...and other gems from an afternoon with Armstrong Williams.

I suppose I should have expected as much.

In a room where the entirety of the political establishment was effectively ignored by the DNC for this past election, the debate tended to focus, continuously, repetitively, even boringly, on having a 50 state strategy.

The excitement arose from the way in which these 50 state strategies would be implemented. Each of the candidates had different definitions of what a 50 state strategy should look like-some more persuasive than others. I managed to keep a relatively detailed account of what happenned, and I'll lay out each candidate's plans (and the crowd's reaction to said plans) tonight. For now I'll focus on the vibe I'm getting.

First, Dean is electric and on fire and I think he knows it. He received applause repeatedly from the crowd for his remarks which were, I must admit, quick-witted, intelligent, and crafted perfectly for his audience. I'm still not a supporter of Dean for Chair, but his ideas are at LEAST among the best in the field. Every time I see him, I feel better about him playing a role in our party.

The biggest gainer of the weekend, by far, is Donnie Fowler. His admirers around here seem to rival Dean's and, immediately following the debate, delegates and guests flocked to him to take pictures and ask questions. I've heard a few question his on-screen presence and fundraising prowess, but his committment to grassroots actions and his history as a field worker have sent shockwaves through this field. The people here absolutely love Donnie Fowler. And he's kinda funny...in a dorky sort of way.

Simon Rosenberg maintained his position, if you ask me. No huge breakouts, but nothing to be ashamed of either. He did send a murmor through the crowd with a sharp (probably rude, borderline a-hole) response to a delegate who asked why he had said the Democrats could win without the South (he argued the delegate was misinterpreting him). This little outbreak seems to confirm what others have told me here--that he's kind of an ass. Hm. That's a nerd pun. He's still among the most informed of the candidates, though, and his strategy resonates with a lot of people here.

Wellington Webb introduced himself to many people here for the first time, and seems to have some support among African-Americans. But many of those same people appear to like the idea of him running more than an actual win, which they perceive to be unlikely. An endorsement by him of another candidate could carry some weight, though.

I feel much more comfortable with Roemer now than I did at the beginning of the weekend. I'm much less persuaded that he is a "status-quo candidate" as it seems that none of the candidates are particularly satisfied with the status quo. When asked a pointed question about his stance on choice, he said

I do not want to shift the party to the right on this issue. I want to start a dialogue in America about why women must make this choice. The Republicans are pro-delivery, but we're pro-life after that.

which sounded eerily like kos's new verbage on choice. His discussion of choice made me want to think we're enough of a big tent party to allow a pro-lifer to chair our party (if he's not going to attempt to push legislation on it). And honestly, he's an attractive guy with a good on-screen presence. Unfortunately, he just doesn't have as much to say. If he ends up being the chair, it won't be a disaster, but we'll have missed out on a chance to place three other candidates that seem clearly better to me. That seems unlikely, though, since all the talk here is about Dean, Rosenberg, and Fowler. If Roemer can't make huge inroads here in the South, I'm not sure where he'll find a base of support.

Finally, Leland and Frost. No energy. Few specifics, even less support. Malcolm isn't even here, so it looks like this is a three-way (MAYBE four) race at this point.

I attended the January Dean meetup for North Dallas and Plano on Wednesday, where we watched and discussed George Lakoff's DVD. Then we split off into groups of two or three and we were given a topic and asked to come up with a way to frame the issue in a way favorable to liberals.

The topic for my team threw me off a bit. There has been an ongoing debate in the City of Dallas over whether or not the city should be run by a city manager with a weak mayor, as it is currently, or by a strong mayor. So we were presented with an issue that has no clear partisan divide and asked to frame it. At first we got hung up on which side we should take, though we did not have all of the facts. But as our discussion evolved, we all discovered an important rule of framing the debates you have at backyard barbeques:

No matter which side you take or even if you are undecided on issues with blurry partisan divides, frame your answer in terms of your fundamental liberal values. My team came up with: "Strong mayor, strong council? As a liberal, I will decide based on which one will give us a strong city, a place of opportunity and prosperity for all Dallas residents."

