"In yesterday’s edition of the Hill is a story detailing apparent tensions between some Members of Congress and Democratic Chair Howard Dean. At issue are recent comments by the Governor on what should be done about Social Security and Iraq. Some Hill staff and Members grouse that by wading into the policy arena, Dean has broken a commitment to avoid talk about issues in favor of focusing on money and party building.
Said one unnamed aide, “There were serious concerns when Gov. Dean took over that he understand what his role was and what it wasn’t. There were meetings with the congressional leadership and Mr. Dean where it was discussed and the governor implied that he understood what his role was and was not, that he was the mechanical part of the party, not the standard bearer or message person. Subsequently, there have been episodes that have been concerning.”
In the spirit of full disclosure, I worked for Governor Dean’s bid for the White House and have a lot of warm memories of that campaign (as well as an ulcer that I take medication for, to be fair). However, I tried to read this story objectively.
The record of the party in the 2006 elections will make or break Dean’s chairmanship. Should the Democrats not make a competitive showing, it will give his opponents in the party establishment the rope they need to hang him. The Governor knows this. He has done an incredible amount of work to get the party infrastructure and grassroots networking close to where it needs to be for the party machine to be fully effective. In less than a year, he’s done what no other chairman thought of doing – placing a handful of staffers in every state in the country. His record of fundraising is better than most party chairmen have done at this point after a presidential election – no small feat considering how tapped-out donors were from the Kerry campaign.
What the party lacks now is a coherent and detailed message on key issues, and the Governor knows this. His low point as chairman, to me, was his appearance on Meet the Press a few weeks ago, particularly this exchange:
'DR. DEAN: We have an alternative agenda. We made it very clear. We want a strong national security based on telling the truth to our people at home, our soldiers and our allies. We want jobs in America that'll stay in America, and we believe that renewable energy is one of the areas where we can do that. We want a health-care system that covers everybody, just like 36 other countries in the world. We want a strong public education system. And most of all, we want honesty back in government. I think that's a pretty good agenda.
MR. RUSSERT: But those are words that will appeal to people. But when you go behind them, for example, what is the Democratic position on Iraq? Should we withdraw troops now? What do the Democrats stand for?
DR. DEAN: Tim, first of all, we don't control the House, the Senate or the White House. We have plenty of time to show Americans what our agenda is and we will long before the '06 elections.'
He went on to admit, when pressed, that the party didn’t have specifics yet. Knowing the Governor, my feeling is that his gut was probably churning having to say something like this. During the campaign, and during his tenure as Governor, it was his staple to not bring up a problem and pin it on someone, unless he had a plan on how to do better. It’s the hallmark of any good candidate or party. Howard Dean looks at Ken Mehlman being able to rattle off the Republican position on issues, and knows his party looks weak in comparison in regards to detailed plans and positions it can provide. He knows plans, not platitudes, no matter how right or wrong, are what attract voters.
And so, with a party still fractious and arguing over what positive agenda to adopt as a position on Iraq, Social Security, ethics and a host of other issues, Howard Dean began to lay out some plans. On Social Security, he said he favored raising the cap protecting salaries of over $90,000 from being taxed. On Iraq, he began to support the notion that there should be a phased redeployment, sooner rather than later. Are they perfect plans? Maybe not. But the point was, finally, a lead Democrat was offering a positive agenda.
If Democrats on the Hill are upset, all they need do is look in the mirror. If there wasn’t an enormous and obvious gap in positive and forward-thinking messaging, there would be no void for the Governor to fill. The added benefit would be that voters might actually start to find more appeal in the party. Yes, even as disastrous as the GOP has been, voters still are not preferring Democrats at the level they should be.
In response to the Governor’s statements, Congressman Earl Pomeroy told a reporter that Dean should “shut up.” My advice to Pomeroy and other Democrats who really want to see the Governor walk in lock step is all to themselves shut up and lock themselves in a room for however how long it takes to come up with a positive, detailed, and unified agenda. Until they do so, I expect that the Governor will continue to speak."-from Eric Schmeltzer on The Huffington Post.
Friday, December 16, 2005
Thursday, December 15, 2005
"Democratic Prospects Brighten for 2006"
"A key measurement of partisan advantage in the United States Congress shows Democrats with a substantial lead in public opinion as the nation heads into 2006 and the important mid-term election season," a new Zogby survey shows.
"Asked if they would 'definitely' or 'probably' vote for the Democrat or Republican in next year’s fall congressional election, 48% said the Democrat would get their support, compared to 40% who said they would vote for the Republican."
For key race tracking all next year, subscribe to Zogby's Battleground 2006 report. "-from Political Wire.
"Asked if they would 'definitely' or 'probably' vote for the Democrat or Republican in next year’s fall congressional election, 48% said the Democrat would get their support, compared to 40% who said they would vote for the Republican."
For key race tracking all next year, subscribe to Zogby's Battleground 2006 report. "-from Political Wire.
''Feingold Now Has Numbers on His Side''
If someone in the Democratic party provides leadership, we can win some battles:
"In Congress, where numbers are everything, the math on the Patriot Act suddenly seems to be moving in favor of Sen. Russell Feingold.
In Congress, where numbers are everything, the math on the Patriot Act suddenly seems to be moving in favor of Sen. Russell Feingold.
He was a minority of one four years ago, when the Wisconsin Democrat cast the lone Senate vote against the USA Patriot Act in the traumatic weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks. The law, he said then, gave government too much power to investigate its citizens. Ninety-nine senators disagreed.
Now add more than two dozen senators to Feingold's side, including the leaders of his party and some of the chamber's most conservative Republicans, and the balance of power shifts.
The new Senate arithmetic that emerged this week is enough to place the renewal of major portions of the law in doubt. It was enough to inspire Senate Republican leaders to consider a backup plan in case Feingold's filibuster threat succeeded. Enough to prompt President Bush to dispatch Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to Capitol Hill twice in two days to lobby on the accord's behalf.
No luck so far, said the chief Senate sponsor.
"We've got a battle on our hands," Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., told reporters after Gonzales had departed Wednesday.
Bush weighed in personally Thursday, urging opponents of the renewal to abandon the filibuster threats.
"That is a bad decision for the security of the United States," the president said. "I call upon the Senate to end the filibuster and to pass this important legislation so that we have the tools necessary to defend the country in a time of war."
Moments later, the senior Democrat on the issue, Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), D-Vt., told reporters that more than 40 votes exist to sustain a filibuster in a test vote Friday. White House allies said they would rather see the law's 16 temporary provisions expire entirely than give opponents another three months or more to keep whittling away at them.
"A short-term extension is irresponsible," said House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., a day after his chamber passed the conference agreement, 251-174.
Feingold finds himself with some unlikely allies, including the Christian Defense Coalition. Notably, the National Rifle Association has not endorsed the Patriot Act renewal that was personally negotiated by Vice President Dick Cheney. The NRA's non-position allows its Senate supporters to oppose renewing the law in its entirety.
"Folks, when we're dealing with civil liberties, you don't compromise them," said Sen. Larry Craig (news, bio, voting record), R-Idaho, an NRA board member.
The breadth of support gives Feingold, a possible presidential candidate, new reason to keep an eye on still other numbers: polls for the 2008 presidential election.
"It's just very gratifying," Feingold said, grinning during an interview this week in his office. "We've stood the test of time. Our concerns were legitimate."
