47% to 42%. Democrats enjoy double digit advantages on ethics and government corruption, the War in Iraq, Immigration, Education, Social Security, and Healthcare.

The Republicans are within single digits on Abortion and the Economy.

Meanwhile, Dems hold an 11-point lead in the generic ballot.

The upshot? The GOP is bleeding support; Bush is losing even those few xenophobic die-hards who used to support him; Dems are losing support because of their failure to hold Mr. Record-Low-Approval-Ratings' occupation of Iraq in check; there are a lot of frustrated independent voters out there eager for a change; most of those voters trust Democrats in general more than Republicans; and every single issue of importance breaks the Dems' way.

In other words, we should be holding our ground and standing strong on every issue. There is no downside to opposing Bush at all opportunities; the only way we lose support at this point is by caving in. Above all, it's going to be critical to stand for our ideals strongly enough that no Michael Bloombergs or Unity '08 candidates can steal what should be Democratic thunder and siphon off our votes in the 2008 elections.

RNC fires its entire phonebanking staff

2007-05-31T17:35:00.000-07:00

I have often said that trips to Freeperville and other counties in WingNutLand can be highly informative and often hilarious. Today is no exception. The Wingnutosphere is all over the firing of the RNC's phonebanking staff, reported by the Moonie rag The Washington Times. Why? It would appear that small-donor donations are off by 40% this year, largely due to Bush's stance on the upcoming immigration bill that so many of the xenophobic bigots are calling an "Amnesty Bill". Comically, the RNC spokeswoman says that there are no worries, since overall donations are still keeping the RNC performing at usual levels.

Translation? The GOP has told its small-donor base to go Cheney itself, because the big-donor base that wants the cheap labor is where all the money is.

For more, see hekebolos' excellent diary at dkos on the subject today.

GOP in Trouble: My Personal Iowa Experience

2007-05-29T20:36:00.000-07:00

Allow me to begin this personal story by stating the way I earn my daily bread: I'm a focus group moderator by trade, one of those oft-vilified creatures in politics and corporate advertising who talks to regular people, finds out how they feel about specific issues, and relays that information to my clients to help them craft better messaging.

So you can imagine my delight at being invited by my better half to visit her relatives over Memorial Day weekend in rural Iowa, the heart of the "heartland" and home to the famed Iowa caucuses. The entire trip provided me the opportunity to use my moderating skills and probing techniques on the farmers, teachers, service employees and other denizens of this conservative, bellwether state. What I discovered there should strike terror into the heart of any Republican operative--especially one working for a candidate supportive of Bush's policies in Iraq.

The people I spent my time with were by and large, with a few pleasant and notable exceptions, your archetypical rural Midwest Republicans: generous, proudly self-sufficient, kindhearted people who often wear their religion on their sleeve, carry with them deep racial prejudice born of decades of Republican rhetoric and lack of contact with "the other", and deeply distrust government involvement. One of the houses I visited at length even sported a Ronald Reagan calendar facing a George W. Bush calendar, with an outsize W'04 re-election sticker plastered on the inside walls to overshadow them.

Even here, however, the tide has turned against the GOP to a strong degree--and against Bush to an even stronger one. My conversations, when they turned to politics, always eased into the subject gradually--but when they did, there was palpable discontent in the air. These are people who are extremely upset: upset at the incursions of big agriculture companies into the marketplace that used to be dominated by small farmers; upset at the lack of economic and social incentives for their children to remain in their hometowns or even within the state; upset at the amount of out-of-control government spending and huge national and trade deficits; deeply upset at the lack of enforcement of immigration laws; upset at the abandonment of the farming and industrial economies in favor of those that support the passing of money from one person to another without physical goods in trade; and upset, above all, at the pointless and hopeless occupation of Iraq. And while all of these issues may not be enough to drive many of them to vote for Democrats, more than a few are thoroughly disenchanted with the Republican party that they admit has been directly responsible for these negative repercussions.

It is also important to note that the demographic trends I observed strongly favor the progressive side: by a hard and fast rule, the oldest generation (75-100 years old among these resilient Norwegian descendants) was by far the most conservative; the next generation was fairly evenly divided with a slight conservative orientation; the next (somewhere between 25-40) leaned decidedly progressive; and the few young adults present were unanimously liberal.

But there was one conversation that struck me more than any other, truly encapsulating the heart of my Iowa experience and opening a window onto the sordid reality facing the modern Republican Party of Bush:

In the middle of my dinner at a restaurant near Des Moines, I arose from my chair to get a closer look at the television at the bar. Or should I say the televisions plural, as one was situated in an ill-lit and out-of-the-way corner, while the other stood prominently on display at the center of the bar. The television-in-exile was set to Fox News, its anchors yammering mindlessly about Linsay Lohan's recent DUI arrest; the favored location was set to CNN's Situation Room, where the primary subject under discussion was that of Iraq. It was around this latter that three restaurant employees and one patron (all Caucasians) were seated, intently watching the report and murmuring to one another with the soft earnestness of communal resignation and disappointment.

