E Pluribus Unum

by shep

Here you can watch one of the cranky white guys from CNN explaining how Hillary Clinton refused to give straight answers on driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants, Social Security and the release of presidential records in that now infamous Democratic debate.

Besides being completely full of it himself when Jack Cafferty calls it “baloney” that Clinton herself can’t release presidential records and asking what “fiscal responsibility” means, the greatest stupidity and moral crime committed by our entire idiot press corps about that debate has to be the one that Clinton “flip-flopped” on the driver’s license issue.

Here’s Russert’s original “gotcha” question:

Russert: Senator Clinton, Governor of New York Eliot Spitzer has proposed giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. He told the Nashua, New Hampshire, Editorial Board it makes a lot of sense.

Why does it make a lot of sense to give an illegal immigrant a driver's license?

And here’s Clinton’s answer as to why it makes sense:

Clinton: Well, what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform. We know in New York we have several million at any one time who are in New York illegally. They are undocumented workers. They are driving on our roads. The possibility of them having an accident that harms themselves or others is just a matter of the odds. It's probability.

So what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is to fill the vacuum. I believe we need to get back to comprehensive immigration reform because no state, no matter how well intentioned, can fill this gap. There needs to be federal action on immigration reform.

And here’s Russert’s flip-flop:

Russert: Does anyone here believe an illegal immigrant should not have a driver's license?

(Unknown): Believe what?

Russert: An illegal immigrant should not have a driver's license.

Now Russert’s question isn’t why Spitzer’s plan “makes sense,” it is now, one Clinton answer later, who thinks illegal immigrants should not be given a driver’s license.

So Chris Dodd answers that question in the negative and Clinton attempts to answer the new question thusly:

Clinton: Well, I just want to add, I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do...

Edwards then opportunistically claims that Clinton said two different things – which she did in response to Russert’s two different questions – and the rest is beltway journalistic malpractice.

(The gotcha nature of the original question is obvious to anyone who’s ever taken a first-year philosophy class: “tell me why it might make sense to kill a criminal” or “write an essay on why it might make sense to start a war with a militarily inferior, resource-rich country.” And Punkin' Head is apparently somewhat ashamed of it since he edited it out of this week’s MTP review of Clinton’s “straight answer(s)” to two different questions).

The Village lurves its empty political narratives – i.e., “the calculating politician” (no, seriously) – because 1) college students who choose journalism aren’t usually the brightest crayons in the box and 2) our beltway press are really a bunch of lazy, pampered know-nothings who, if they couldn’t constantly lean on these mindless narratives, would actually have think of something clever to say or report, you know, the news (as our idiot-in-chief might say: that journalism stuff is hard work). Most maddeningly, they continue to pretend that they themselves aren’t affecting and corrupting the process by creating these narratives and with their laziness, inanity and adolescent-style assaults on politicians, particularly Democrats.

[Cross-posted at Dispassionate Liberal]

Posted by shep | Link | Comments (2) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Election , Democrats , Hillary Clinton , Media , Politics

by shep

Listen very carefully to what this woman is saying.

Or get punked by Lou Dobbs and Pat Buchanan, I’m not really sure I give a shit anymore.

[Cross-posted at Dispassionate Liberal]

Posted by shep | Link | Comments (2) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Election , Democrats , Immigration reform , Politics , Republicans

by shep

Eugene Robinson:

"It's official: Bush Derangement Syndrome is now a full-blown epidemic. George W. Bush apparently has reduced more of his fellow citizens to frustrated, sputtering rage than any president since opinion polling began, with the possible exception of Richard Nixon. . .”

Mitch McConnell:

"The war is winding down. Next year's election is going to be about this Congress and what it failed to do"

Michael Crowley:

"I wonder whether the Democrats have been preparing for that possibility -- and what their contingency plans are if the Iraq debate tacks substantially back the GOP's way."

Karl Rove:

"The Democratic victory in 2006 was narrow. They won the House by 85,961 votes out of over 80 million cast and the Senate by a mere 3,562 out of over 62 million cast. A party that wins control by that narrow margin can quickly see its fortunes reversed when it fails to act responsibly, fails to fulfill its promises, and fails to lead.”

"People in the past who have been on the nutty fringe of political life, who were more or less voiceless, have now been given an inexpensive and easily accessible soapbox, a blog.”

And that’s one reason you’re out of the White House and forced to peddle your delusions on the permanently deranged pages of the Wall Street Journal’s op-ed. That is, after helping to create a permanent Republican minority.

Lets’ all pray for a slow and painful recovery.