The idea here is to spread liberal values at the water cooler, in the subway, at church, at backyard barbeques. We can do that with non-partisan issues as well as high profile, deal-breaker issues.

It's just before the DNC Chair candidate discussion here at the Sheraton Gateway in Atlanta and the place is abuzz with activity.

For those unaware (and I certainly was), the race to chair the DNC looks exactly like any other elected official, complete with direct mail, meetups, volunteers, t-shirts, buttons, and the like. Swarming the hotel are dozens of young staffers enthusiastically in support of many of the various candidates, the most visible of whom are Fowler, Rosenberg, Roemer, and of course Dean. The other candidates appear to be relatively MIA, as I've seen more literature from the candidates for Vice-Chair than I have for Malcolm, Leland (which seems to back Jerome's commentary that his is more of a statement candidacy than much else), Frost, or Blanchard. Wellington Webb is around a little bit, too.

This morning I watched Roemer, Rosenberg, and Fowler address the Southern Black Democrats. Roemer clearly commanded the room better than the other three, certainly a testament to his history as a politician. And while the netroots' definition of Roemer is probably a bit unfair, he certainly didn't say very much with that command. While stressing his committment to change and infusion of new ideas, he managed to come across as a typical politician. Not saying much, perhaps because he didn't have too much to say.

Fowler connected with the room better than did either Roemer or Rosenberg, certainly a testament to his Southern background. His metaphors were accurate and relevant to the audience, and he offered solid solutions to a number of problems facing the DNC. He stressed his 50-state strategy and his desire to back up words with actions, but he impressed me the most when he spoke of re-establishing the Democratic Party's relationship with black voters. I'll paraphrase:

I'm sure you've all heard the quote before: When Democrats win, Black people don't get any credit; when they lose, Black people didn't turn out. It can't be that way anymore. We cannot take any group of voters for granted. In my mind, there are no "base voters"...It's about more than having Black people in the room-it's about having them at the decision-making table.

Finally, Rosenberg had the most to say, certainly a testament to his experience building organizations. He had so many specific proposals that he outlined in five minutes, in fact, that I don't feel comfortable attempting to relay them (I wasn't able to take notes). But Rosenberg did talk about inclusion, about building up local and state parties to be able to efficiently promote grassroots efforts, and about fighting for elections from city council all the way up to President, stressing his experience on all of those levels as he promoted his ideas.

More to come later, after the candidate debate.

Kos gets it.


The false dichotomy of religious/not, conservative/liberal, must be broken down in order for us to have national success, and indeed any success in the South.

Perhaps an introduction is in order here. I am a Southerner, and proud of being a Southerner in everything except my politics. I'm about as liberal as they come and simultaneously about as religious as they come. For me, it's not only politically problematic, but religiously heartbreaking to see the cynical way in which Republicans use religion.

But almost worse: as a liberal Democrat that runs in activist circles, the hostility to religion is overwhelming. Not that I blame those that are hostile. But it seems as though Kos has finally gotten what a lot of other activist liberals haven't quite gotten yet.

The hostility towards religion is not really a hostility towards religion, or even a hostility towards Christianity. It is a hostility towards a very specific and disgusting brand of Christianity that many Christians are also disgusted by.

Remember, most Democrats affiliate with religion in a certain way as well. Our problem has been expressing that affiliation. But as Kos so eloquently states:

I don't cringe when scripture is used to justify poverty relief, or
conservation ("protecting God's creation"), or social security ("honor thy mother and thy fathers"), or oppose the death penalty, or oppose the war.

Religious Democrats need to become comfortable speaking religiously about their policy decisions. Odds are, religion plays a large role in why religious Democrats feel the way they do about their policy decisions.

But step one in letting that happen is for activist liberals to stop spending political capital fighting religion at every turn. Yes, I know it's not your fault that you feel the way you do--"religion" has been fighting you at every turn as well. But if we're spending political capital on removing the ten commandments from courthouses, ridding God from the Pledge of Allegiance and our dollar bills, or criticizing those who use religious language, then not only will we lose those battles, but we will not have the political capital to end unjust wars, save Social Security, maintain a woman's right to choose, or win elections.

