Cleaning house a bit more. I have deleted another couple of people as members of the blog. If you wish to post, email me and I will reinstate. It is not punitive, I just want to keep the site as accurate as possible and if you haven't posted in ages, there is no need to be a member. You can still post comments anonymously or with your username.

The one thing I have always found repugnant about politics and punditry is this notion of moral relativism. When Clinton cheated on his wife with some 20 year old intern, I often heard the quote (which is true) "well other Presidents did it too." Well yes, many many Presidents have had affairs far worse on their wives. However, just because they did, does not make what Clinton did right. Right now, the right wing noise machine is in full gear over the non-story involving Kos and Jerome being paid money to "say nice things about Dean." Of course Republicans are using this to counter their Armstrong Williams story.

First and foremost, Kos receiving money for technical services from a private Presidential camapaign which HE disclosed is not the same as a political pundit being paid under the table close to $250,000 of MY dollars to preach about the joys of No Child Left Behind.

Second, even if you presume (on very weak assumptions) that Kos is wrong, does that somehow make Armstrong Williams right? For Robert Novak and Bill O"Reilly to be "outraged" over a $30,000 dollar payment from a private presidential account yet to shrug off Armstrong Williams being paid $250,000 dollars, and shows that these people live in a bunker mentality.

Perhaps we all live in a bunker mentality and will defend our side till the day we die, but I do know that if the Clinton administration paid Tavis Smiley or anyone for this, I'd be pissed and it'd be wrong. Just as when Clinton bangs an intern or Bush bangs his country, I'm pissed and it's wrong. Though wrong does have different levels. So here comes the conservative thought police and their noise machine..shouting us down once again. I swear, and I will say this publicly (yes yes I'm in law school and I don't care what this constitutes) but if I ever saw Bill O'Reilly in public, I will punch him in the mouth.

Another ripoff of a good liberal site. They need to hire some writers. Nuttery, I tell yah. Nuttery.

"Marty, I'll be honest with you. I think your website is rubbish. It has no pizzazz, no flair. It lacks vision or, frankly, talent. You may very well be a disaster for the party. Truthfully, you are crashing my party. I don't think you are cut out for this. Next please!"

Thanks Simon!

The rest of my post at MyDD.

According to Stephen Colbert on tonight's Daily Show:

*where x = "whatever we say"

September 11th + x*= Shut the fuck up!


Indeed.

While Democrats have been settling down and coming to terms with their recent electoral defeat, it is clear that Bush and company are setting up a state of permanent campaigning for the future. The Washington Post reports that Bush is tapping his key supporters from the Presidential race to plan, organize, and campaign for his Social security plan. He will call upon his 1.6 million campaign volunteers and run ads across the country in support of his plan. He'll keep these people motivated from here until there isn't a Democrat left in America. This is not the end. He'll use these people to win the races of 2006 and 2008 and beyond.

Its important we pick a DNC leader (I'm up for anyone willing to fight like hell at this point) who sees the danger that these people represent and is willing to stand up and say hell no. This government he is aspiring to is not based on reality or costs, its based on forwarding the Republican agenda at the price of the very future of the US.

He thinks we will all stick our head in the sand and forget that he invaded Iraq to ensure it wouldn't become a terrorist haven and, lo and behold, no WMD's and the very terrorist haven he was suppose to avoid has become the reality. These people aren't playing for a win here and a win there. To Bush and co, we as Democrats are as evil and hated as the insurgents in Iraq. In his reality we are no different. Therefore Democrats need to stand up, fight up, raise money, and be as coordinated, in our responses. If anyone still doubts the extent these people will go to, to utterly and absolutely dominate America, this should leave no doubt now. That Bush would even compare himself to FDR...disgusts me as it did FDR's own grandson.

It depresses me somewhat that this is the new age we live in. An age of polticial ads around the clock every year and every day. The age where a President goes campaigning that insurgents, terrorists, and Democrats are the enemies of America. This is the America he wants and I say, we should give it right back at him. I hate the idea of getting down in the gutter and wrestlin' a pig, but I'll be happy to get muddy if it exposes this fraud to the American people. They tell us there is all benefit to their wars, and social security plans, and medicare plans, but no costs. But ultimately, Bush's generation won't bear the burden of his recklessness, but it will be our burden to shoulder someday.

Perhaps, in the end, this defeat will be good for the Democrats. We will finally find our soul again and stop walking away from our roots in Kennedy, Truman, Johnson, and FDR, but will embrace them as we never did before.