H/T Dan Froomkin

[Cross-posted at Dispassionate Liberal]

Posted by shep | Link | Comments (1) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Election , George W. Bush , Republicans , War in Iraq

by shep

I’m convinced that the only way anyone is going to beat Hillary to the Democratic nomination and lock up the general election is through a real-deal, fire-breathing appeal to populism. John Edwards has the closest thing going but, so far, he lacks a cohesive frame and focus (besides being too young and pretty for the current state of nervousness in the electorate).

The trouble is, the only true populist message is an anti-corporate one (why Lou Dobbs comes off as a racist xenophobe rather than a true populist) and no one in the rarified world of national politics would ever consider such a thing. The idea is so antithetical to corporate media, corporate lobbyists, corporate political consultants and corporate-financed politicians that they simply can’t see the utility, even the necessity, of it.

Nevertheless, on every major domestic crisis from healthcare to energy policy, it is the parochial (and, in many cases, short-term and ultimately unwise) desires of corporations and the outsized influence they have on US policy that stands directly in the path of progress. And anti-corporatism is the only way I can see for Democrats to get out in front of the immigration debate (without pandering to racists themselves), which will be the key to the ever-critical independent voter in ‘08.

Simply put, on every issue that Americans care about, there is a corporate interest that can be shown to be part of the problem. An anti-corporatism message would immediately rally the Democratic base, which is deeply suspicious of Clinton’s corporatist bona fides. And used to frame Iraq (Haliburton and Blackwater), illegal immigration (Tyson and Tropicana), healthcare (Blue Cross), Katrina (Bechtel) global warming (Exxon and Conoco), there is position to be taken on the side of the interests of middle and working class people against unsympathetic, predatory corporate entities.

It really is a big part of the Great Village Disconnect that none can utter the truth that almost everyone understands: our world is being raped and pillaged by corporate greed and the past Republican-run government (aided and abetted by corporatist Democrats) has all but held the down victims (think bankruptcy bill) while industry applied the lube (consumption on credit). But there is simply no way to really run against Republican corruption and malfeasance without pointing to the fact that they are doing the exact bidding of their corporate masters (the fact that Democrats share some of those same bosses partly explains their resistance to do so).

But it really shouldn’t be so hard. The argument can be made in the framework of reinvigorating government’s role as protector of the public interest without bashing business generally, just corporate excess and corruption of government. Corporations are good for the world; they are the engine of technical and economic progress, but they should not be writing the public policy of the United States of America. Dick Cheney’s “Energy Task Force” could be the poster child for the problem, if the people are ever allowed to see what their elected Vice President did in their name.

Public-interest vs. corporate-interest populism opens the door to every key Democratic policy approach to restore this country: healthcare reform, economic reform, energy policy, campaign finance reform, media ownership, even war policy (and it moves Democrats outside the simple Republicans vs. Democrats kabuki dance that people have long-since tuned out).

The people are angry at the fact that these problems grow, unaddressed, even as they try to change the political leadership of the country. And they have a good sense of why. I suspect that many of them, maybe without even knowing it, are just waiting for someone in the political and media establishment to simply say out loud who and what is to blame.

The fact that this cannot happen in American politics shows exactly why it needs to.

[Cross-posted at Dispassionate Liberal]

Posted by shep | Link | Comments (4) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Election , Business , Democrats , Politics , Republicans

Yep: 18% approve of the job Congress is doing. That's as low as it's been for a generation -- and much lower than the approval ratings for the president. Does this mean that the people are somehow siding with the president? Or, more to the point, does it mean that the Republicans will have an advantage in the next election because people think the Democrats are jerks? The answer, below.

Glenn Greenwald, as usual, gets to the heart of it:

Congress is so unpopular, particularly among Democrats, because of their ongoing capitulations to the Bush administration, their failure to place any limits on his Iraq policy, and their general inability/refusal to serve as a meaningful check on the administration. Democrats and independents overwhelmingly dislike the President. Thus, the weaker Congress is in defying the President, the more unpopular Congress becomes.

Contrary to the general impression created by the media when discussing this polling data, Congress' extremely low standing does not undermine or dilute the intense unpopularity of Bush and his party among Americans. To the contrary, it bolsters it and arises from it.

So as long as the likes of Senator Leahy talk tough but fail to follow through, the Dems will continue to disappoint and anger the electorate.

P.S. As long as we're on the subject of polls, here's a figure for you: 64% of Republicans approve of the job Bush is doing. Remember that the next time you watch any part of a Republican debate. All of those guys are ready and willing to bring us Bush's Third Term.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Election , Democrats , Poll , Republicans

by shep

“The fixation that Democrats, far more than Republicans, have on heresy is one of the weirder, crippling aspects of the party.”