I strolled up to the bar and approached nearer to the television--and to the far more interesting words it was obscuring from its denizens. When one of the employees turned to offer me a drink in the down-to-earth, friendly manner only a down-home Midwestern bartender can, I pointed instead to the television and indicated that I had sidled over for the news, rather than a drink. It was at that moment that another employee, a handsome, weary-looking woman in her late thirties with a heavy golden crucifix around her neck exclaimed, "What a damn waste!"

"The war?" I asked. Everyone at the bar nodded. It turned out that the occupation of Iraq was deeply personal for several of them: one, an attractive young woman in her mid-twenties with the demure earnestness of the reserved regular church-goer, had a cousin currently serving in Iraq as part of the first battalion to ever go there from Iowa under W's regime. He was supposed to be home by now, but his tour of duty had been extended through July. I wished for his speedy and safe return in July; her response was heartbreaking. "IF he gets home then; I don't know if he'll ever make it home, alive or not." Another had a cousin who had died from an IED in a poorly armored humvee. The third employee's son reportedly had a friend whose head was horribly disfigured in another IED blast, and was now struggling to survive through the paltry graces of the post-Walter Reed Veterans' Administration. I asked the woman whose cousin was on his extended tour how he felt. She responded with a sigh, "Just like the rest of his unit. He was totally gung-ho when he first went in, but now he's 180 degrees the other direction. He says there's no reason to be there anymore, and he just wants to come home." It was painfully reminiscent of a New York Times article that came to similar conclusions when interviewing Delta Company of the First Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry, 82nd Airborne Division.

The original woman bearing the cross continued, "They're only there for oil, you know."

"Really!" I said. I explained that I talked to people for a living and had never been to Iowa before, and that I was deeply interested in what they had to say for my own education. "That's good," said the patron, a gruff man in his fifties. "Nobody else ever listens to us. Certainly not the people in Washington."

I asked the first woman why she thought it was an oil-driven war (I didn't use the Occupation frame--I was then involved in the discovery of opinions, rather than their creation), and when she had begun to feel that way. Her answer was at once surprsing and deeply revealing: "A few years after it started, when everything was clearly going downhill. Bush and those boys never changed anything about what they were doing there, even when it obviously wasn't working. And we're still there when everybody knows we got no business there. What else are we supposed to think? What other reason could there be?"

I asked in turn each of the others when they had soured on the war; they would only answer after I had assured them that I felt the same revulsion to Bush's foreign policy as did they. Each and every one said that their discontent had begun two or three years back. Said the patron, "Like she said, we've got no business there. These people have been fighting one another since the beginning of time..." "Since Adam and Eve, almost," chipped in the third employee, whose vague grasp of even Biblically-inspired history did not diminish her moral judgment of Bush's Iraqi trail of tears. "It's not our job to civilize them and make them stop fighting, even if we could. It's pointless and ridiculous. We just need to bring our boys home." Although these good, God-fearing people could not bring themselves to take responsibility for what the government they helped elect had wrought on the Iraqi people, they still knew a skunk when they saw one.

It turned out, however, that their greatest concern was not even for the soldiers still stationed there, but for those already home and those soon to be home. "How many more billions are we going to have to spend on the medical care for the ones do make it home wounded? It's just never going to stop," said one. The patron told the tale of his son's friend's difficulties (the one currently with half a head) in procuring veteran's benefits or employment after being released from a California hospital. Said another, "We remember how many people suffered after coming home from Vietnam. This is just going to be so much worse."

Then came the Democrats' turn in the spotlight--though it was a far more favorable gaze than I had anticipated. The young woman mentioned that the Democrats had just given Bush more money; I affirmed that they had, and asked how they felt about that. Interestingly, each one responded with a slight variation on the original woman's response: "I don't know. They didn't have a choice, I guess. That's all the bargaining power they have when it comes to dealing with the President." I don't know if this attitude holds true for most of America's heartland, but if it is, it is at once deeply comforting and highly dismaying. On the one hand, it demonstrates that Pelosi's and Reid's gamble has paid off, and the public still considers this to be Bush's occupation opposed by the Democrats; on the other, it shows an alarming lack of understanding of Legislative's ability to act as a coequal branch to that of the Executive.

It was here that our little group was broken up by the arrival of other patrons to occupy two of the restaurant staff, and the call of nature upon the original patron. My last question--and most instructive--was for the young woman who remained.

"What," I asked, "is your most important issue right now when it comes to a candidate?" "The war," she said without a moment's hesitation.

Looking down at the wedding ring on this young woman's finger and the small crucifix she bore on a chain round her neck, I ventured further: "Let's say it's 2008, and you have the choice between a Republican who supports Bush's mission in Iraq, and a Democrat who you disagree with on important moral issues. What do you think you'll do?"