On the eve of the Senate's test vote, Senate Democratic leaders awarded Feingold a coveted seat on the terror-fighting Intelligence Committee, replacing New Jersey Gov.-elect Jon Corzine.
The opposition that began with Feingold's one vote has bloomed into a bloc of Democrats and Republicans concerned about a range of powers the original act gave the FBI, and how they are used. This group prefers the curbs on government power passed by the Senate but rejected in a compromise with the House. Now, faced with an up-or-down vote on the accord, they say no.
Chief among their concerns are the National Security Letters that the FBI can use to compel the release of such private records as financial, computer and library transactions. The bill for the first time explicitly says the third-party recipients of NSLs — banks, Internet service providers and libraries — can hire lawyers and challenge the letters in court.
Feingold and his allies want more reports from the Justice Department on how NSLs and other tools in terror investigations are used. They also want to set limits on how long law enforcement officials can continue to use NSLs in terror investigations.
In the last week, Feingold has attracted important allies, including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record), R-Neb., a possible presidential candidate in 2008. On Thursday he added another to his column: Sen. Dianne Feinstein (news, bio, voting record) of California, the original Democratic co-sponsor of the 2001 Patriot Act.
Whatever happens with the renewal, the mere debate is a boost for Feingold and any presidential aspirations he may nurture after next year's midterm elections — a development that carries some irony.
"People don't go to the well of the Senate and become the only senator to vote against something called the 'USA Patriot Act' five weeks after 9/11 because they're trying to get ready to run for president," Feingold said.
But four years later, during visits to the presidential proving grounds of New Hampshire and Iowa, Feingold says there's evidence his position has resonated with more than just the Democratic base.
"It's something that people like about me," he said. "We'll see where it goes."-from the AP story. "Feingold Has the Votes to Stop PATRIOT Act"-from Kos, quotes the same story.
"In Congress, where numbers are everything, the math on the Patriot Act suddenly seems to be moving in favor of Sen. Russell Feingold.
In Congress, where numbers are everything, the math on the Patriot Act suddenly seems to be moving in favor of Sen. Russell Feingold.
He was a minority of one four years ago, when the Wisconsin Democrat cast the lone Senate vote against the USA Patriot Act in the traumatic weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks. The law, he said then, gave government too much power to investigate its citizens. Ninety-nine senators disagreed.
Now add more than two dozen senators to Feingold's side, including the leaders of his party and some of the chamber's most conservative Republicans, and the balance of power shifts.
The new Senate arithmetic that emerged this week is enough to place the renewal of major portions of the law in doubt. It was enough to inspire Senate Republican leaders to consider a backup plan in case Feingold's filibuster threat succeeded. Enough to prompt President Bush to dispatch Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to Capitol Hill twice in two days to lobby on the accord's behalf.
No luck so far, said the chief Senate sponsor.
"We've got a battle on our hands," Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., told reporters after Gonzales had departed Wednesday.
Bush weighed in personally Thursday, urging opponents of the renewal to abandon the filibuster threats.
"That is a bad decision for the security of the United States," the president said. "I call upon the Senate to end the filibuster and to pass this important legislation so that we have the tools necessary to defend the country in a time of war."
Moments later, the senior Democrat on the issue, Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), D-Vt., told reporters that more than 40 votes exist to sustain a filibuster in a test vote Friday. White House allies said they would rather see the law's 16 temporary provisions expire entirely than give opponents another three months or more to keep whittling away at them.
"A short-term extension is irresponsible," said House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., a day after his chamber passed the conference agreement, 251-174.
Feingold finds himself with some unlikely allies, including the Christian Defense Coalition. Notably, the National Rifle Association has not endorsed the Patriot Act renewal that was personally negotiated by Vice President Dick Cheney. The NRA's non-position allows its Senate supporters to oppose renewing the law in its entirety.
"Folks, when we're dealing with civil liberties, you don't compromise them," said Sen. Larry Craig (news, bio, voting record), R-Idaho, an NRA board member.
The breadth of support gives Feingold, a possible presidential candidate, new reason to keep an eye on still other numbers: polls for the 2008 presidential election.
"It's just very gratifying," Feingold said, grinning during an interview this week in his office. "We've stood the test of time. Our concerns were legitimate."
On the eve of the Senate's test vote, Senate Democratic leaders awarded Feingold a coveted seat on the terror-fighting Intelligence Committee, replacing New Jersey Gov.-elect Jon Corzine.
The opposition that began with Feingold's one vote has bloomed into a bloc of Democrats and Republicans concerned about a range of powers the original act gave the FBI, and how they are used. This group prefers the curbs on government power passed by the Senate but rejected in a compromise with the House. Now, faced with an up-or-down vote on the accord, they say no.
Chief among their concerns are the National Security Letters that the FBI can use to compel the release of such private records as financial, computer and library transactions. The bill for the first time explicitly says the third-party recipients of NSLs — banks, Internet service providers and libraries — can hire lawyers and challenge the letters in court.
Feingold and his allies want more reports from the Justice Department on how NSLs and other tools in terror investigations are used. They also want to set limits on how long law enforcement officials can continue to use NSLs in terror investigations.
In the last week, Feingold has attracted important allies, including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record), R-Neb., a possible presidential candidate in 2008. On Thursday he added another to his column: Sen. Dianne Feinstein (news, bio, voting record) of California, the original Democratic co-sponsor of the 2001 Patriot Act.
Whatever happens with the renewal, the mere debate is a boost for Feingold and any presidential aspirations he may nurture after next year's midterm elections — a development that carries some irony.
"People don't go to the well of the Senate and become the only senator to vote against something called the 'USA Patriot Act' five weeks after 9/11 because they're trying to get ready to run for president," Feingold said.
But four years later, during visits to the presidential proving grounds of New Hampshire and Iowa, Feingold says there's evidence his position has resonated with more than just the Democratic base.
"It's something that people like about me," he said. "We'll see where it goes."-from the AP story. "Feingold Has the Votes to Stop PATRIOT Act"-from Kos, quotes the same story.
''Iraq, the Congress, and the Truth''
Here's an excerpt from an email that John Murtha sent out today:
"For too long Congress has counted itself out of any real debate on Iraq policy. We didn't talk about troop levels, even after the White House fired General Shinseki because he complained the levels were too low. One problem we encountered was the lack of proper training for our troops; service members were placed to guard the prisons but weren't trained; consequently we had Abu Ghraib, and no action from Congress. And if you look at the casualties, they have doubled since then. It's time to change our course - we can't just sit back any longer.
I've taken a lot of trips to Iraq. When I came back from my last one, I had become convinced we were making no progress at all. This can't be Republican and Democrat. It can't be recrimination one way or the other. We have to work this thing out, and we can't let a real solution get caught in the crossfire of an understandably heated political fight.
It's time for a serious conversation, not more rhetoric.
Tell Congress to Have an Honest Debate For the Safety of Our Troops.
The past few weeks have had a lot of firsts for me. I have never sought out the spotlight, or even taken the lead in a House floor debate the way I did a few weeks ago. And I've never signed an email like this before. But I see the beginning of a debate that is long overdue, and we can't afford to let it get overtaken by talking points or the news cycle.
I'm offering this petition, which will be delivered to the Speaker of the House in order to keep our Congress focused where it should have been all along. I hope you'll sign if you agree.