Dear Joe,

The important difference you missed (one more thing you just don’t get) is not that Democrats are more fixated on party orthodoxy than Republicans, it is that to have heresy you must have religion. Or, in the case of Democrats vs. Republicans, you have to believe in something.

One thing that the Bush presidency should have taught you is that Republicans can’t have heresy because they don’t hold any beliefs sacred enough to rebel against - as long as they’re beating Democrats. They didn’t care about trampling on constitutional rights of American citizens, monarchical power, war profiteering, fear-mongering, the health of the military or our troops, fiscal irresponsibility, religion in public policy or corrupt government from the Abramoff congress to the Gonzales Justice Department to the Pat Tillman/Abu Ghraib/Haditha wing of the Pentagon to outright treason in the Vice President’s Office.

They. Just. Don’t. Care. As long as the miscreant with the R next to his name defeats the guy with the D next to his and the brown people and the homosexuals are kept in their places.

On the other hand, real liberals actually believe in some things. Perhaps first among equals, liberals believe in the truth (you can probably already sense why this isn’t going to turn out well for you). They believe that politicians and media stars should be scrupulously careful with it (in particular, they should never, never, never reproduce falsehood without serious criticism or, at least, disclaimer).

And that brings us to what you believe in Joe. Sadly, by all appearance, the truth doesn’t even enter into it.

The importance of the source, relationship or event, yes that matters. The cleverness of the politics, yes that matters. Even the political effectiveness of the lie, that actually matters more than the truth and the motives behind lie, doesn’t it Joe?

You see, you and your DLC pals have telegraphed, promulgated, catapulted and been had by right-wing anti-liberal, anti-Democratic lies over the last twenty years and this past six years is what it got us.

So it isn’t about heresy at all, it’s about basic morality and the evil that happens when people with power fail to act honorably. Still think it’s “weird” that liberals feel perfectly OK telling you and your ilk to go Cheney yourselves?

Well, don’t fret, Joe. The Democratic Party will have healed itself once it has redeemed or purged Blue Dog Democrats, DLC consultants and faux MSM liberals like you. Good luck in your next vocation.

[Cross-posted at Dispassionate Liberal]

Posted by shep | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Election , Corruption , Democrats , Media , Politics , Republicans

by shep

So Barack Obama says, if president, he’d meet with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.

And in a conference call with reporters set up by the Clinton campaign, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said, "I would think that without having done the diplomatic spadework, it would not really prove anything".

Badly coded offer of the Secretary of State job?

[Cross-posted at Dispassionate Liberal]

Posted by shep | Link | Comments (3) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Election , Barack Obama , Democrats , Funny , Hillary Clinton

by Mark Adams

If this happens -- and I've really no idea whether it will or won't, life could become something completely different -- I know mine will. I hope it does, only because, well ... it should.

BSB: Kearny Looks to Move Ohio Primary to January

(Columbus) — State Senator Eric Kearney, with the support of Ohio Senate Assistant Democratic Leader Tom Roberts of Dayton and State Senator Shirley Smith of Cleveland, announced the introduction of legislation to change the date of Ohio’s presidential primary to the last Tuesday in January. The bill would move Ohio’s presidential primary from March 4, 2008 to January 29, 2008, increasing Ohio’s impact on the primary process.

‘I believe it is critical that Ohioans have a voice in who the presidential nominees are before it is a foregone conclusion. The current primary date is so late, Ohio voters, including our substantial minority communities, will be disenfranchised if the date is not changed,’ Kearney stated.

Current Ohio law requires the presidential primary to be scheduled for the Tuesday after the first Monday in March, and was set years ago when the Super Tuesday primaries occurred in March of the presidential election year. With the advance of so many primaries to January and February, a March date is no longer timely for Ohio voters. The interests of cities, minority communities and organized labor suffer if the early nominating process is dominated by small, rural, right-to-work states.

‘Ohioans want the presidential candidates from both parties to come to our state, listen to our voices, and propose real solutions to our most pressing needs,’ said Senator Roberts.

‘The move of Florida to the last Tuesday of January opens the calendar for primaries to January 29, 2008, and the industrial Midwest should be represented along with the South on what could be a crucial primary election day,’ Senator Kearney noted.

‘As the key battleground state that decided the 2004 election, it just makes sense for Ohio to be a part of the process alongside Florida, which decided the 2000 election,’ said Senator Smith.