Her answer should make Republicans nationwide tremble with the terror that only the swift and inevitable recognition of an approaching boulder of karma can bring.

"You know, it's tough. Usually I vote on moral issues--and so does my family. You can tell someone's character from the stand they take on those things. But at the same time, I think we've seen that no matter what you believe in morally, it doesn't really matter very much to what happens in the country. My family has talked a lot about this. We really need people who are going to make the right decisions, no matter what they believe personally. So I'd still definitely have to say I would vote for the person who says they'll stop the war."

There's trouble brewing in River City, Iowa. Big, big trouble. And that starts with a capital "T" and that rhymes with "B" and that stands for Bush. Mene, Mene, Tekel Upharsin...

Democrats: The Party of Pork!

2007-05-27T10:08:00.000-07:00

Many pixels have been spilled about the craven cowardice of the Democrats in passing the Capitulation Bill. Much of the critcism from the progressive side has been focused not only on the actual, direct consequences of allowing the Bush Administration to run roughshod over the American People, our soldiers in Iraq and the Iraqis themselves, but also on the subsequent media portrayal of Democrats as weak, ineffectual and kowtowing to Mr. 28% Approval Rating.

Less noticed, however, has been an even more nefarious media meme to come out of this turkey of a bill: that Republicans are the Party of War, while the Democrats are the Party of Pork.

So amazingly spinelss was the the Democratic stance in essentially giving away the store to Bush and his merry band of Neocons that some in the traditional media have been forced to look at this bill not as a dead giveaway, but rather as some sort of compromise. After all, why capitulate so dramatically on an issue where the will of the people is so clear? As best as they can tell, the apparent "compromise" was in ramming through some "domestic spending" priorities--which the vast majority of Americans will read as Pork, regardless of its inherent legitimacy or lack thereof.

Don't believe me? Consider this article by David Espo, Chief Congressional Correspondent for the AP, printed in newspapers all across America, titled Analysis: An Iraq Bill No One Loved (though I should note that the print version of the Des Moines Register where I saw it was titled "Iraq War financing bill leaves both sides hungry: But it has successfully staved off the veto battle that both parties feared")

Analysis: An Iraq Bill No One Loved

The Iraq war funding bill cleared by Congress represents a triumph of divided government, beloved by none, crafted to avoid a protracted veto struggle that neither President Bush nor Democrats wanted.

"We feel like we've moved an iceberg an inch," said Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz of Florida, acknowledging the enormity of the task confronting Democrats who took office in January determined to end the war.

Not that top Republicans were happy with legislation that included about $8 billion in domestic spending, added at Democratic insistence. "We've got a whole host of other issues that don't deserve to be put on the backs of our men and women in the military," said House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio shortly before the vote. "It's a sneaky way to do business."

In other words, the Dems didn't give the GOP everything they wanted on a silver platter--this was just politics as usual in Washington. A give and take. Compromise. Sausage-making at its finest, leaving both sides relieved but discontent. The Republicans got what they wanted and Democrats didn't (a never-ending occupation) and Democrats got what they wanted and Republicans didn't ($8 billion in spending). Sounds like a fair trade to me!

Epso's article continues with quotes from both sides supposedly signaling the difficult complexity of the issue, but instead demonstrating the incredible capacity for mendacious bullshit on the part of elected officials on both sides of the aisle:

And [Republicans] were no less clear that their commitment to the current war policy isn't open-ended. "I think that the handwriting is on the wall that we are going in a different direction in the fall, and I expect the president to lead it," said Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the GOP leader.

"You know, I think it's a statement of the obvious that the Iraq war is not popular," he added at a news conference on Friday. So much so that 81 percent of self-described political independents in a recent New York Times-CBS poll said things are going badly in Iraq.

If public sentiment on the war worries Republicans, it stirs a different emotion among Democrats.

"Anger that we do not have the power to make the will of the people of America the law of our land," said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.

Durbin, Majority Leader Harry Reid and many other anti-war Senate Democrats voted for the bill. "I cannot vote ... to stop funding for our troops who are in harm's way," said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich, chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

So not only is the bill a "compromise" that hurts both parties, it also enables outright lies in both parties: Republicans get to pretend that something will be different in Iraq rhetoric beyond the specifics of the next Friedman Unit being asked for, and Democrats get to pretend that they have no power of the purse to defund the Occupation. What a convenient twin set of lies!

Most telling, however, were the so-called compromise negotiations that took place between the White House and the Congress over the domestic spending priorities:

Officials in both parties described a series of events leading to the final deal.

Reid conveyed the concessions on Monday in a phone call to White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten.

In exchange, Reid wanted $21 billion in added spending. About $9 billion was for defense-related items, the other $12 billion for domestic programs such as hurricane relief, farmer aid, low-income children's health care and more.

Bolten said the administration would accept the military-related add-ons, these officials said, but came back with a counteroffer that left room for about $8 billion in domestic spending.

The outlines of a $120 billion bill were in place, but the haggling continued until Wednesday night.