Tell Congress to Have an Honest Debate For the Safety of Our Troops."
"For too long Congress has counted itself out of any real debate on Iraq policy. We didn't talk about troop levels, even after the White House fired General Shinseki because he complained the levels were too low. One problem we encountered was the lack of proper training for our troops; service members were placed to guard the prisons but weren't trained; consequently we had Abu Ghraib, and no action from Congress. And if you look at the casualties, they have doubled since then. It's time to change our course - we can't just sit back any longer.
I've taken a lot of trips to Iraq. When I came back from my last one, I had become convinced we were making no progress at all. This can't be Republican and Democrat. It can't be recrimination one way or the other. We have to work this thing out, and we can't let a real solution get caught in the crossfire of an understandably heated political fight.
It's time for a serious conversation, not more rhetoric.
Tell Congress to Have an Honest Debate For the Safety of Our Troops.
The past few weeks have had a lot of firsts for me. I have never sought out the spotlight, or even taken the lead in a House floor debate the way I did a few weeks ago. And I've never signed an email like this before. But I see the beginning of a debate that is long overdue, and we can't afford to let it get overtaken by talking points or the news cycle.
I'm offering this petition, which will be delivered to the Speaker of the House in order to keep our Congress focused where it should have been all along. I hope you'll sign if you agree.
Tell Congress to Have an Honest Debate For the Safety of Our Troops."
''You Can't Serve The Master And Master Card''
Social change from the grassroots: "Today, there's also a new movement stirring in Norfolk, and again, it is the
black community that is leading it. As in the 1960's, it is based in the black
church, more specifically in the massive Mount Carmel Baptist Church here led by a white-bearded firebrand Bishop named C. Vernie Russell. He is leading a
liberation war against what one of his parishioners calls "the enemy" -debt.
He is doing it with debt liquidation revivals at which church members donate to
a fund that emancipates fellow church families from debt. They literally give
their money so that members of their community can buy their way out. Later, those freed fom personl debt are expected to destroy their credit cards, cut back on consumer binges and build the church and its mission. These revivals are working.
The Bishop's "praying off" debt movement has so far helped 75 families
eliminate $600,000 in debt. Its sparked a campaign that has freed over 450
families from $1.5 million in debt.
This may be but a drop in the bucket when set against nearly a TRILLION dollars in personal debts held by Americans, but it is a start.
Debt is the biggest economic crisis in America that threatens to explode in a
bubble bursting meltdown but both political parties are silent and in the pay
of the credit card companies. Theirs is a bi-partisan consensus against
reforming this ticking time bomb. Instead they are making matters worse with so -called "bankruptcy reform" that makes it hard for debtors to have a second
chance.
When you are in debt, you often feel ashamed depressed and alone. Not at Mount Carmel. Their services are alive with music, clapping, dancing and collective problem sharing. The anthem sung by the choir and repeated by the congregation in the call and response tradition of the Black Baptist church 'I need you and you need me.' It's an uplifting message of unity and mutual caring something all too conspicuous by its absence in this era of Bushian "faith-based" politics. These people are turning to their faith tradition to fight back and turning each other on with a way of doing it."-from News Dissector Blog.
black community that is leading it. As in the 1960's, it is based in the black
church, more specifically in the massive Mount Carmel Baptist Church here led by a white-bearded firebrand Bishop named C. Vernie Russell. He is leading a
liberation war against what one of his parishioners calls "the enemy" -debt.
He is doing it with debt liquidation revivals at which church members donate to
a fund that emancipates fellow church families from debt. They literally give
their money so that members of their community can buy their way out. Later, those freed fom personl debt are expected to destroy their credit cards, cut back on consumer binges and build the church and its mission. These revivals are working.
The Bishop's "praying off" debt movement has so far helped 75 families
eliminate $600,000 in debt. Its sparked a campaign that has freed over 450
families from $1.5 million in debt.
This may be but a drop in the bucket when set against nearly a TRILLION dollars in personal debts held by Americans, but it is a start.
Debt is the biggest economic crisis in America that threatens to explode in a
bubble bursting meltdown but both political parties are silent and in the pay
of the credit card companies. Theirs is a bi-partisan consensus against
reforming this ticking time bomb. Instead they are making matters worse with so -called "bankruptcy reform" that makes it hard for debtors to have a second
chance.
When you are in debt, you often feel ashamed depressed and alone. Not at Mount Carmel. Their services are alive with music, clapping, dancing and collective problem sharing. The anthem sung by the choir and repeated by the congregation in the call and response tradition of the Black Baptist church 'I need you and you need me.' It's an uplifting message of unity and mutual caring something all too conspicuous by its absence in this era of Bushian "faith-based" politics. These people are turning to their faith tradition to fight back and turning each other on with a way of doing it."-from News Dissector Blog.
What the Rovians Do
"Dean Chides Ehrlich for Staff Choice" reminds us about the Rethug playbook--attack a battle-scared veteran like Max Cleland and smear him as a terrorist sympathizer:
"Governor Ehrlich promised Marylanders that he would end the politics of division and personal attacks," Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said in a press release yesterday. "Instead of honoring this promise, he has hired Bo Harmon, who launched one of the most virulent and offensive political attacks against former Georgia Senator Max Cleland, a decorated war veteran and triple amputee who served his country valiantly in Vietnam."-from the story in the Washington Post.
"Raising Kane, The Voice of Virginia Progressives," has some additional commentary on the parallels between GOP campaigns in Maryland and Virginia.
If we don't fight them there, we will have to fight them here.
"Governor Ehrlich promised Marylanders that he would end the politics of division and personal attacks," Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said in a press release yesterday. "Instead of honoring this promise, he has hired Bo Harmon, who launched one of the most virulent and offensive political attacks against former Georgia Senator Max Cleland, a decorated war veteran and triple amputee who served his country valiantly in Vietnam."-from the story in the Washington Post.
"Raising Kane, The Voice of Virginia Progressives," has some additional commentary on the parallels between GOP campaigns in Maryland and Virginia.
If we don't fight them there, we will have to fight them here.
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
''Howard Dean: The Life of the Party''
"When I saw a headline quoting Gov. Dean saying the US could not win in Iraq I knew we would shortly be hearing all the usual noise and complaints about his latest "gaffe." Of course, I was reminded of his definition of a gaffe... "When you tell the truth and the people in Washington think you shouldn't have." Forgive me if I take a moment to smile at that.
You see, I don't care much what the people in Washington think. Like most of you, I live in the real world and I am not afraid of nor shocked by the truth. I'll let you in on a little secret... neither are my Republican and Independent neighbors. What we care about is whether the people in Washington are getting the job done. And let me tell you, Howard Dean, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, is getting the job done.
From the moment he started asking the question "What I want to know is..."
through the end if his Presidential campaign; from the formation of the Democracy for America PAC through his election as DNC Chair; from his promise to help rebuild the State Democratic Committees to his fulfilling that promise by having placed staff in every state; to this moment right now Gov. Dean has been in the trenches doing his part to take our country back.
What convinced me to back Gov. Dean for President was the common theme in his campaign to get people active and involved. As Gov. Dean says "Voting is the minimum requirement of citizenship in our democracy." When his campaign ended Gov. Dean immediately turned to his supporters and said, "Get involved locally. Run for office. Find a candidate to support. Fill a seat on your local Democratic Committee." He continues to say that everywhere he goes, in every speech he makes.