But as long as we allow the Republicans to have the ammunition to continue unjustly painting us as the anti-religion party, we cannot win.

Update: mikepridmore also gets it. He appears to be religious, so it's not quite as revealing as kos getting it, but he gets it so much that I thought I'd make a note of it. Expect a large amount of commentary from me resembling mikepridmore's.

Marie Cocco of the Washington Post Syndicate is engaged in a nuclear smackdown of Barbara Comstock, former Bush DOJ official, on Hardball right now. [Updated: Full transcript here, scroll down to about halfway]

MATTHEWS: You say there‘s been no torture of prisoners.
You say there has been.
COMSTOCK: No, I‘m saying our policy is—let me make very clear, it‘s our policy. You always have aberrations of what the law is, but...
MATTHEWS: Right. But nothing has been unofficially—nobody has turned the other way and let this go on, I‘m saying.
COMSTOCK: No. That has not been the case.
MATTHEWS: OK. In other words, you say the policy has been clearly against it in practice, not just in theory.
COMSTOCK: The president in February of 2002 very clearly said that we were going to treat all detainees humanely. That was our policy.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: There‘s a real difference here now.
You say it has been going on and it‘s been honored in the breach. The rules against it have been honored in the breach. It is going on. We are torturing prisoners and the big shots know about in the line of—chain of command, right?
COCCO: Not only do they know about it. But I want to go back.
Mr. Gonzales has been asked many questions today.
MATTHEWS: Right.
COCCO: And has been very skillful in sort of not answering them.
But he himself wrote a memo in—I have it right here—it is a January 2002 memo in which he not only sides with those people in the Justice Department who are arguing basically to suspend the Geneva Conventions, suspend the torture treaties.
MATTHEWS: Right, with regard to the Taliban and the al Qaeda.
COCCO: Suspend even our own federal laws against torture.
MATTHEWS: In those cases, in those cases.
(CROSSTALK)
COCCO: And he also says the following, that, “If you suspend these things, Mr. President, it will be very hard for anyone to be prosecuted once you take this authority and suspend all these rules.”
(CROSSTALK)
COCCO: And he says, and he says, that it is impossible to say who may decide to bring unwarranted charges.
(CROSSTALK)
COMSTOCK: ... talking about Abu Ghraib.
COCCO: Unwarranted charges.
So, what is he referring to? What would be—if you‘re suspending all these rules, he is claiming that any charge brought against you would be unwarranted.
(CROSSTALK)
COMSTOCK: That memo that she‘s talking about is a draft memo that was part of the discussion.
In February 2002, the president clearly set out the policy they were going to treat all detainees humanely. And then the August 2002 memo is OLC memo that came from the Justice Department.
MATTHEWS: Why was there—why was there a need for a memo in early 19 -- in 2002...
COMSTOCK: Because we needed...
MATTHEWS: ... to tell people they weren‘t governed by the Geneva Conventions? If there wasn‘t going to be any torture, why did you have to worry about that?
COMSTOCK: No, because—people need to know what Geneva Conventions involve.
Privileges involve getting monthly stipends, getting uniforms, musical instruments, scientific instruments. They can‘t be held solely alone. They can‘t be questioned extensively. So we have never in our history treated terrorists under Geneva Convention. That was the policy Reagan let out in ‘87. That has been consistent through Bush I, Clinton, and now.
All they were doing is going out and looking at, what is the law? So, what everyone has been attacking Alberto Gonzales about is that he asked, what are the boundaries? What is the law? He looked at what Congress said and then Congress...

In the clearing stands a boxer
And a fighter by his trade.
And he carries the reminder
Of every glove that laid him down
Or cut him till he cried out
In his anger and his shame.
I am leaving. I am leaving.

But the fighter still remains...