Bolten and Budget Director Rob Portman told Reid they could not accept several of the items on a late Democratic wish list. Among them was a provision involving the sale of Christmas ornaments by the Senate's day care center. Bush had ridiculed it at one point, and could not now sign it.

That left a $2 billion item extending pension relief to American, Continental and other airlines. Portman told Reid it would have to go. The majority leader objected, but said he would call back.

When he did, he told the president's aides Bush could veto the bill if he wanted, but the pension provision was staying in the bill.

See? This is how Compromise works: in exchange for giving Bush unbridled and unchecked billions for the continued bloody occupation of Iraq, the Dems get to demand $21 billion in domestic spending projects like Christmas ornament sales in the Senate's day care center and airline bailouts. That fair trade serves as a tit-for-tat basis for bargaining in which the President gets to whittle down the Democrats' real priorities (spending) down to a "more reasonable" $8 billion, while retaining all the money he wants for his Occupation. And voila! We have a bill infused with the true spirit of American bipartisan compromise!

And make no mistake: this isn't just a bullshit meme being put out by an AP looking for some way to to rationalize the Democrats' apparent willingless to bow down before the Decider. There is definitely an element of truth to it. Consider this article in the Business Section of the Des Moines Register on the very same day:

Farm disaster assistance included in war bill
Twenty Iowa counties were damaged by drought or storms in 2005 and 2006.

The end to the battle over funding the Iraq war means that some farmers who lost crops to drought during the past two years may get government checks.

A supplementary spending bill for the war includes $3 billion in agricultural disaster assistance that farm groups had been trying to get through Congress since 2005....

"This has been almost a three-year effort and still the only way to get (disaster aid) was on a must-pass bill that the president was eventually going to have to sign," said Tom Buis, president of the National Farmers Union.

So Iowa Senators Tom Harkin (D) and Charles Grassley (R) get to go back to their (mostly big ag) constituents and say "hey, we couldn't stop Bush's occupation because we just had to get the troops funded--but we got you boys some drought relief! So whaddaya say: why not contribute to my re-election campaign?" It should come as no surprise that the comments attached to the article are filled with revulsion and disgust at the blatant vote-buying going taking place. I myself am disgusted.

So congratulations, Democrats! In one fell swoop with the Capitulation Bill, you've managed to accomplish the following:

1. Completely deflate the progressive base that swept you into power;

2. Annoy and probably lose many of the anti-Occupation independent voters who swept you into power expecting you to put a curb to Bush;

3. Reinforce the meme of your utter ineffectuality as a political party; and

4. Reinforce to the American People the idea that you are more interesting in increasing domestic spending than in standing up for your principles.

Bravo. I know I'm certainly proud to call myself a Democrat today...

Memo to DKos: Jim Webb Can Call It An Occupation--Why Can't You?

2007-05-26T13:09:00.000-07:00

As Markos pointed out yesterday, Jim Webb's blistering statement against the Capitulation Bill in the Congress was like a breath of fresh air in a Democratic Party apparently too afraid to stand up for public opinion in the face of a President with a 28% approval rating. Even more interesting to me, however, was the fact that Mr. Webb, a military man throughout his career considered too hawkish and too conservative by many progressives to gain their support, consistently referred to the disaster ongoing in Iraq as an occupation (with only one exception when referring to Joe Lieberman's stance). Let's look at his statements again:

On the one hand, I find myself unable to vote against a measure that is necessary to fund our troops who are now in harm's way. On the other, I will not relent from my continuing efforts to bring this occupation to an end.

"I will continue to press for a strategy of strong diplomatic engagement, which will enable us to end the occupation of Iraq, to increase regional stability, to fight international terrorism more effectively, and to address our broad strategic interests around the world. emphasis added

Jim Webb knows to use the word "occupation", I must believe, largely because his military experience leads him to understand the difference on a gut level between the sort of fighting he was engaged in in the jungles of Vietnam, and the long slow bleed of our troops in Iraq who are being used as sitting ducks and targets of an angry home-grown resistance.

I have made clear again and again and again the reasons why we should be using the language of "occupation" to describe the conflict in Iraq rather than the language of "war": wars can end only in victory or defeat, while occupations end only in annexation or withdrawal. The business of war is killing enemies and seizing territory; the business of occupation is pacifying areas you already control and exploiting their resources. In all respects, our involvement Iraq is an occupation rather than a war--which doesn't preclude the idea of a civil war going on between indigenous parties in Iraq. Most importantly, if we are truly fighting a "war" in Iraq, then calling for withdrawal does indeed equal a call for "defeat"; but if we are instead engaged in the "occupation" of a hostile country, withdrawal is simply inevitable and must happen sooner rather than later, given the hostility of the populus. In the context of the congressional funding battles, calling our presence an "occupation" makes defunding seem less like denying troops bullets in the middle of a firefight (a lie), and more like packing up our occupational operations and leaving the Iraqi people alone to manage their futures as they see fit (far closer to the truth).