Like so many others I looked around me and saw an obvious opening. My town hadn't had a Democratic Committee in the 8 years I'd lived there. So I contacted people I met during the campaign and we formed a town committee. Last month we ran 2 candidates for Town Council and both of them won.
In a neighboring town another Dean supporter put together a Democratic slate made up of Democrats and Republicans working together. They won both Town
Council seats and the Town Supervisor position with a citizen oriented campaign against an entrenched Republican party.
In a county Judge election everyone said a Democrat could not win against the Republican bosses hand picked crony. We picked a former Town Judge and local Dean supporter to run. He is now the new Criminal Court Judge in Rensselaer County, NY. Gov. Dean deserves the credit for these victories. Our stories are not unique. It's happening all over the country. Gov. Dean inspired people when he said "You have the power." The results of us exercising that power began to show this past election day.
Gov. Dean's campaign featured the $100 Revolution. The idea was for 2 million average citizens to donate $100 each to match the $200 million of Bush's Pioneers and Rangers. Gov. Dean has turned the same idea Democracy Bonds and has had a major impact on the way that Democrats raise money. So far Gov. Dean's DNC has far exceeded it's previous fund raising efforts and cut deeply into the traditional Republican advantage.
In state after state, county after county, we see reinvigorated Democratic Committees driven by Dean supporters and members of the almost 600 local DFA groups spread out over all 50 states and now in three quarters of the congressional districts across the country. Members of DFA groups that are increasingly providing trained and experienced campaigners. State parties praise his help in raising sorely needed money and rebuild the party infrastructure. We hear candidate after candidate looking to Dean supporters and DFA groups for help in making their campaigns happen. While Howard Dean rebuilds the party from the top down his supporters are helping to rebuild it from the bottom up.
This past Nov. 2005 election cycle showed dramatic gains across the nation by Democrats. Often in places where Democrats never win. Even when we didn't win grassroots driven candidates like Christine Cegelis and Paul Hackett let the Republicans know that there are no safe seats for them anymore. Gov. Dean's 50 state strategy to challenge every Republican held seat is being brought to fruition by the people Gov. Dean continues to encourage to take an active role in our party. Here in New York we have serious challengers lining up for 7 of 9 Republican held Congressional seats. Most of them supported or encouraged by Dean and DFA members. I read recently about a DLC Democrat in Connecticut looking to Dean people for support.
Who is the life of the party? The answer is clear and it is Chairman Howard Dean and the Democratic voters that he has brought into the party. New life. New Blood. Fresh Horses. Big victories for Democrats.
Yet the media, Republicans and even some Democratic officials back away from Gov. Dean when he says things like "The US can't win the war in Iraq." Funny
thing is once again what he said was actually correct. The US cannot win in Iraq, only the Iraqi's can win the war in Iraq. And everyone agrees with that. It is only when we allow ourselves to get caught in Republican frames that we have to back away from the truth. Everyone agrees that victory in Iraq will be achieved when the Iraqi people achieve it. Hillary Clinton says so. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid say so. Jack Murtha, Rahm Emanuel and Chuck Schumer agree. George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and the United Nations agree! Even Joe Lieberman agrees. And most importantly the Iraqi people agree.
But that's our Howard. The life of the party. Directly because of Gov. Dean I am more encouraged then ever that we the Democratic Party will straighten out the mess the Republicans have made of America. I can see the evidence growing everyday of the rebuilding of our party and I can see in the desperate actions and words of the Republicans that they are afraid of you, afraid of us. Great Job Chairman Dean! Keep it up. We got your back.
Happy Holidays Howard!
Peace,
Andrew C. White"-from his diary on Kos.
You see, I don't care much what the people in Washington think. Like most of you, I live in the real world and I am not afraid of nor shocked by the truth. I'll let you in on a little secret... neither are my Republican and Independent neighbors. What we care about is whether the people in Washington are getting the job done. And let me tell you, Howard Dean, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, is getting the job done.
From the moment he started asking the question "What I want to know is..."
through the end if his Presidential campaign; from the formation of the Democracy for America PAC through his election as DNC Chair; from his promise to help rebuild the State Democratic Committees to his fulfilling that promise by having placed staff in every state; to this moment right now Gov. Dean has been in the trenches doing his part to take our country back.
What convinced me to back Gov. Dean for President was the common theme in his campaign to get people active and involved. As Gov. Dean says "Voting is the minimum requirement of citizenship in our democracy." When his campaign ended Gov. Dean immediately turned to his supporters and said, "Get involved locally. Run for office. Find a candidate to support. Fill a seat on your local Democratic Committee." He continues to say that everywhere he goes, in every speech he makes.
Like so many others I looked around me and saw an obvious opening. My town hadn't had a Democratic Committee in the 8 years I'd lived there. So I contacted people I met during the campaign and we formed a town committee. Last month we ran 2 candidates for Town Council and both of them won.
In a neighboring town another Dean supporter put together a Democratic slate made up of Democrats and Republicans working together. They won both Town
Council seats and the Town Supervisor position with a citizen oriented campaign against an entrenched Republican party.
In a county Judge election everyone said a Democrat could not win against the Republican bosses hand picked crony. We picked a former Town Judge and local Dean supporter to run. He is now the new Criminal Court Judge in Rensselaer County, NY. Gov. Dean deserves the credit for these victories. Our stories are not unique. It's happening all over the country. Gov. Dean inspired people when he said "You have the power." The results of us exercising that power began to show this past election day.
Gov. Dean's campaign featured the $100 Revolution. The idea was for 2 million average citizens to donate $100 each to match the $200 million of Bush's Pioneers and Rangers. Gov. Dean has turned the same idea Democracy Bonds and has had a major impact on the way that Democrats raise money. So far Gov. Dean's DNC has far exceeded it's previous fund raising efforts and cut deeply into the traditional Republican advantage.
In state after state, county after county, we see reinvigorated Democratic Committees driven by Dean supporters and members of the almost 600 local DFA groups spread out over all 50 states and now in three quarters of the congressional districts across the country. Members of DFA groups that are increasingly providing trained and experienced campaigners. State parties praise his help in raising sorely needed money and rebuild the party infrastructure. We hear candidate after candidate looking to Dean supporters and DFA groups for help in making their campaigns happen. While Howard Dean rebuilds the party from the top down his supporters are helping to rebuild it from the bottom up.
This past Nov. 2005 election cycle showed dramatic gains across the nation by Democrats. Often in places where Democrats never win. Even when we didn't win grassroots driven candidates like Christine Cegelis and Paul Hackett let the Republicans know that there are no safe seats for them anymore. Gov. Dean's 50 state strategy to challenge every Republican held seat is being brought to fruition by the people Gov. Dean continues to encourage to take an active role in our party. Here in New York we have serious challengers lining up for 7 of 9 Republican held Congressional seats. Most of them supported or encouraged by Dean and DFA members. I read recently about a DLC Democrat in Connecticut looking to Dean people for support.
Who is the life of the party? The answer is clear and it is Chairman Howard Dean and the Democratic voters that he has brought into the party. New life. New Blood. Fresh Horses. Big victories for Democrats.