Besides the reports BSB acknowledged from the Cincinatti Enquirer, Akron Beacon Journal, and Cleveland.com, the Plain Dealer moved the story from it's blog to the paper itself -- where we learn that Senator Kearney's wife hosted a fundraiser for Obama earlier this year, but denies it's a move to help his chances. Also two updated Enquirer articles have weighed in along with the Ravenna Record Courier and Dayton's WHIOtv and WCPO in Columbus

(Via Buckeye State Blog - Pamphleteers of the Revolution.)

Posted by Mark | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Election

(click for larger image)

If things continue the way they're going, Mr. 27% is going to drag the entire Republican Party down the memory hole by the time he leaves office.

If the Dems' lead in fundraising and infrastructure continues, it is hard to imagine any Demcratic Senate or House seat being vulnerable, and it is within the realm of possibility that the Dems could take up to 8, even 10 Senate seats (AK, CO, ME, MN, NC, NH, NM, OR, TX, VA , maybe even, with the right candidate, if there is one, KS, KY, or OK). And another 20 plus House seats--from AZ, CA, FL, IL, NM, NY, OH, PA, and other states that are in the 35 and below zone, and even some from the blue areas of NC and VA.

P.S. Judging by the color of the states bordering on the Mississippi River, the Dems chances for the White House are looking pretty good.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Election , Democrats , Republicans

by shep

Its name is ”conservatism”. As the Queen of All Evil states succinctly: “Conservatism is an ideology, Republicanism is the political vehicle of conservatism.”

Conservatism is an ideology – “visionary theorizing,” or “a systematic body of concepts,” i.e., a set of unproven (or disproved) beliefs.

This, as apposed to political liberalism, which is a philosophy or methodology that emphasizes “the autonomy of the individual…the protection of political and civil liberties,” and human “progress.”

So what are core American “conservative” beliefs?

1) That government is more the problem than the solution to social progress.

2) That taxes and regulation of business are generally bad for society.

3) That (mostly) unregulated private markets will solve social problems more effectively that government (no word about the social problems private markets create).

4) That corporations and other business entities should enjoy all of the liberty rights guaranteed by the US Constitution to individual persons.

5) That those guaranteed liberty rights may be held secondary to the government’s interest in providing national security, or preventing citizens from possessing government-proscribed drugs, or protecting unborn children.

6) That the Executive branch of government ought to be able to operate in secret and without oversight or accountability to the people’s representatives in Congress.

7) That international relations should emphasize military strength and that negotiating with adversaries connotes weakness.

8) That the United States should not be bound by international laws and treaties when they are not in the perceived interests of conservative ideology and/or goals.

9) That common scientific consensus should be ignored in public policy matters when it conflicts with conservative ideology and/or goals.

10) That liberalism itself is inimical to American democratic society.

(Disclosure: I’m a liberal Democrat so, conservatives, feel free to correct any fundamental misconceptions in the list above.)

So my question is why Americans should want to choose government leaders based upon their adherence to such a belief system. Belief #1, by itself should pretty much disqualify someone for such a job, as has been shown by the performance of the all-Republican government of 2000-2006.

Like hiring a Jehova's Witness to find a cure for cancer, governing effectively is hard it shouldn’t be entrusted to people who believe it can’t be effective because they will undoubtedly prove themselves right by failing to govern effectively.

Let’s get conservatism (and I include Blue-Dog Democrats and any other Democrats beholden the above ideology) out of government where it can only do harm. If conservatives really believe that private markets are the solution to all our ills, let them put their ideology where their mouths are or vice versa.

[Cross-posted at Dispassionate Liberal]

Posted by shep | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Election , Constitution , Democrats , Politics , Republicans

by shep

Dear Norman Ornstein,

I’m writing you as the e-mailer Diane Rehm referred to this morning when she asked whether you thought that the motive and timing of President Bush’s commutation of Scooter Libby's jail sentence might revolve around the threat he could pose to the Vice President (and, perhaps, the President himself) as his avenues for avoiding prison had just been exhausted. You dismissed the idea out-of-hand, without offering the slightest reason for why that couldn't be the case.

I may be no resident political scholar but my take is, the politics of satisfying the base aside, there is no other reasonable explanation for the timing of the commutation since it would have been weeks before Mr. Libby likely would have had to start serving his sentence. In the interim, however, Mr. Libby would have had significant motivation to offer testimony against the Vice President and, possibly, Mr. Bush himself.

Don’t take my word for it, here is what other commentators have had to say as reported by The Washington Post’s Dan Froomkin:

The New York Times: "Presidents have the power to grant clemency and pardons. But in this case, Mr. Bush did not sound like a leader making tough decisions about justice. He sounded like a man worried about what a former loyalist might say when actually staring into a prison cell."

Los Angeles Times: "The larger problem in commuting Libby's sentence is the message it sends to his unfortunately unindicted co-conspirator, Cheney.