And yet, in spite of the apparent obviousness of these facts, it often seems to me that this simple linguistic framing gets more traction in the halls of Congress than it does even on Daily Kos. With the Capitulation Bill at the forefront of most bloggers' minds, the topic of Iraq has been a central issue. And in most cases, those who speak for Dailykos have been consistently using the "war" frame over the last three days--a frame that has in many ways been one of the key sources of our inability to fight back against the immoral policies of the Bush administration.

First and foremost, we have Markos himself:

I've never been under any illusion that this war would end before the next Democratic president took charge. But when a party wins control of Congress on ending the war, I thought they would at least work to make that happen.

and here:

Thus far, Hillary has somehow managed to deceive voters into thinking that she's against against this war, despite having promised to keep troops in Iraq if elected president

Then there's BarbinMD:

"We're into the fifth year of George Bush's war

And DarkSyde:

The only reason I became involved beyond the casual level is because I don't like being lied to -- about a lot of stuff, but mostly about a pointless, devastating war

Or mcjoan, right in the headline:

Senate votes on ending the War Tomorrow

And Meteor Blades:

Marching Toward an Iraq War Moratorium

And last year's highest-impact diarist bonddad:

We Can't Afford The Iraq War

Of those who are said to speak for the site, only Kagro X has been valiantly and consistently using the "occupation" meme with effective and crystal clarity. It is possible to talk about Iraq only with the frames of "occupation" and "withdrawal", and Kagro has done it beautifully. For example, see here:

But the strangeness doesn't end there. Somewhere along the line, the preferred argument against actually de-funding the Iraq occupation -- that it would amount to an "abandonment" of the troops -- became the argument against timelines.

and here:

From all indications, today is going to be a lousy day. We are going to see another blank check issued on the Iraq occupation, and everybody is going to scratch their heads and wonder how it happened -- and that's only if you're still willing to give Congressional Democrats the benefit of the doubt.

I don't wish to seem to be misdirecting my anger with congressional Democrats against my fellow bloggers and staunch progressives here, nor is my intent to call out any particular individual writers. It just so happens that these particular individuals are among those who own, operate or speak for DailyKos, so their visibility and importance provide worthy exemplars.

All I'm saying is that if Jim Webb can do it, surely we can as well. It is not difficult to change one's language regarding this Occupation, and it can do everyone a world of good. Pretty please, with sugar on top?

UPDATE: I do, of course, agree with the many kossack commenters who have pointed out that Webb's speech means little without a "no" vote to back it up. All too true, and Virginia voters should hold him to account for it. Regardless of bluster or hypocrisy, however, his choice is language is still quite instructive.

GOP lawmaker arrested for child rape, molesting of pages

2007-05-19T12:59:00.001-07:00

It just seems that no matter where you turn, sexual corruption among those who claim the mantle of moral sexual behavior just keeps rearing its ugly head. From Randall Tobias to Ted Haggard, the ranks of GOP are filled with those who mask their own shame over their sexual behavior with authoritarian moralistic control over the sexual behavior of others. It's a common phenomenon that has been aggressively studied since at least the days of Sigmund Freud.

Then, of course, there are the even more sinister types: the Mark Foleys of the world, who combine this lurid sexual hypocrisy with the apparent need to abuse their power to exploit vulnerable minors. But at least Mark Foley never physically acted on his nefarious impulses. Former South Dakota State Rep. Ted Klaudt did, however. On multiple occasions.

Klaudt had to exit the state legislature in 2006 due to term limits, after having a lost a battle for state senate in that same year--but he sure had a doozie of a time while he was there. I learned of this particular piece of distasteful debauchery from Howie Klein's fantastic post on the subject at his blog Down With Tyranny. As Klein says:

Like so many tightly wound repressed and mentally ill Republicans, Klaudt was preaching the moral superiority of the far right while he was abusing molesting children-- his own foster daughters and 2 state legislative pages! He "faces a long list of charges: eight counts of rape, two counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, two counts of witness tampering, sexual contact with a person under 16, and stalking." emphasis added

Yeah, that's right: eight counts of rape, two counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, two ocunts of witness tampering, sexual contact with a person under 16, and stalking. And just what was this guy doing to rack up all these charges? Well, according to KeloLand in Sioux Falls, he apparently "played doctor" with kids at a foster home he himself was running:

In the most disturbing accusation, the girls say Klaudt had them convinced they could earn up to $20,000 by donating their eggs to a fertility clinic. And even though he has no medical training, the girls say Klaudt did all the supposed "exams" and "procedures" himself....

The victims say Klaudt touched them while they were foster children at his home here in Walker. But the girls say the molestation also happened in Pierre during legislative sessions while some of them also served as pages.

Five different girls now say Klaudt did things ranging from manual "breast exams" to the painful procedure of actually going inside of them with a speculum and collecting body fluids. The girls say when they cried, Klaudt gave them a beer and told them to toughen up.