Yet the media, Republicans and even some Democratic officials back away from Gov. Dean when he says things like "The US can't win the war in Iraq." Funny
thing is once again what he said was actually correct. The US cannot win in Iraq, only the Iraqi's can win the war in Iraq. And everyone agrees with that. It is only when we allow ourselves to get caught in Republican frames that we have to back away from the truth. Everyone agrees that victory in Iraq will be achieved when the Iraqi people achieve it. Hillary Clinton says so. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid say so. Jack Murtha, Rahm Emanuel and Chuck Schumer agree. George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and the United Nations agree! Even Joe Lieberman agrees. And most importantly the Iraqi people agree.
But that's our Howard. The life of the party. Directly because of Gov. Dean I am more encouraged then ever that we the Democratic Party will straighten out the mess the Republicans have made of America. I can see the evidence growing everyday of the rebuilding of our party and I can see in the desperate actions and words of the Republicans that they are afraid of you, afraid of us. Great Job Chairman Dean! Keep it up. We got your back.
Happy Holidays Howard!
Peace,
Andrew C. White"-from his diary on Kos.
''Bush is Bankrupt''-Vocabulary Lesson
Ever since Bill Gates' father worried out loud about the rovians putting the federal government hopelessly into the red, I couldn't stop thinking about the concept of bankruptcy. Then yesterday Bush makes a sarcastic comment (scroll down past the bullshit to the first question) that was intended to be funny, just seconds after answering a question about his estimate of the civilian death count in Iraq. Reading about it, I realized the word describes Bush's connection to our sense of morality, as well. This is obvious to everyone except the rovians and their base. Thanks to Sirotablog for the tip.
Cantwell Raises Her Profile on Iraq War
"Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., said Tuesday that she will travel to Iraq with three other senators to serve as an official election observer.
Cantwell will meet with troops from Washington state, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, U.S. military officers and high-ranking Iraqi officials during the three-day visit.
She left Tuesday for Iraq aboard a military aircraft from Andrews Air Force Base, accompanied by Sens. Joe Biden, D-Del.; Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; and Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.
The delegation will visit several polling places on Thursday, the final day of voting as Iraq elects a new parliament.
In statement before leaving, Cantwell said she was one of 79 senators calling for 2006 to be "a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty," with Iraqi forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq.
"The elections in Iraq are an important act of democracy and an initial milestone for independence," she said, adding that President Bush and Congress must do a better job "making sure that troops are trained, infrastructure is secured and the international community is engaged to help the new government that emerges on Thursday stand on its own two feet."
Cantwell, who voted in favor of the war in 2002 and has supported all measures to fund it, has drawn criticism from state Republicans, who accuse her of flip-flopping on the war.
Cantwell voted in favor of a Democratic amendment last month calling for a gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq."-from the AP.
Cantwell will meet with troops from Washington state, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, U.S. military officers and high-ranking Iraqi officials during the three-day visit.
She left Tuesday for Iraq aboard a military aircraft from Andrews Air Force Base, accompanied by Sens. Joe Biden, D-Del.; Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; and Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.
The delegation will visit several polling places on Thursday, the final day of voting as Iraq elects a new parliament.
In statement before leaving, Cantwell said she was one of 79 senators calling for 2006 to be "a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty," with Iraqi forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq.
"The elections in Iraq are an important act of democracy and an initial milestone for independence," she said, adding that President Bush and Congress must do a better job "making sure that troops are trained, infrastructure is secured and the international community is engaged to help the new government that emerges on Thursday stand on its own two feet."
Cantwell, who voted in favor of the war in 2002 and has supported all measures to fund it, has drawn criticism from state Republicans, who accuse her of flip-flopping on the war.
Cantwell voted in favor of a Democratic amendment last month calling for a gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq."-from the AP.
''Florida county dumps Diebold''
"Due to security design issues and contractual non-performance, Leon County (Florida) supervisor of elections Ion Sancho told Black Box Voting that he will never use Diebold in an election again. He has requested funds to replace the Diebold system from the county. He will issue a formal announcement to this effect shortly.
Finnish security expert Harri Hursti proved that Diebold lied to Secretaries of State across the nation when Diebold claimed votes could not be changed on the memory card.
A test election was run in Leon County today with a total of eight ballots - six ballots voted "no" on a ballot question as to whether Diebold voting machines can be hacked or not. Two ballots, cast by Dr. Herbert Thomson and by Harri Hursti voted "yes" indicating a belief that the Diebold machines could be hacked."-from Black Box Voting, via the Northwest Progressive Institute.
Finnish security expert Harri Hursti proved that Diebold lied to Secretaries of State across the nation when Diebold claimed votes could not be changed on the memory card.
A test election was run in Leon County today with a total of eight ballots - six ballots voted "no" on a ballot question as to whether Diebold voting machines can be hacked or not. Two ballots, cast by Dr. Herbert Thomson and by Harri Hursti voted "yes" indicating a belief that the Diebold machines could be hacked."-from Black Box Voting, via the Northwest Progressive Institute.
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
''Senate Dems turn to Reed on Iraq''
"As several Democratic presidential contenders posture and vie for attention, Senate Democratic leaders increasingly are turning to one of their less-visible colleagues, Jack Reed, to represent caucus views on Iraq.
Reed, Rhode Island’s senior senator, has appeared at several recent press events on Iraq, including one at which Minority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.); Carl Levin (Mich.), the top-ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee; and Reed released a letter calling on President Bush to give a more-detailed plan for success in Iraq.
On Saturday, he delivered the Democrats’ response to Bush’s weekly radio address.
“The American people are eager to hear the president’s plan for success in Iraq, rebuilding the country and bringing our troops home,” Reed said, according to a copy of his prepared remarks. “Instead, the president continues to offer vague generalities and rhetoric with no specifics about what needs to be done and the time and resources necessary to accomplish it.”
Reed, 56, who graduated from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, commanded an 82nd Airborne company and qualified as an Army Ranger in the early ’70s. He is quick to point out, as he did in a 2004 floor speech praising then-Sen. Max Cleland (D-Ga.), a disabled veteran, that he did not see combat during his time in the Army.
But Democrats say his mix of military background, dedication to policy and lack of any obvious ambition for higher office lend credibility to his arguments on Iraq. It is a combination that sharply contrasts with the personas of many Democrats who have chosen to engage in the debate over the war.
Reed “has a very balanced and thoughtful approach,” Levin said. “He really gets inside issues.”
Senate Democratic leaders have had difficulty, at times, breaking through the cacophony in their own caucus to display unity on Iraq.
As Senate Democrats sought to articulate a consensus position last week, Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), a colleague of Reed’s on the Armed Services Committee, reiterated his support for the president’s mission in Iraq while Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean predicted that the war could not be won.
Lieberman’s positioning as a Democratic hawk earned him twin profiles over the weekend in The Washington Post and The New York Times. An examination of the centrist path navigated by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), another colleague of Reed’s on the Armed Services Committee, landed on the Post’s front page Monday.
Sen. John Kerry (Mass.), the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, has been so eager to remain his party’s standard-bearer that a recent Reed response to a Bush speech became a Kerry-Reed event.
There is a dizzying array of Democratic positions on the Iraq issue. Rep. John Murtha’s (D-Pa.) very public and controversial call for a redeployment to move American forces out of Iraq has earned him plenty of press. Others have called for a slower withdrawal.
Though Reed disagrees with some of his colleagues on the idea of setting a specific timetable for withdrawal, he is not quick to criticize them. That is consistent with his demeanor in hearings, where he has been known to pressure witnesses without seeking to embarrass them.