Sidney Blumenthal writes in Salon: "Bush's commutation of Libby's 30-month prison sentence for four counts of perjury and obstruction of justice was as politically necessary to hold his remaining hardcore base for the rest of his 18 months in office as it was politically damaging to his legacy and to the possibility of a Republican succession. It was also essential in order to sustain Libby's cover-up protecting Cheney and perhaps Bush himself."

Norman Pearlstine writes on Huffingtonpost.com: "Bush's rationale might have had some merit had Libby been convicted solely of perjury. If that were the case, one might argue that he was convicted of a 'process crime'. . .

"But that isn't what happened. In addition to perjury, Libby was convicted of obstruction of justice. That was the most important charge against him. Patrick Fitzgerald's summation to the jury and his sentencing recommendation made it clear that Libby's obstruction precluded him from ever determining whether his boss, Vice President Dick Cheney had broken the law and what role the White House had played in outing Plame. . . .

"[T]he commutation of Libby's sentence is a cover-up, pure and simple."

Marcy Wheeler blogs for the Guardian: "[T]he real effect of Bush's actions is to prevent Libby from revealing the truth about Bush's -- and vice president Cheney's -- own actions in the leak. By commuting Libby's sentence, Bush protected himself and his vice president from potential criminal exposure for their actions in the CIA Leak. As such, Libby's commutation is nothing short of another obstruction of justice.

Josh Marshall blogs: "The real offense here is not so much or not simply that the president has spared Scooter Libby the punishment that anyone else would have gotten for this crime (for what it's worth, I actually find the commutation more outrageous than a full pardon). The deeper offense is that the president has used his pardon power to shortcircuit the investigation of a crime to which he himself was quite likely a party, and to which, his vice president, who controls him, certainly was.

Joe Wilson on NPR: "Congress ought to conduct an investigation of whether or not the president himself is a participant in the obstruction of justice."

With all due respect, considering what Charles O. Jones wrote in your recent book about Mr. Bush’s governing style, the use of executive authority to cover-up and obstruct finding of wrongdoing is such a consistent and predictable facet of the modern CEO, it seems incredibly naïve to dismiss it without argument. Especially when considering the timing and the political danger of exposing everyone involved in the underlying crime – a White House conspiracy that exposed and destroyed an entire covert counter-proliferation operation in the CIA.

Sincerely,
[shep]

Posted by shep | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Election , Constitution , Corruption , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Politics , Republicans , War in Iraq

by shep

"… there’s nothing in my personal views based on faith or other sources that would prevent me from applying the precedents of the Court faithfully under principles of stare decisis."

--Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts Jr.

"In this and other ways, The Chief Justice rewrites the history of one of this Court's most important decisions....

The Court has changed significantly since it decided School Comm. of Boston in 1968. It was then more faithful to Brown and more respectful of our precedent than it is today. It is my firm conviction that no Member of the Court that I joined in 1975 would have agreed with today's decision."

--Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens

Posted by shep | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Election , Constitution , Democrats , Law , Republicans

by shep

It has always struck me as odd when libertarians express their hostility toward Democrats for their approach to regulatory government. Beside the obvious fact that it has consistently proved essential for the health and safety of individual Americans and the reliable functioning of markets, what would so aggravate liberty rights advocates about regulation of industry? It took me a while to realize – H/T to Trey and Matt – that they have been completely indoctrinated with belief in “corporate personhood.”

Yesterday’s Supreme Court action points up the inevitable conflict libertarians face if they continue to fail to recognize the inherent differences and conflict between the constitutional rights of individual persons and the supposed rights of corporations. These rights were conflated in the late 19th century by corporate lawyers and judges representing railroad interests but have no basis in the US Constitution. Simply put, corporations aren’t “persons,” in whom all constitutional rights are vested.

For liberals, nothing could be more obvious than the intrinsic conflict between the rights of the individual and the rights of corporate entities. Mainly, this comes in the form of the complete indifference of the corporation to the rights of the individual – ironically, the opposite of the libertarian – and the circumstantial conflicts that occur when amoral corporations seek to use people to make things and sell them to other people, irrespective of the benefit of the making or the selling to people.

Liberal Democrats understand that not only is corporate power the real threat to individual rights, the critical political and public policy issues essentially revolve around the question of whether government winds up being an instrument of industry, often working against the interests of the individual, or a bulwark against the abuse of the rights of individuals by industry.

So now libertarians know. Republicans are finally making it clear what they successfully obscured with their silly “free-market” ideology and rhetoric these many years. They don’t give a rat’s ass about the constitutionally guaranteed liberty rights of individuals, relative to the corporate-created liberty rights of industry.