Yeah--this guy raped teenage foster children and pages in his care with a speculum, and then gave them beer to make them stop crying.

And what wonderful bills did this upstanding man of moral character sponsor during his time in the legislature?

A bill to establish a task force to study abortion and to provide for its composition, scope, and administration.

Two bills (here and here) to "prohibit the performance of abortions, except to save the life of the mother, and to provide a penalty therefor and to provide for a delayed effective date."

A bill to "support free religious expression in public schools": i.e., teach creationism.

A bill to deny gay marriage through an amendment to the state constitution.

A bill to revise certain provisions regarding the performance of abortions on unemancipated minors and those found to be incompetent.

Most ironically, we have this: a bill "Honoring Valerie Melmer for her outstanding commitment and dedication to the state legislative page program." Presumably for her ready provision of speculum-ready victims to Teddy himself.

Sounds like a guy with an unhealthy obsession with vaginas and underage girls to me. But I could be wrong.

----------------------------

Perhaps all these Biblical literalists should read their own texts: the GOP is filled to the brim with lecherous men who punish our modern-day Susannas while taking advantage of them. There is something deeply disgusting about a man who attempts to restrict abortions for minors while pretending to harvest the eggs of 15-year-old girls with a speculum, and gives them beer afterwards. But there are no Daniels within the Republican Party to call out the hypocrisy, end the treachery, and punish the moralistic hypocrites. It will take a flood of Democrats to wash away the stain of sexually repressive ugliness brought on the Republican culture of hypocrisy and corruption.

Compromise Immigration Bill released to Senate, GOP Base Freaks

2007-05-17T14:11:00.000-07:00

The Kennedy Immigration Bill has just been released to the Senate Floor. The bill comes as part of a compromise between the two parties, and part of Bush's longstanding plan to do something about immigration that attempts to thread the needle between his corporatist masters who want the cheap labor, and his racist base afraid of the browning of America's population.

You can read details on the bill at the WaPo and in the AP and the New York Times.

It contains a crackdown on business that hire illegal immigrants, the addition of over 370 miles of border fences, the hiring of 18,000 or so border patrol officers as well as various other smaller measures. But it also allows for those undocumented immigrants who arrived prior to January 1st to acquire temporary residence permits called "Z" Visas that, as the WaPo states, would be:

renewable indefinitely, as long as the holder passes a criminal background check, remains fully employed and pays a $5,000 fine, plus a paperwork-processing fee.

A separate, temporary-worker program would be established for 400,000 migrants a year. Each temporary work visa would be good for two years and could be renewed up to three times, as long as the worker leaves the country for a year between renewals.

Needless to say, the GOP racist base is freaking out over the new compromise legislation. Hugh Hewitt over at the conservativeTownhall.com is so upset that he has posted in their entirety four pages of GOP talking points that were sent to him in semi-apologetic support of the bill, calling them, in his words (and I kid you not here) "Four pages of crap".

But it's Michelle Malkin who really goes after the GOP on this one in a long post today featuring the reactions of various GOP politicos including the following:

Rep. Steve King:

Each one of these Senators should wear a scarlet letter 'A' for amnesty."

Senator Jim DeMint:

"This rewards people who broke the law with permanent legal status, and puts them ahead of millions of law-abiding immigrants waiting to come to America. I don't care how you try to spin it, this is amnesty."

The National Review:

The Bush administration’s price for its modestly beefed-up border security and workplace enforcement is amnesty for millions and a temporary-worker program for a few hundred thousand more each year. And the proposal’s conservative features vanish upon inspection...As bad as the status quo on immigration policy is, it is preferable to this bill.

And as for Malkin herself? She says in this earlier post:

With friends like the Senate Republicans, who needs enemies?

And it gets worse from there. They're going nuts at RedState.com, with over-the-top posts lamenting their inability to use profanity on their own site to react to the bill, and two big flashy sirens at the top of the page.

The Freepers are also having a meltdown over the legislation. I won't reproduce their despicable comments here; just follow the link for the gut-churning hilarity.

Looks like one more big, bad rift in the GOP coalition. The GOP candidates are going to have to take two stands against Bush to get elected: one on Iraq, and the other on immigration. I frankly don't see how they manage it without either infuriating their base or making themselves unelectable to the general public.

Pass the popcorn.

Get Every Candidate On Record NOW

2007-05-16T18:55:00.000-07:00

As we all know by now, President Bush (not to mention his lackey Alberto Gonzales) is incontrovertibly guilty of an obviously impeachable offense in light of Comey's testimony yesterday. Bush can attempt to deny recollection of the damning phone call to Mrs. Ashcroft if he pleases; Mrs. Ashcroft can deny recollection of it if she pleases, though how she could do that without obviously perjuring herself since she had banned all callers and visitors to Ashcroft's room is unknown. Perhaps she could say that the call came directly from Gonzales or Andy Card.