“He makes his point, but he’s not terribly combative,” one Democratic aide said.
Reed’s serious and straightforward style may have kept him out of the spotlight in the past.
“Jack who?” a GOP leadership aide said when asked about his more prominent role in Democratic news conferences.
But Reed’s star is rising in his caucus. He ranks fifth out of 11 Democrats on the Armed Services Committee and is seen as a possible future chairman. Only Levin, Robert Byrd (W.Va.), Edward Kennedy (Mass.) and Lieberman outrank him on the panel. Reed briefly served on the Appropriations Committee and could return if the Democratic contingent expands in the future.
Reed has carved out a niche on housing and transit issues as a member of the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, where he is the top Democrat on the Housing and Transportation Subcommittee.
He also serves on the Joint Economic Committee, a complex, policy-heavy panel that attracts very few headlines even inside the Beltway.
As a graduate of West Point, Reed retains strong ties to the institution, including occupying one of several congressional seats on the school’s Board of Visitors.
Though Reed has long been active on military issues, this year Democratic leaders sought his assistance in delivering a party message on Iraq.
“He’s an effective, articulate spokesman who can draw on a wealth of experience to help Democrats talk about their views on the war,” said Reid spokesman Jim Manley.
In typically understated fashion, Reed acknowledged that Reid had asked him to be a little more visible.
“Experience and interest combined to give me some insights,” he said.-from The Hill.
Reed, Rhode Island’s senior senator, has appeared at several recent press events on Iraq, including one at which Minority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.); Carl Levin (Mich.), the top-ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee; and Reed released a letter calling on President Bush to give a more-detailed plan for success in Iraq.
On Saturday, he delivered the Democrats’ response to Bush’s weekly radio address.
“The American people are eager to hear the president’s plan for success in Iraq, rebuilding the country and bringing our troops home,” Reed said, according to a copy of his prepared remarks. “Instead, the president continues to offer vague generalities and rhetoric with no specifics about what needs to be done and the time and resources necessary to accomplish it.”
Reed, 56, who graduated from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, commanded an 82nd Airborne company and qualified as an Army Ranger in the early ’70s. He is quick to point out, as he did in a 2004 floor speech praising then-Sen. Max Cleland (D-Ga.), a disabled veteran, that he did not see combat during his time in the Army.
But Democrats say his mix of military background, dedication to policy and lack of any obvious ambition for higher office lend credibility to his arguments on Iraq. It is a combination that sharply contrasts with the personas of many Democrats who have chosen to engage in the debate over the war.
Reed “has a very balanced and thoughtful approach,” Levin said. “He really gets inside issues.”
Senate Democratic leaders have had difficulty, at times, breaking through the cacophony in their own caucus to display unity on Iraq.
As Senate Democrats sought to articulate a consensus position last week, Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), a colleague of Reed’s on the Armed Services Committee, reiterated his support for the president’s mission in Iraq while Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean predicted that the war could not be won.
Lieberman’s positioning as a Democratic hawk earned him twin profiles over the weekend in The Washington Post and The New York Times. An examination of the centrist path navigated by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), another colleague of Reed’s on the Armed Services Committee, landed on the Post’s front page Monday.
Sen. John Kerry (Mass.), the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, has been so eager to remain his party’s standard-bearer that a recent Reed response to a Bush speech became a Kerry-Reed event.
There is a dizzying array of Democratic positions on the Iraq issue. Rep. John Murtha’s (D-Pa.) very public and controversial call for a redeployment to move American forces out of Iraq has earned him plenty of press. Others have called for a slower withdrawal.
Though Reed disagrees with some of his colleagues on the idea of setting a specific timetable for withdrawal, he is not quick to criticize them. That is consistent with his demeanor in hearings, where he has been known to pressure witnesses without seeking to embarrass them.
“He makes his point, but he’s not terribly combative,” one Democratic aide said.
Reed’s serious and straightforward style may have kept him out of the spotlight in the past.
“Jack who?” a GOP leadership aide said when asked about his more prominent role in Democratic news conferences.
But Reed’s star is rising in his caucus. He ranks fifth out of 11 Democrats on the Armed Services Committee and is seen as a possible future chairman. Only Levin, Robert Byrd (W.Va.), Edward Kennedy (Mass.) and Lieberman outrank him on the panel. Reed briefly served on the Appropriations Committee and could return if the Democratic contingent expands in the future.
Reed has carved out a niche on housing and transit issues as a member of the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, where he is the top Democrat on the Housing and Transportation Subcommittee.
He also serves on the Joint Economic Committee, a complex, policy-heavy panel that attracts very few headlines even inside the Beltway.
As a graduate of West Point, Reed retains strong ties to the institution, including occupying one of several congressional seats on the school’s Board of Visitors.
Though Reed has long been active on military issues, this year Democratic leaders sought his assistance in delivering a party message on Iraq.
“He’s an effective, articulate spokesman who can draw on a wealth of experience to help Democrats talk about their views on the war,” said Reid spokesman Jim Manley.
In typically understated fashion, Reed acknowledged that Reid had asked him to be a little more visible.
“Experience and interest combined to give me some insights,” he said.-from The Hill.
''Dem vice-chair campaign picks up''
"The three candidates vying to become the next vice chair of the House Democratic caucus kicked their campaigns into full gear late last week following news that Rep. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), the current caucus chair, would be appointed to the Senate.
The news came after a week of soul-searching among Democrats on the war in Iraq and Rep. John Murtha’s (D-Pa.) controversial proposal to redeploy troops as soon as possible.
Although sources said that divisions over the Murtha plan and the appropriate course of action in Iraq are likely to play only a minor role in the leadership contest, the race comes at a pivotal time for the caucus.
Two of the candidates, Reps. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and John Larson (D-Conn.), have been longtime critics of the war, having voted with Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) in opposition to the original 2002 resolution authorizing military force. A third candidate, Rep. Joe Crowley (D-N.Y.), voted with the many moderates, including Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), in backing the resolution.
Similar differences have arisen with Murtha’s proposal. Schakowsky, Larson and Pelosi are backing it, while Crowley, Hoyer and others have yet to be convinced, although they have thanked Murtha for fostering the debate. Crowley is an early co-sponsor of House Joint Resolution 55, which calls on the administration to come up with a timetable for withdrawal.
Heading into a closed-door meeting of House Democrats last week, Murtha buttonholed Crowley, advising him to “tell your friend Hoyer” to stop stirring up trouble, House sources said. The Washington Post had reported that morning that Hoyer and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) had urged Pelosi a week earlier not to publicly back Murtha’s plan on the grounds that it would harm Democrats’ election hopes. She announced her support anyway.
Murtha went on to give an impassioned speech before the caucus castigating Democrats who disparaged other Democrats’ proposals and asserting that his plan was about “saving lives” not politics.
“He was nearly screaming when he said it,” recalled a House Democratic aide who was present at the meeting. “He was looking right at Hoyer, and a few times he looked over at Rahm.”
Crowley said his encounter with Murtha was not hostile.
“Jack and I, we have a good, fun relationship. He and I burst into laughter just moments after that,” Crowley said. “I’m my own person. No one individual pulls my strings. I pull my own strings. The reality is Jack has been an inspiration to our caucus. He has helped to move our caucus forward in this debate.”
Murtha has been receptive to an invitation by Crowley to appear at Madison Square Garden in February.