I wonder if libertarians will finally see how they’ve been fooled and used in time to stop this Republican-led, anti-individual-rights cultural revolution before it’s too late. If they do, there’s a political party that already shares their conviction about individual liberty rights.

Posted by shep | Link | Comments (4) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Election , Business , Constitution , Democrats , Politics , Republicans

(cross posted at Daily Kos -- with poll)

OK, first things first: I was wrong.

Moving on...Chris Weigant wrote an open letter to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi detailing what the Dems should do now that Bush has vetoed the bill. In brief, here's what he says:

1. Lose the pork.
   Any Dem who bolts will be known to have only been for the pork in the first place -- not a great position to take right now.

2. Leave in the money for veterans' benefits.
   Let Bush complain about that all he wants -- this is our way of respecting the troops.

3. Lose the timetable.
   Sorry -- if he didn't OK it this time (when he could have easily issued a signing statement taking the money and ignoring the deadlines), he'll never go for it. Besides, the American people will be the final judge of when it's time to come out (see below). I don't think they'll blame the Dems for not trying.

4. Leave in the benchmarks -- but take out the consequences.
   You don't need any consequences written into the bill -- because the American people will provide all the consequences the Dems want or need.

   Check it out: Bush said, "When the Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down." Well, it's clear now (and the American people know it too) that the Iraqis aren't going to stand up anytime soon; they're too busy killing each other (or letting the government go on a two-month vacation). So leave in the benchmarks and let the electorate provide the only consequence that matters -- a massive electoral defeat for the Republican party in '08. By this time next year, the Republicans will be facing an exile from power that will last for a generation or more. What better consequence could the Dems ask for?

5. Leave in the standards for troop-readiness.
   Again: this is how we respect the troops. And the Republicans? I'll leave it to sell the idea that, "you go with the Army you have, not the Army you'd like to have."

Nor is a weaker one.

The scenario Weigant talks about is the most realistic one I've seen yet that stands a chance of passage -- while putting the Dems on the right side of the issue morally and politically.

You have to move the ball forward, even if it is just by inches at a time.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (5) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Election , Democrats , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Republicans , War in Iraq

by Mark Adams

Lisa Renee, of Glass City Jungle and Liberal Common Sense, had done a few of these things before, talking about how candidates could use blogs, different kinds of bloggers and promoted the free aspects of the medium. John Spalding of Make a Difference was also on the panel and gave a very professional presentation on a new project of his, a steaming TV station, and talked about the cutting edge of technological developments in the Intertoobz.

I totally winged it. But I'm told I didn't make a complete fool of myself talking about using the medium to present your views and persuade people through discussions, influencing lurkers, and exploiting the fundraising and recruitment possibilities blogs can provide for zero cost (except time).

Anyway, I think that's what I talked about. Things get blurry when I have to wear real clothes.

It's one thing to relax when you do public speaking by imagining the audience in their underwear. Right now, the thought of giving a speech in MY underwear is decidedly disturbing.

::shudder::

Next time, I think I'll leave the tie at home and actually jot down some notes and prepare something in advance.

I did learn something there. There's a tremendous need to educate the uninitiated candidate about what possibilities exist in cyberspace, and how easy it is to create and maintain an effective web presence for their campaign through blogs.

I sat through about an hour and a half of a presentation on fundraising and voter outreach, and the only thing they discussed that is remotely related to what we do in Blogtopia was sending e-mails out to prospective donors -- and that was at the bottom of the list.

When I see the volume of cash donated to political campaigns on the web, and nobody even mentions the idea of including a simple fundraising badge on a local candidate's web page, I realize there's still a huge vacuum and plenty of room for the Toobz to grow into the town square.

Bringing in money gets any politician's attention. But the real power of blogs is publishing and shaping the message. More, much more could be done at a local level. The gap between how the national candidates exploit their web presence and what the candidates are doing at the local level, many of whom don't even have a web page, is astromomical.

I'm probably spoiled. When I do a post about John Edwards, I can go to his web page and not simply find a bullet-point list of his positions on the issues, but links to press releases, full articles from the media on everything he's done or doing, text of speeches and fully downloadable white papers detailing his plans for America's future -- plus one of the most sophisticated interactive blogs out there.

I don't expect everyone running for city council to have something nearly as elaborate, but geez, at least get a blog!

Thanks Lisa, for getting me involved.

My neglected tie collection thanks you too.

(Also I'd like to thank fellow Edwards supporter Ben, and Brian for putting it all together -- and a special shout out to City Council Candidate Karen Shanahan, who "gets" it.)