But the mafia-like circumstances of this amazing story cannot be denied: the rush to be first to the ill attorney general's room; the courageous stand of FBI chief Mueller--a story I am certain he would corroborate--in insisting that Comey not be removed from the room; Card and Gonzales blowing past Comey with an executive order for Ashcroft; Ashcroft's improbable and amazing lucidity in remembering his conversation with Comey--another point I am certain that Ashcroft would corroborate--and denying the order; the cloak and dagger 11PM White House meeting in which Comey insisted on having Olsen as a witness--a fact I am certain Olsen would corroborate; the denial of entry to Olsen for the first 15 minutes; the courageous stand of Comey in continuing to refuse; the emergency approval of the illegal program over the head of the Office of Legal Counsel and the DOJ the very next day.

It reads like the plot of a cloak-and-dagger mafia thriller, with the President as the heavy, with Card and Gonzales as his goons.

It is so undeniably, egregiously illegal in a way that even John Q. Public can really get a grip on, that it would truly require that the President be caught eating puppies or raping babies for it to get much worse.

And yet, in the face of such radically dramatic illegality, I cannot seem to find any Presidential candidate from either party with a statement on the issue--despite its being yesterday's news at this point.

Go to Hillary Clinton's site: Nothing. Go to Barack Obama's site: Nothing. John Edwards: Nothing. Bill Richardson: Nothing. And hardly surprisingly, nothing from Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney or John McCain or any of the rest of the jokers on the other side of the aisle.

More importantly, even when they do make statements I expect to see the pablum answers showing their "grave concern", the need for "full investigations" and "strong regret" at the actions of the Administration. But while just that much would be nice, such generalities won't go nearly far enough.

No, I want each and every candidate--especially the current and former Senators to answer the following question: "If President Bush authorized the continuance of the warrantless domestic spying program even though his own Justice Department and Office of Legal Counsel said it was illegal and refused to sign off on it, would you vote to impeach him or call for his impeachment?" It is critically important that they do so, because this is about a fundmental respect/disrespect for the rule of law in the United States of America.

Because let us all remember this simple fact: The President obviously did not believe that he could unilaterally allow this program to continue through his power as Commander in Chief--otherwise he would not have been so desperate to get Ashcroft's approval. He KNEW that what he was doing was illegal and not within his rights. He knew it, and he didn't care. This goes beyond the President's belief that he can act like an Emperor with legal cover: this goes straight to whether he can do somethign he KNOWS is illegal and still get away with it, even though the entire world knows as well.

Those Democrats who are trying to walk the "centrist" line in this election should let us know whether their centrism overrules their respect for equality and the rule of law.

Those Democrats who believe that we must all come together in one big, purple hug and focus on the future rather than the past, should let us know if they would disrespect the foundation of our Constitution in the name of forward-thinking optimism.

Those Democrats who would play the role of elders and statesmen should let us all know if their years of experience tell them that sociopathic, Constitution-trampling illegality is OK in this particular case.

Those Democrats who would carry the progressive mantra should let us know if they believe that electability trumps their principles when it comes to blatant law-breaking by the Commander in Chief.

Above all, those Republicans who would seek to follow in Bush's footsteps must let us all know just how closely they intend to follow--and how much respect they intend to give our broken democracy and disdained laws.

Because this issue is beyond politics at this point. The political arguments against impeachment are always there, and they are compelling: I've spouted them myself many a time. But this issue is not subject to gentleman's disagreement: this is a matter of principle so momentous that political considerations simply must be put aside (though I don't believe that they would be as politically damaging at this point as some think.)

Those who would be our future Commanders-in-Chief must make their stands and show us where their principles truly lie. I therefore call on every person who reads this piece to email and call every Presidential Candidate and get an answer to this important question.

I will be doing so myself, of course--and I urge anyone who gets a coherent answer from any one of the declared candidates to email me with it to isnospoon-at-gmail-dot-com, and I will include it in a follow-up to this post.

Let them take their stands, and let the chips fall where they may.

The Biggest Tax Increase Lie in History

2007-05-14T19:44:00.000-07:00

Listen to me and clammyc talk about the big fat lie that is the Republican talking point on the budget. Suffice it to say that the GOP is saying that allowing the Paris Hilton tax cuts to expire as Bush intended now constitutes a "tax increase."

We discuss not only why those claims are bullshit, but more importantly how Democrats can frame the issue in such a way that it turns to our advantage.

Listen here!

Ditching "Choice": MSOC, clammyc and I Talk Abortion Framing

2007-05-11T15:58:00.000-07:00

It's no secret that progressives are slowly but surely losing the abortion wars: from parental notification legislation to Roe v. Wade sunset laws in many states to the recent Supreme Court decision on late-term abortion, abortion-rights advocates have been playing defense and losing ground for years. And we are losing ground in public polling as well, in spite of overall favorability towards freedom to have an abortion in general.