Not quite ready for a full dump on this issue, but here is an email I got from Dean tonight on the way to the meetup I am definitely attending:

Dear Michael,

All of us following the events in Southeast Asia over the holidays saw a gut-wrenching revision of statistics: 4,000 reported dead in the first hour, corrected to
20,000 dead later that day, then 45,000 dead the next. The best guess now stands
at over 150,000 killed by the horrific tsunami.

Images of a suffering child or a house destroyed move our spirit, but understanding the massive scale of this catastrophe -- entire cities obliterated, more residents dead than alive -- must move us to action.

Save the Children is the kind of organization that knows how to deal with widespread disaster -- they have been on the ground protecting the most vulnerable from natural disasters, war and genocide. And, they are in it for the long-haul -- they will be there even after the tsunami coverage recedes from the headlines to rebuild these devastated towns.

Our compassion, our common humanity, and the task of restoring America's role as a moral force in the world demand that we act now. Contribute what you can to Save the Children:

http://www.democracyforamerica.com/helpasia

We are engaged in another kind of rebuilding here at home -- rebuilding our party, our democracy and our sense of community. At stake in the coming year is nothing less than what kind of society we will be. And to shape America we have to start locally.

Join us at 7 PM tonight in your community for the Democracy for America Meetup:
http://dfa.meetup.com

This month your local group will present a special DVD from Professor George Lakoff, who is fast becoming one of the most influential thinkers in the progressive movement.

His work has helped us understand how conservatives use language to reinforce their positions. Take, for example, when corporate elites set their sites on repealing the estate tax, which only affects a few thousand people with multimillion-dollar estates. They coined the phrase "death tax" in order to bamboozle ordinary non-millionaires into supporting the repeal.

Conservative politicians and Fox News anchors simply stopped calling it the estate tax and adopted the new phrase. Soon Democrats were calling it the "death tax", too -- even as they tried to explain why it should stay on the books (so that massive wealth doesn't become permanently concentrated in the hands of just a few).

In order to rebuild our party and communicate our values, we have to understand how the other side works and avoid this kind of trap. Tonight's DVD will spark a discussion at your Meetup -- and the lessons learned will be crucial to our success. Please join us tonight:

http://dfa.meetup.com

Providing disaster relief abroad and rebuilding community at home are complex, long-term projects. But we all have a responsibility to one another -- and they can only happen with your active engagement.

Thank you.

Governor Howard Dean, M.D.

There you have it: Dean is not only a netroots convert in full (and an early and sincere one at that) but he is also a framing convert in full. In fact, he wrote the forward to Lakoff's book.

Question: Has another DNC candidate been as lucid and straightforward on these two crucial points? I don't think so. See, that is important, because clarity helps activists to know what they are doing and where they stand. More on why this is important soon.

The DNC Chair race officially kicks off this weekend in Atlanta, Georgia with the DNC's Southern Caucus meeting on Saturday. While our only taste at a national political presence does indeed come a full two months AFTER election day, Atlantans are indeed excited--especially the Dean folk down here, of which there are certainly plenty.

Now I was a Deaniac myself, mind you. I strongly supported Dean at the very beginning of his candidacy, but completed my slow yet inevitable exodus from the Dean camp at Wes Clark's arrival on the scene. Yes, I thought Dean got Bravehearted by the press. Yes, I thought the scream was INCREDIBLY overdone. I haven't seen anything mercilessly executed by the mainstream media like that since Bennifer.

But as a member of the self-proclaimed "reality-based community," I have to acknowledge the "reality" that Dean carries an enormous amount of baggage. I don't mean for this to turn into a "Why I don't want Dean to be chair" post, since I think Chris did a fantastic job of that.

The real reason behind this post is the surge recently, not just in Atlanta because of the caucus meeting but nationally and particularly in the blogosphere, of Dean snobbery. The clearest examples are seen at mydd, and sometimes even dailykos. I love mydd and dailykos. I read them multiple times each day. But it seems as though there is something about Dean that turns otherwise rational and intelligent people into irrational people making ridiculous assertions. Sometimes they even become blithering idiots (Give me Dean or Give me Death!!!!)