Posted by Mark | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Election , Computers/Internet

Looks like the House will compromise with the Senate by making the deadlines non-binding:

Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia, a freshman Democrat who represents a district strongly opposed to the war, said lending his support to a bill that funds the war without setting a firm end date will be difficult. On the other hand, he added, Democrats might be in a tougher spot if they can't pull the caucus together long enough to act against Bush.

"We have to look at the political realities of being the party that's in control, and prove to the American people we can govern," he said.

With Senate leaders nervous the final bill would fail if it included a firm deadline, aides said Democrats were leaning toward accepting the Senate's nonbinding goal. The compromise bill also is expected to retain House provisions preventing military units from being worn out by excessive combat deployments; however, the president could waive these standards if he states so publicly.

On Thursday, Pelosi, D-Calif., summoned Woolsey, Lee, Waters and several other of the party's more liberals members to her office to discuss the issue. According to aides and members, concerns were expressed but there were no loud objections to a conference bill that would adopt the Senate's nonbinding goal.

Watson said she would personally oppose the final bill, as she did last month, but would not stand in Pelosi's way if the speaker agrees to the Senate version.

"It's still a timeline," she said. "We're not backing down from that."

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Election , 2008 Presidential Election , Democrats , George W. Bush , War in Iraq

by shep

Because, even their best, brightest, men of integrity are little more than mendacious, double-dealing hacks. If Bush v. Gore, authored by state’s rights stalwart Antonin Scalia, didn’t teach you that there isn’t an honest principle to be found among them, I hope this helps you pull your heads out of your asses and take a look around (you might want to wipe that off your face first).

“Judges have to have the humility to recognize that they operate within a system of precedent, shaped by other judges equally striving to live up to the judicial oath. And judges have to have the modesty to be open in the decisional process to the considered views of their colleagues on the bench.”

“I think people’s personal views on this issue [abortion] derive from a number of sources, and there’s nothing in my personal views based on faith or other sources that would prevent me from applying the precedents of the Court faithfully under principles of stare decisis.”

--Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts

So the next time some Republican, Federalist f*ck even utters the phrase Stare Decisis – and I mean you, Russ Feingold, Herb Kohl and Pat Leahy - you tell him to go Cheney himself. He’s lying to your face, you idiot. They have no integrity and no shame.

Speaking of shame, here’s the rest of the wall:

Max Baucus, Jeff Bingaman, Robert Byrd, Kent Conrad, Tom Carper, Christopher Dodd, Byron Dorgan, Tim Johnson, Mary Landrieu, Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln, Patty Murray Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Mark Pryor, Ken Salazar, Roy Wyden, Jeff Jeffords.

Posted by shep | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Election , Constitution , Democrats , George W. Bush , Law , Pro-choice , Republicans

by shep

From every public rationale: the UN resolution upon which our entire Iraq policy is predicated, the congressional authorization which provides all legal justification under US law, and the rationale upon which all original public support for invading Iraq was established, our mission in Iraq is complete. And it has been completely successful relative to those goals:

1) elimination of Iraq’s WMD program and any threat thereof,

2) punishment and/or removal of the Hussein regime as a consequence of its lawlessness,

3) and institution of a democratic constitution and institutions for the Iraqi state.

By what legal or moral justification does John McCain declare that our victorious exit from Iraq constitutes defeat?

Why does John McCain hate America?

Posted by shep | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Election , Republicans , War in Iraq

Here are the full results from MoveOn's Virtual Town Hall vote (remember, this does not imply a MoveOn endorsement):

Sen. Barack Obama 28%
Sen. John Edwards 25%
Rep. Dennis Kucinich 17%
Gov. Bill Richardson 12%
Sen. Hillary Clinton 11%
Sen. Joe Biden 6%
Sen. Chris Dodd 1%

I would have thought John Edwards would be stronger than this. Well like they said, this isn't equivalent to an endorsement from MoveOn.

UPDATE: But wait -- there's more! MoveOn members who watched the Town Hall at one of the parties voted differently from those who did not. Here are how the folks who attended the event ranked their choices:

Sen. John Edwards 25%
Gov. Bill Richardson 21%
Sen. Barack Obama 19%
Rep. Dennis Kucinich 15%
Sen. Joe Biden 10%
Sen. Hillary Clinton 7%
Sen. Chris Dodd 4%

Good news for Edwards, Richardson, Biden and Dodd. Not so good for Obama and Clinton -- the two front runners.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (3) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Election , Barack Obama , Hillary Clinton , John Edwards

Obama's campaign finally released their numbers:

• Over 100 thousand donors.
  