From U.S.A. Love It or Leave It:

OK - I admit it. I had high expectations for this site. I have received a
good number of hits and have received VERY positive emails (which I updated tonight @ 7:30 PM) supporting this site. One guy called me naive but still supported what I was doing. I'll take that because in my heart I feel like I am doing the right thing - but to be honest what scares me is the possibility of one of our service men or women over seas who happens upon this site and takes a look at my picture page to find 2 people who took the time to show their support for the sacrifice they are making. To be honest - that scares me a lot. As much as I appreciate the emails telling me how great this site is - what I need are emails saying how great our troops, country and President are. Please take some time TODAY to take a picture with a brief statement of your support. Show our men and women in uniform you love, support and really appreciate what they are doing. I am only one person - I can only do so much - but together - we can make a positive difference. With that being said
I present to you - my friends - The Picture Page.

[Emphasis mine]

That is what really scares him? What can I say, pal. I guess it's the army you have...

There was some drama at the Dallas County Young Democrats meeting last night. Apparently, our President, who is also the county Secretary, is involved in a campaign to call for the current County Chair, Susan Hays,’ resignation. As this was my first meeting with this group, I wish I could say with authority whether this is a negative thing or a positive thing for Dallas Democrats. Given her track record on one issue, though, it seems like an inconvenient but necessary step. Of course, if this is the result of some people simply wanting her job, then I don’t think this is a good thing for Democrats to do nationwide. But this one seems pretty clear to me.

Nonetheless, this drive in the grassroots for her removal provides a window into how outside groups are beginning to hold considerable leverage over party officials, especially if it succeeds in ousting Susan Hays. My personal view is that we should always strive to strengthen the party. If the removal of Susan Hays does this then I am for it.

Either way, the charges against her were laid out in a resolution. The most damning charge is one that the blogosphere is now well aware of: Democrats publicly betraying other Democrats and cozying up to Republicans. The most specific battle against this has been waged by Josh Marshall in his coverage of the Fainthearted Faction. According to the resolution, four months before the election Dallas County Chair Susan Hays, a lawyer by day, “wrote a letter on Dallas County Democratic Party letterhead, [sic] endorsing a republican elected official who had been nominated for a Federal Judgeship by George W. Bush.” It has been suggested that this is because she is a trial lawyer and member of the Dallas Trial Lawyers Association and had to work with Republican judges.

This letter was sent to John Cornyn, our fair Republican Senator, and read into the record at Texas Supreme Court Justice Michael H. Schneider’s confirmation hearing for a Federal judgeship. And yes, Schneider was on the Texas Supreme Court when they decided to let the unethical Texas redistricting stand. Byron at the Burnt Orange Report discussed this issue back in July. This was reported in the San Antonio Express News. All of this was done without calling an Executive Committee meeting, which she is bound by party rules to do.

Donations to the Dallas Democrats are down and grassroots groups are breaking off and forming their own operations, which of course hurts party efficiency and unity. But, without a new chair, they will not coordinate with the Party.

This brings up a crucial issue. Party officials need to realize that the online organizational power of the grassroots is now a threat to them. Instead of ignoring that threat, they best learn to work with it or inefficiency and general ineffectiveness will result from big groups of loud and angry activists forming up in that circular firing squad. The best leaders in the new era will be the ones that are adept at harnessing the opportunities of the internet revolution to make the party more effective. But all you need to do is provide a reason for people to bolt and they just may do it because it is easy to be an issue entrepreneur now. That dynamic will be increasingly crucial in the coming years. The Democratic Party at all levels must find people who can both control and integrate effective online activism.

As for local party officials who publicly support Republicans, let’s call them the Zell Miller Junior Achievement Buckaroos.

Do any of you have some ZeMJABs to report?

They may get a big Spitball Trophy for their efforts.

I think we should and here is why. I remember being in Atlanta last year when Bush came to lay a wreath at Dr. King's grave. To me, that symbolized how Dr. King is being elevated and used by all sides for cynical purposes.

Yes, this is indeed sometimes a scary place to live. Georgia's legislators have started getting back to work recently by prefiling house bills and resolutions. Let's take a quick glance at some of the more noteworthy:

Ben Bridges in the 10th has prefiled the "Baby's Right to Know" Act to force new mothers to provide the name of the putative father of the child, even if the father will have nothing to do with the child.

Three legislators have, yet again, prefiled legislation to attempt to change the state flag back to the 1956 Confederate emblem.