Murtha has been a strong supporter of Larson in the vice chair race, although with Larson trailing in the number of public backers — Larson has 18, Crowley 52 and Schakowsky 46 — some observers have contemplated whom Larson’s supporters will back in a potential runoff.
Asked to about his comments to Crowley, Murtha said only that he and Crowley enjoyed a friendship.
Murtha noted that his harsh comments to the caucus were designed to keep members focused on the substance of his proposal.
“What I don’t like to see is distraction from the substance,” he said. “I’m trying to save lives. It’s not some policy to win back the House. That’s not my mission. I was very upset that we’re distracting from the substance.”
The vice chair election will most likely take place the week of January 31, sources said, although the candidates have yet to meet with Democratic leaders to finalize those plans. Leaders are aiming to resolve the contest before a planned Democratic caucus retreat Feb 2-4.
Crowley sent a letter Thursday to undecided members of the caucus, touting his role in the Democrats’ whip operation, his work electing House Democrats in New York, his fundraising ability, and the perspective he gained having an immigrant parent and a racially diverse district.
“I will take the lessons I have learned of inclusiveness, pro-activeness, and base-building to our broader Democratic caucus,” Crowley wrote.
In addition to supporting Joint Resolution 55, Crowley proposed an amendment to last year’s State Department reauthorization bill that called for a plan for success in Iraq. Crowley is a member of the International Relations Committee.
Schakowsky was also communicating with her colleagues in the wake of the Menendez announcement.
“We are really activating our whip team in a significant way,” she said. “A lot of people were waiting for the race to happen, saying ‘Let’s wait and see.’ Now that there’s a race, we have to ask in a very different way for people to make a decision.”
Schakowsky wrote to her colleagues yesterday, stressing her experience in grassroots organizing, her support of vulnerable Democratic incumbents and promising challengers, her “passion for Democratic principles and values,” and her industry.
“I can assure you that no one will outwork me when it comes to putting in the time and industry for the caucus,” she wrote.
Schakowsky also made mention of the potential for a second round of balloting in race between the two top finishers from the first round.
“If you are committed to [Crowley or Larson], I hope you will consider supporting me on a second round of voting, should it occur,” she wrote.
Schakowsky’s campaign chairman, Rep. Jerry Costello (D-Ill.), also wrote to colleagues yesterday, sounding many of the same themes.
“Jan is a tireless worker who is more interested in winning than grabbing headlines for herself,” Costello wrote.
Larson’s leadership team met last week and is scheduled to meet again today.
“This week is vitally important because it’s time to spend the last bit of face time with colleagues,” Larson said. “We’ll be meeting daily throughout this week.”
Murtha and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), who are heading up Larson’s campaign team, are sending letters to colleagues this week, although in keeping with the secrecy of Larson’s campaign thus far, he declined to make the letters available.
“Jim Clyburn never published a name,” Larson said, referring to the current caucus vice chair. “That’s the strategy that we adopted.” Larson said he did not believe the Iraq debate would play a role in the caucus race.
“I don’t think this race is based so much on any issue. It’s about what you can do to enhance caucus’s ability to be in the majority and what you can do to help members personally and politically,” Larson noted."-from The Hill, tipped by the post on Sirotablog, "Murtha Calls Out Weak-Kneed Democrats."
The news came after a week of soul-searching among Democrats on the war in Iraq and Rep. John Murtha’s (D-Pa.) controversial proposal to redeploy troops as soon as possible.
Although sources said that divisions over the Murtha plan and the appropriate course of action in Iraq are likely to play only a minor role in the leadership contest, the race comes at a pivotal time for the caucus.
Two of the candidates, Reps. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and John Larson (D-Conn.), have been longtime critics of the war, having voted with Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) in opposition to the original 2002 resolution authorizing military force. A third candidate, Rep. Joe Crowley (D-N.Y.), voted with the many moderates, including Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), in backing the resolution.
Similar differences have arisen with Murtha’s proposal. Schakowsky, Larson and Pelosi are backing it, while Crowley, Hoyer and others have yet to be convinced, although they have thanked Murtha for fostering the debate. Crowley is an early co-sponsor of House Joint Resolution 55, which calls on the administration to come up with a timetable for withdrawal.
Heading into a closed-door meeting of House Democrats last week, Murtha buttonholed Crowley, advising him to “tell your friend Hoyer” to stop stirring up trouble, House sources said. The Washington Post had reported that morning that Hoyer and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) had urged Pelosi a week earlier not to publicly back Murtha’s plan on the grounds that it would harm Democrats’ election hopes. She announced her support anyway.
Murtha went on to give an impassioned speech before the caucus castigating Democrats who disparaged other Democrats’ proposals and asserting that his plan was about “saving lives” not politics.
“He was nearly screaming when he said it,” recalled a House Democratic aide who was present at the meeting. “He was looking right at Hoyer, and a few times he looked over at Rahm.”
Crowley said his encounter with Murtha was not hostile.
“Jack and I, we have a good, fun relationship. He and I burst into laughter just moments after that,” Crowley said. “I’m my own person. No one individual pulls my strings. I pull my own strings. The reality is Jack has been an inspiration to our caucus. He has helped to move our caucus forward in this debate.”
Murtha has been receptive to an invitation by Crowley to appear at Madison Square Garden in February.
Murtha has been a strong supporter of Larson in the vice chair race, although with Larson trailing in the number of public backers — Larson has 18, Crowley 52 and Schakowsky 46 — some observers have contemplated whom Larson’s supporters will back in a potential runoff.
Asked to about his comments to Crowley, Murtha said only that he and Crowley enjoyed a friendship.
Murtha noted that his harsh comments to the caucus were designed to keep members focused on the substance of his proposal.
“What I don’t like to see is distraction from the substance,” he said. “I’m trying to save lives. It’s not some policy to win back the House. That’s not my mission. I was very upset that we’re distracting from the substance.”
The vice chair election will most likely take place the week of January 31, sources said, although the candidates have yet to meet with Democratic leaders to finalize those plans. Leaders are aiming to resolve the contest before a planned Democratic caucus retreat Feb 2-4.
Crowley sent a letter Thursday to undecided members of the caucus, touting his role in the Democrats’ whip operation, his work electing House Democrats in New York, his fundraising ability, and the perspective he gained having an immigrant parent and a racially diverse district.
“I will take the lessons I have learned of inclusiveness, pro-activeness, and base-building to our broader Democratic caucus,” Crowley wrote.
In addition to supporting Joint Resolution 55, Crowley proposed an amendment to last year’s State Department reauthorization bill that called for a plan for success in Iraq. Crowley is a member of the International Relations Committee.
Schakowsky was also communicating with her colleagues in the wake of the Menendez announcement.
“We are really activating our whip team in a significant way,” she said. “A lot of people were waiting for the race to happen, saying ‘Let’s wait and see.’ Now that there’s a race, we have to ask in a very different way for people to make a decision.”
Schakowsky wrote to her colleagues yesterday, stressing her experience in grassroots organizing, her support of vulnerable Democratic incumbents and promising challengers, her “passion for Democratic principles and values,” and her industry.
“I can assure you that no one will outwork me when it comes to putting in the time and industry for the caucus,” she wrote.
Schakowsky also made mention of the potential for a second round of balloting in race between the two top finishers from the first round.
“If you are committed to [Crowley or Larson], I hope you will consider supporting me on a second round of voting, should it occur,” she wrote.