• Over $25 million raised.
  
• Over $23 million can be used for the primary season.
  
• Over 50 thousand online donors.
  
• Over $6.9 million raised online.
  
• Over 60 thousand groups, blogs and members online.

Putting it in perspective:

Obama (D-Ill.) appears to have surpassed Clinton in several ways: He raised $6.9 million through donations over the Internet, more than the $4.2 million than Clinton (N.Y.) raised online. He reported donations from 100,000 people, double the 50,000 people who gave to Clinton.

And of Obama's overall receipts, $23.5 million is eligible for use in the primary contests. Clinton officials have declined to disclose how much of her cash is available for the primaries -- rather than designated for the general election and therefore blocked off unless she wins the nomination -- raising suspicions that she raised less for the primaries than Obama did.

[T]he larger small dollar donor base of Obama means he has much more room to grow in the coming quarters. The average donation to Obama was $250, while the average donation to Hillary was $520. Remember, Q1 is the low-hanging fruit. Q2 is a better indicator of which candidates are building a movement, and which ones are merely squeezing cash from their rolodexes.

P.S. And how does all of this compare to everyone else?

Democrats = $78 million

• Clinton $26
  
• Obama $25
  
• Edwards $14
  
• Richardson $6
  
• Dodd $4
  
• Biden $3

Republicans = $51 million

• Romney $23
  
• Giuliani $15
  
• McCain $12.5
  
• Huckabee $0.5

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Election , Barack Obama , Democrats , Republicans

by shep

After reading David Broder’s piece on Sunday (I know), coming off of reading Matt Stoller on Hillary Clinton’s relationship with Fox News, I got to wondering why Rupert Murdoch and David Broder, ostensibly representing different center-right to right-wing perspectives, both seemed at least amenable to Clinton’s frontrunner status. Actually, no I didn’t. I know they both want the most establishment (read: corporatist) candidate from either party.

But I did start to wonder why so many Democrats were so wary of Clinton (Republicans are easy, they hate whomever they are told to hate). Her negatives, even among progressives, now seem fundamental. Yet overall, Democrats like the Clintons. They have both charmed us with activist rhetoric and framed many Democratic successes against Republicanism since the Reagan era.

A Hillary Clinton presidency would certainly be an agent for evolutionary change. She’d make a fine president, no doubt, in the context of the previous Clinton administration and, obviously, in stark contrast to the criminal enterprise now ensconced in the executive.

Yet, so far, Hillary is offering only incremental changes in policy: fewer troops in Iraq, corporate-run healthcare that is universally available (eventually) and, shockingly, not much at all about reducing fossil fuel consumption, rolling back the Republicans’ treasonous assault on the Bill of Rights and the rule of law, or the outrageous unfairness of income distribution and tax policy in America.

The trouble is, we may no longer have the luxury of incremental change. We’ve blown the last thirty years of opportunity to do something about fossil fuel consumption leading to climate change and now it may be too late to prevent utter catastrophe. We may have already traded our children’s future for a 3,000 sq. ft. builder’s special in the ex-urbs and driving around alone in a 3/4-ton truck.

Our healthcare system is killing us and that is not hyperbole. It directly kills 100,000 people a year just from mistakes in hospital care, many more from prescribed drugs, with a widely reviled tort system as its ultimate remedy. It is unaffordable for both individuals and employers, further undermining our competitiveness in world markets. It does little to help prevent disease. It is barely accessible to 46 million Americans, yet it is expected to collapse under the weight of the baby boomers (we are many and we are huge).

Meanwhile, the Bush Administration, aided and abetted by the most partisan and corrupt congress in generations (no small feat), have functionally gutted the Bill of Rights and the rule of law: the preeminent centuries-old law to protect citizens from tyranny – habeas corpus – gone in the blink of Alberto Gonzales’ eye, government torture, for god f*cking’s sake, unprovoked war and foreign occupation, the politicization of our justice system from top to bottom and corruption of our electoral system from coast to coast.

Finally, Republicans have so successfully deployed authoritarianism to demonize liberals and Democrats and otherwise corrupt the thinking of their followers; America is now so politically polarized we can no longer agree on the observable reality before us.

I am not overstating when I say: these things require immediate and radical change.

The non-authoritarian-following public, amazingly even the mainstream press, are awakening from the narcotic effects of 9/11 and WOT fear-mongering and seeing what the Republican movement is doing to wreck the government, the people’s instrument of power against industry-generated threats. They are anywhere from anxious to angry at what they see. Democrats may be selling everyone short if we fail to offer them a revolutionary, rather than evolutionary, opportunity for change.

Posted by shep | Link | Comments (0) |