Dean is not the God of the leftist movement. He is not the ONLY one that can bring reform. Those of us that don't support him for chair are not Republicans, spineless, anti-reform, or worshippers of the DC establishment. We just don't think Dean is the right vehicle. It's ok that you do. We just disagree.

...But you'll recognize his work. Indeed.

I just wanted to throw this out there: I think Olbermann is far and away the best there is on cable news. Maybe I am leaving somebody else out, but his humanity has really been shining through in his reporting on Iraq and the tsunami disaster lately. Instead of talking at us, I think Olbermann invites us in to discover the news with him. Check out some of his clips here.

He has two qualities that put him at a higher level than his peers, in my opinion. First, his mastery of the language is impressive, which is really rare if you think about it. His word efficiency, diction and his keen sense of humor are all a cut above everyone else I have seen on cable. For instance, he did a segment on Americans missing in the tsunami disaster, about 5,000 people. Here's how he began the segment:

Not to get provincial at a time when 150,000 are known dead and the total may be exponentially higher, but were more Americans killed on December 26 than were on 9/11?

He accomplishes so much with this short sentence. He validates our concerns for our own while still acknowledging the reality that there is more suffering in other countries. He also invokes a kind of dark humor that actually ends up connecting us deeply with shocking events, because irony is one way we cope with shock. This is keen journalism. It pushes and informs the audience.

Second, his show, the Countdown, is set up almost like a blog in the sense that his presentation is more down-to-earth than aggressive and in-your-face, which is what most cable hosts seem to think "the people" want these days. He actually seems to understand people. It is also like a blog in that he is interested in many different aspects of the world at once, just like many bloggers, who often let us see their artistic and musical taste. Olbermann respects his audience, occasionally apologizing for covering things he knows aren't that important (like new Johnny Carson photos today) but nonetheless grab his attention because he is imperfect. The end result is a passionate, but appropriately restrained presentation of the news. Fair and balanced the way it should be: we know where he is coming from but he doesn't tell us what to think nor try to appear as if he has no opinion. He's no pushover, but he refreshingly lacks faked or unwarranted cockiness.

Sorry for the long wind. I am just impressed. I usually hate cable news even if I subject myself to it constantly. Who is your favorite?

Jonathan Singer at Basie! says we should hold Republican term limits supporters from 1994 accountable for pledges they signed not to run after 2004. In one of the comments at MyDD, a reader said it provides an opportunity, but not a huge opportunity unless their opponents would advocate term limits themselves. I don't think that is necessarily true, though, because corruption is what we should be running against. Term limits were just a shadowy proposal to get reform votes in general, not to net all those thousands and thousands of single issue term limits voters.

This is where framing comes into play. Democrats need to run on the principle of reform. All that matters is that these reps lied and then flip-flopped on an issue of integrity. As I said in a diary that went nowhere at MyDD: corruption, corruption, a thousand times corruption.

Also, thanks to Mr. Singer for the post last night.

Let's face it: 9-11 was used by conservatives to propagate their worldview. Chris Bowers and descartes are dead on on this point. Early on in his book, Don't Think of an Elephant, George Lakoff defines a strategic initiative as "a plan in which one carefully chosen issue area has automatic effects over many, many, many other issue areas (p.29-31)." He uses the example of Republicans pushing tax cuts, which not only change the tax code to free the wealthy and appeal to libertarians but also starve the government of the money needed for all social programs, decreasing liberal options when they are in power. He says their strategy and agenda manifest in the downstream consequences, not the issues.

Thus, we must view the War on Terror (and by this I mean that linguistic frame coupled with the actual policy response of the Bush Administration) for what it is: The Mother of All strategic Initiatives (MASI). Among other things, the MASI allows Republicans to justify all sorts of things they love: huge defense budgets, a healthy military/industrial complex, lots of Red State pork, a militarized society, indefinite connection to the unity felt on 9-11, "moral clarity" reinforcing American goodness and Christian righteousness, a return to us/them thinking which helps them in elections and in spreading their zero-sum philosophy, portrayal of criticism as weak, etc, etc...