But why should the House have all the fun? The Senate makes it hot, too. Or rather, wants to prevent girls under 18 from making it hot. Yes, that's right--the legislature tried to do this last year, and when someone called it to their attention that some women purposefully bejeweled themselves down there, the legislators were completely shocked and bewildered. Now that they know people do it on purpose, they've opted to make it illegal.

But the best of all of them was picked up by chrisishardcore. Gotta love the priorities of the South....

Advocates of the working poor are "living in a fairyland" according to Democratic Governor of Tennessee Phil Bredesen. See, I think the one in the fairyland is the one who cuts Medicaid for 323,000 people and then proclaims that "I can hold my head up as we move through the unpleasant changes we have to make." Maybe you can, but this is disastrous for many people who work very very hard.

David Shipler's recent book, The Working Poor: Invisible in America, is a good look at the economy from the perspective of people struggling to pay the bills. Anyway, most states have changed their Medicaid calculations because the federal guidelines no longer accurately account for the true working poor (it is still based on food times 3, roughly). Bredesen is going back to the original Medicaid guidelines, cutting anyone over an outdated line. Who to blame?

I would not have blamed the advocates of the poor when asked, but (drumroll please) the Bush administration. This is what happens when the government has the wrong priorities, puts self interest above the interests of society's neediest.

But, I didn't write the speech. So I will ask the Governor: what did you avoid cutting in order to cut Medicaid?

Oh, and why did you give the Creepublicans cover for the upcoming Social Security battle? I think he belongs in the Fainthearted Faction.

Anyone from Tennessee have some answers for me? A primary candidate?

I reckon he's not turning any corners, he's just swerving. But the preznit would never...oh, wait.

Chris has more.

I'm so glad that Mr. Frist has his priorities straight. While traveling Asia, Mr. Frist said to a photographer: "Get some devastation shots in the back." I don't want him getting away with this and I especially don't want him using this tsunami as part of his political run for the Presidency in 2008.

When Bush landed on that aircraft ship in May 2003 to proudly proclaim "misson accomplished", he had planned on using that footage for his political campaign. Democrats did a damn good job of hanging that moment around Bush's neck like an anchor. The only people who used the footage of that aircraft landing were Democrats Dean and Kerry. If Frist tries to use this tsunami to show his "compassion", I think its important that Democrats hang that quote around his neck in similiar fashion.

Apparently two Mississippi libraries and Wal-Mart have banned Jon Stewart's book. Imagine the conservative outrage had Mel Gibson's movie been banned anywhere in America? The Passion was one of the most violent movies I've seen in my life, but busloads of churches took their children to see it. Maybe they'll organize mass book burnings soon.

I, for one, am a proud pro-life Democrat, but I cannot stomach Tim Roemer. He's bought into the media spinned, Republican morality herring. I know a code word when I see one, and morality is code for gays just as when suburbanites talk about crime and welfare they mean black people. A generation ago the buzz word was "welfare queens" and before that it was "states rights." They try to put a nice word on extremely hateful ideas.

Edit: BTW, I do disdain the term "pro-life" because it implies that people who are pro-choice are "pro-death." Its yet another codeword or framing issue as Mr. Garemko would say.

Burnt Orange Report, uh, reports:

A presentation was made by Pollster Dave Beattie on targeting. His quotable line? "Like Vietnam, Democrats cannot hold the cities and lose the countryside, and expect to win the war." His suggested target groups...
1) Catholics "We don't need to change who we are for this one."
2) Small Business "We can be the Party of Main Street over Wall Street". (Emphasis mine.)

Yes! As you can see, people are paying attention to thissere' blog. But it is even more than what this pollster thinks. Small businesses are a start (especially in courting Chris Bowers' "non-ideological moderates"). But, we need a coherent, expandable, optimistic, and values-based vision of the economy to fill in the vacuum left by the collapse of the socialist ideal. Coherent in the sense that it resolves or has the potential to resolve a tension between quality jobs in certain changing industries (which is essentially protectionism and harms consumers) and free trade (which arguably harms workers). Expandable in the sense that it casts a wide net, benefiting and appealing to both rich and poor, cosmopolitan and provincial. Optimistic in the sense that the vision can explain the positive side of inevitable economic changes brought forth by globalization. Values-based in the sense that we invite everyone to participate in a new conceptualization of the economy based on the values of accountability, rewarding work over privilege, innovation and collaboration. In short, we need to find a natural alliance (if there is one) between blue collar workers and entrepreneurs of all types.