It is a controversial opinion of mine that part of the reason we are falling behind in this battle is our outdated, ineffective and even counterproductive use of the word "choice" as our crumbling rhetorical fortress. It is an opinion, however, that is shared not only by myself but also by clammyc and even MaryScott O'Connor of MyLeftWing as well.

In a 40-minute audio segment on our new blog Political Nexus, MSOC, clammyc and I discuss the intricacies of why "choice" is such a terrible frame, and what alternatives we might want to embrace in its place--as well as the weakenesses of our opponents' "pro-life" framing and the ways in which we can exploit the rhetorical chinks in their armor.

Unfortunately, I am unable to embed a direct link to download the show here on DailyKos, or I would certainly do so. It can be downloaded directly from BlogTalkRadio here, or streamed from our blog here. If a little bit of slef-promotion can be pardoned on behalf of myself and my good friends clammyc and MSOC, it's a great discussion that delves right into the heart of the issues at hand.

To give everyone some idea of what we are talking about and why we are pushing to ditch "choice" as a frame, allow me to present one of the arguments we put forward: polling on the issue of partial-birth abortion is not favorable for us: at least 69% of the American Public want the procedure banned, with exceptions for the life of the mother. One of the biggest reasons for this is because they believe that women are whimsically changing their minds during the third trimester, choosing to abort otherwise viable fetuses not presenting major risks to the mother's life/health. While it is true that this perception is a product of misinformation, it is also a product of our own framing on the issue: as long as our side is saying that it is a ~~woman's~~ person's "right to choose" what she does with her own body up until the fetus/baby exits the womb, people are going to assume that these decisions are being made irresponsibly and casually. Not to mention the fact that most people would indeed consider a third-trimester fetus viable (without extraordinary measures) outside the womb a living, separate person.

And that is just one of many arguments that can be made against the use of "choice" as a frame.

For a preview of another argument, allow me to excerpt a quote from MSOC herself, an ardent abortion-rights supporter:

MSOC: It's about pro-privacy...You know, when I hear a politician say, "I support a woman's right to choose", I want to vomit! It's a guaranteed kiss-40-percent-of-your-voting-population-goodbye. If a Republican were even considering your positions, your oh-so-nuanced but brilliant positions on the environment, on the economy, on the war, on everything else, you've got them. You've got them in the palm of your hand: "well, this guy's not so bad, he's reasonable, I think I could go for a guy like this." And then the guy like this says, "I support a woman's right to choose." Oooohhhhh God, he's another one of them, one of those idiots who just can't say what he really thinks.

CLAMMYC: Yeah.

MSOC: People are dismissing him because he supposedly supports a woman's right to choose, but I'm dismissing him because he's a pussy.

All of this and much, much more (which I may turn into a diary one of these days) is online and available either at Political Nexus or for download at BlogTalkRadio.

Give it a listen, and let us know what you think, either here in this diary or in the comments at Political Nexus. Thanks!

Conyers evacuates Code Pink at the AG Hearing

2007-05-10T12:48:00.000-07:00

I want to give a great big shout-out of thanks to John Conyers for removing Code Pink from today's Alberto Gonzales hearings just a few minutes ago.

Conyers became visibly annoyed and highly irritated with the continuous grandstanding statements being made by the Code Pink representative in the gallery, and had her forcibly removed from the gallery, as was his right--and the action couldn't have soon enough. He then clarified that the patience of the American public had been tried long enough on this issue that a few hours of individual free speech rights could be directed outside the room until the hearing could be appropriately finished.

Let us be very clear: I admire Code Pink's mission and its commitment to activism. But the kinds of displays they are making at hearings like that of Valerie Plame and that of Gonzales are not only useless--they are counterproductive, making the entire left look like a bunch of freaking loonies. And that's coming from a committed, protest-marching progressive not afraid to step out on a limb in defense of progressive values and denunciation of Republican malfeasance.

More than that, however, Code Pink is doubly counterproductive: Alberto Gonzales is making enough of a fool of himself without their making even BIGGER fools of themselves. By being obnoxious at these hearings, Code Pink actually makes Gonzales look like a sympathetic and harrassed character, when he should be coming off as the uncooperative and criminal boob that he is. Just as Valerie Plame suffered from having attention taken off of her testimony and plight, and focused onto Code Pink instead, so too did the American Public suffer from the distraction from full view of Gonzales' passive-aggressive belligerence.

Memo to Code Pink: please, please, be more intelligent about picking your battles. Passion without focus and strategy is often worse than useless.

And a big, hearty thanks to John Conyers for finally saying that enough is enough.

Exclusive Interview with Fired Attorney David Iglesias

2007-05-10T11:49:00.000-07:00

not here, but on My Left Wing, courtesy of my good friend and talented activist Shockwave. He managed to get a one-on-one exclusive interview with David Iglesias, the New Mexico attorney who was dispatched by our amnesiac attorney general Gonzales.

Jeff Huber also has a teaser diary up on Daily Kos.

Good stuff--head over and read it.