It is clear to me that this Tsunami disaster response should function as a strategic initiative for liberals. Since we are out of power, this will primarily be a framing exercise. 12-26-2004 in fact highlights a lot about liberal values and why they are important. Here is how:

* The lack of a warning system in the Indian Ocean represents the danger of a world in which the governments to not cooperate with each other when it is in their best interests to do so. Failure to address long term issues of protection is a failure of proper progressive foresight and progressive open communication.

* The lack of infrastructure in poor countries highlights the dangers and consequences of extreme poverty. We liberals prioritize public infrastructure for that reason among others.

*Liberals believe a fundamental goal of economic interdependence and foreign policy is to increase the quality of life of humankind, which spreads peace, helps the economy worldwide, and spreads freedom, dignity and individual rights. This tragedy underscores the need to prioritize interdependence in our politics.

*Liberals are committed to eradicating decease worldwide. The threat of disease is a central horror facing the tsunami victims.

*Many natural disasters are a result of dumb luck. Sympathy for those injured by their dumb luck is an important root of liberal values in all people. Because we cannot fundamentally control where we are born, how rich our parents are, how good our parents are or even how close we are when a freak disaster happens, we believe that it is fundamentally human to assist people victimized by dumb luck.

*That people now feel connected across lines of nationality, class, race, religion and divisions represents a teachable moment for those espousing liberal values because that is what we believe about the world. Unity of humanity helps our worldview and it should be revisited time and again.

*Humanitarian issues are areas where liberals unquestionably dominate.

In short, a bold Democratic framing of this disaster is needed because, at least politically, it is conservative attitudes about government and international cooperation that decrease our ability to cope with these types of disasters. It can also provide an important grounding event (in the same way that 9-11 was that type of an event for conservatives) to derive principles for an opposing and visionary liberal foreign policy agenda. This, combined with AIDS in Africa and genocide in Sudan, can be the beginning of important framing and policymaking on our part.

A note here: many people may find it distasteful to write about such a tragedy in this way. This tragedy has had an effect on me. I find it deeply troubling. My year in review will give you an idea of how. Conservatives learned long ago, however, that we need a way to focus issues in order to build support. Events, large or small, that reinforce why our view of the world is right must be portrayed clearly in order for our values to spread. This is not about power; it is about teaching people what we believe and illustrating, with prescient examples, exactly why we believe it. I think this terrible disaster shows us why liberalism is such a valuable set of beliefs.

And don't you forget that they are using this stingy issue to bash the UN anew. They are fighting a war with us and trying to claim that we are all together, just like on 9-11. Bush has sent his father and Clinton because he realizes that he is on the defensive and weak on humanitarian issues.

Update: Watching Joe Scarborough while typing this highlights this issue for us. he played that clip of Bill Clinton saying in an interview that we shouldn't even be talking about this "stingy" issue. Then he has Mike Barnicle on who shows his outrage about the U.S. being called stingy as well, even though we know Bush's record of foreign aid and international cooperation is terrible. Unity right? Not so fast, the Republican strategist agrees that we should focus on the people, but then uses the stingy issue as an opportunity to bash the UN and say that the U.N. is outdated because it criticizes the U.S. We are at war with them whether we see it or not!

The simplest way to do this is when we are talking to people say, "Well, for me, being a liberal, I believe it is of highest importance that..."

..that conservatives lack the humor gene. These folks are the biggest bunch of sore winners (yeah, I didn't know that was a possibility either) I have ever seen.

You know, come to think of it...conservatives can't seem to break out of playground reasoning, can they?

Hello Corked Bloggers, I have decided to clean house a little. There are a few members who have not posted in a while or ever, so I have removed them from the Contributors list. Everyone can still post comments either with a Blogger ID or anonymously. Email me if you have been removed and wish to have posting privileges back. Otherwise, I will just assume that you have decided to go on to bigger and better things...