This new economy is a lot like the one Clinton described. Essentially, the role of government is to prepare people for lives of innovation and collaboration by focusing on effective government programs: high investment in education, support of new technologies that spawn new marketplaces, foreign relations emphasizing interdependence and opportunity, etc. Good government is government that empowers true opportunity, supported by robust budgets and policy focus, as opposed to pretending that growing the middle class is unneeded. A good government supports its citizens kind of like a university supports the academics of its students: supporting innovation but not controlling outcomes.

I will have more on this soon. I plan a real dump on this economy issue eventually...

The latest Beinart column in the New Republic. I guess Beinart agrees with what I said here, here, here and here. He is absolutely right. The memory of 9/11 was has been used as a strategic initiative (a plan that uses one issue to have a political effect on many other issue areas, according to Lakoff) to push the conservative worldview and conservative policies, many of which were bottled up by the peacetime in the 1990s. They wanted a return to hardened borders, high defense budgets, militarized politics, zero-sum-ism, lack of concern for worldwide poverty, lack of focus on domestic social issues. 9/11 was the catalyst for all of that. So Beinart is absolutely on target when he says:

Because the tsunami has uncovered a dirty little secret about the right today: Conservatives are fascinated by American power, but they are not all that interested in the world. In the 1990s, observers frequently noted the Republican Congress's indifference to the world beyond U.S. shores. In 1998, then-House Majority Leader Dick Armey infamously said that "I've been to Europe once. I don't have to go again." When Republican Representative Sonny Callahan assumed the chairmanship of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations in 1995, he noted that he had never voted for a foreign aid bill. He proceeded to oppose funding the Wye River Accord between Israel and the Palestinians, quipping, according to The Washington Post's Robert G. Kaiser, that "every time somebody walks in the White House with a turban on his head ... the president says, 'Let me give you a little bit of money.'" In 1999, John McCain worried about the "growing isolationism in the Republican Party."

Conventional wisdom holds that all this has changed since September 11. And, in a sense, the right has been transformed--conservatives have grown extremely interested in using the U.S. military to stop terrorism and nuclear proliferation. But that's not the same as becoming interested in the world. True internationalism means taking an interest in events overseas even when they don't bear directly on the war on terrorism; when they are not easily amenable to American power. It means being interested in the world, at least partly, merely because we live in it. By that standard, the isolationism of the '90s remains alive and well. Even in the best conservative publications, there is little reporting from abroad, and most of what there is involves the war on terrorism. A while back, National Review Online, the flagship website of the U.S. right, published a blog discussion about the African leaders with the strangest names, as if to say, "Who could possibly care?"

And it continues:

The tsunami is an almost perfect case study in conservative isolationism. It is a massive event in the recent history of the world. And yet it is a trivial event in the history of American power. None of the devastated countries threaten the United States; none are staging grounds for a conflict between the United States and a foreign power; the tragedy offers no role for the U.S. military except in delivering humanitarian supplies. And so conservatives feel compassion, as all decent people do. But, politically, they aren't that interested. Why should they be? Sri Lanka's fate has little bearing on U.S. national interests.

But the irony is that defeating Islamist terrorism requires convincing people around the world that the United States does not act merely out of narrow national interest. To win over global hearts and minds, the United States must show Muslims, and others, that we are benevolent--that we want a better world for them; that we are not just in it for empire and oil. That means financial generosity--giving money for economic and social development rather than only military assistance. But it also means what might be called intellectual generosity--a genuine curiosity about the rest of the world, even when our safety is not directly threatened, even when the dramas aren't primarily about us.

It is that curiosity that is so profoundly absent from Bush, who tries to see as little as possible of the countries he visits. (When Bill Clinton went to Africa in 1998, he visited six countries in eleven days; when Bush went in 2003, he visited five countries in five days.) And which is absent from his administration more generally, which invaded Iraq yet scorned the advice of those specialists who knew the country best. Today's conservatives want to dominate and transform the world--as long as they don't have to learn too much about it in the process.

A dirty little secret. An obsession with war. Excuses for ignorance. Excuses for mediocrity. Defending weak government infrustructure, which kills people. I wouldn't call that a B. I would call that an F minus.

Tucker Calrson just said on his new PBS show that he believes Alberto Gonzales will be confirmed because "people don't care about torture." I will link to a transcript if they post it. Also on the program, David Frum is still trying to push prison abuse as "an" aberration as opposed to policy. Why do they always call widespread torture "an" abberation. Isn't the issue at least many abberations?