Schakowsky’s campaign chairman, Rep. Jerry Costello (D-Ill.), also wrote to colleagues yesterday, sounding many of the same themes.
“Jan is a tireless worker who is more interested in winning than grabbing headlines for herself,” Costello wrote.
Larson’s leadership team met last week and is scheduled to meet again today.
“This week is vitally important because it’s time to spend the last bit of face time with colleagues,” Larson said. “We’ll be meeting daily throughout this week.”
Murtha and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), who are heading up Larson’s campaign team, are sending letters to colleagues this week, although in keeping with the secrecy of Larson’s campaign thus far, he declined to make the letters available.
“Jim Clyburn never published a name,” Larson said, referring to the current caucus vice chair. “That’s the strategy that we adopted.” Larson said he did not believe the Iraq debate would play a role in the caucus race.
“I don’t think this race is based so much on any issue. It’s about what you can do to enhance caucus’s ability to be in the majority and what you can do to help members personally and politically,” Larson noted."-from The Hill, tipped by the post on Sirotablog, "Murtha Calls Out Weak-Kneed Democrats."
''Dear Howard Dean: Why Bother?'' (UPDATED)
This is a question that deserves an answer.
"If by “victory” is meant a majority vote cast at the polls, then the Democrats achieved “victory” in 2000, 2002 and 2004. And yet, the Republicans remain in control of the Congress and the White House.
Small wonder! Republicans build the voting machines, Republicans write the secret software, Republicans count and compile the totals. The Republican machines allow no auditing of the vote totals they report. So Republicans have the ability to “win” elections, regardless of the will of the voters. There is compelling evidence that they have done just that.
And so, if nothing is done to end the privatization of our elections and to introduce reliable verification, the Republicans will "win" again in November 2006 and then in 2008. Today, eleven months before the mid-term election, the outcome is fore-ordained – as certain as Soviet elections under Stalin, and Iraqi elections under Saddam. For, as Stalin said, "Those who cast the votes decide nothing, those who count the votes decide everything.”
In the United States today, the GOP counts most of the votes, and there are no means to verify up to 80% of those votes.
In view of this dreadful situation, when the Democrats ask me for a contribution I must reply: “What’s the point? It’s already been settled! What remains is an empty charade.”-excerpted from Ernest Partridge on The Crisis Papers, via The Smirking Chimp. Update: "Diebold CEO resigns after reports of fraud litigation, internal woes."-from RAW STORY.
"If by “victory” is meant a majority vote cast at the polls, then the Democrats achieved “victory” in 2000, 2002 and 2004. And yet, the Republicans remain in control of the Congress and the White House.
Small wonder! Republicans build the voting machines, Republicans write the secret software, Republicans count and compile the totals. The Republican machines allow no auditing of the vote totals they report. So Republicans have the ability to “win” elections, regardless of the will of the voters. There is compelling evidence that they have done just that.
And so, if nothing is done to end the privatization of our elections and to introduce reliable verification, the Republicans will "win" again in November 2006 and then in 2008. Today, eleven months before the mid-term election, the outcome is fore-ordained – as certain as Soviet elections under Stalin, and Iraqi elections under Saddam. For, as Stalin said, "Those who cast the votes decide nothing, those who count the votes decide everything.”
In the United States today, the GOP counts most of the votes, and there are no means to verify up to 80% of those votes.
In view of this dreadful situation, when the Democrats ask me for a contribution I must reply: “What’s the point? It’s already been settled! What remains is an empty charade.”-excerpted from Ernest Partridge on The Crisis Papers, via The Smirking Chimp. Update: "Diebold CEO resigns after reports of fraud litigation, internal woes."-from RAW STORY.
QUOTE OF THE DAY
"The Democrats need to realize that Bush is so far gone on Iraq, he’s not going to allow himself to be driven by what’s good for the GOP (which also happens to be what’s good for the country). So they’ve got to stop waiting for Bush to do the political math, and start offering their full-throated support to Jack Murtha.
And Republicans, particularly those concerned about getting their clocks cleaned in ’06, need to take a page from the Watergate years, and send a delegation of party leaders -- pick those not currently under indictment -- up to the White House to tell the president that the jig is up. In 1974, GOP leaders, including Barry Goldwater and Hugh Scott, convinced Nixon that it was time for him to get out of Washington. The question is, will anyone be able to convince George Bush that it’s time for us to get out of Iraq?"-Arianna Huffington on The Huffington Post. Arianna is the ex-wife of a Republican ex-Member of Congress, but I'm not sure they're going to follow her advice.
And Republicans, particularly those concerned about getting their clocks cleaned in ’06, need to take a page from the Watergate years, and send a delegation of party leaders -- pick those not currently under indictment -- up to the White House to tell the president that the jig is up. In 1974, GOP leaders, including Barry Goldwater and Hugh Scott, convinced Nixon that it was time for him to get out of Washington. The question is, will anyone be able to convince George Bush that it’s time for us to get out of Iraq?"-Arianna Huffington on The Huffington Post. Arianna is the ex-wife of a Republican ex-Member of Congress, but I'm not sure they're going to follow her advice.
''If Democrats only had some courage''
"It's about time that the "me too" Democrats, particularly those in Congress who vote with the Republicans so often, stand up and be counted.
Too many Democrats are tiptoeing around the major issues facing our nation, afraid to venture out of the mainstream. This is a big mistake at a time when the nation is begging for true leadership.
Democrats with the courage to be leaders could have a field day pointing out that millions of Americans lack health insurance and that 37 million have fallen below the poverty line. Soon they will no longer be able to claim that theirs is a caring political party because they won't have evidence that this is true.
Take, for example, the case of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.
Instead of endorsing universal health care -- a topic that she knows a lot about -- Clinton is busy co-sponsoring with Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah, a law to bar desecration of the flag. Has anyone burned a flag lately?
Clinton is a leading contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, which might explain why she's busy pandering to conservatives instead of staking out a leadership role on more important issues.
The Democrats' lack of political courage has left voters with the choice of Republicans who call themselves that -- and Republicans who call themselves Democrats. The result: The GOP gets a free ride.
President Bush has been weakened this year and the allegations of corruption among GOP leadership have hurt the party.
Democrats have a golden opportunity to hammer away at the mistakes made by the Bush administration and to support Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who has made a dramatic and courageous call for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq within six months.
Murtha's House and Senate colleagues should rush to embrace him. Instead, many of them have scattered to the winds, carefully parsing out distinctions that they claim prove that they're not like Murtha. The Pennsylvania Democrat is a newly minted dove. He was in the Marine Corps for 37 years and had such close ties to the Pentagon brass that some believe he is speaking for many of them in his call to end the war in Iraq.
Murtha argues that we will confront less terrorism if the United States ends its occupation of Iraq. He also frets that the U.S. military will be caught in an Iraqi civil war if it stays behind.
To the alarm of the right-leaning Democrats, Murtha has been joined by House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who has endorsed his plan for a pullout from Iraq within six months. But most House Democrats are taking their marching orders from Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and Rep. Steny H. Hoyer, D-Md., the second-ranking House Democratic leader, who believe in a go-slow strategy.
It was sad to see Emanuel and his cohorts fail to endorse Murtha. Despite the realization that Congress was sold a bill of goods in endorsing the war, the Emanuel-led Democrats fled when Murtha took a strong stand.
They also put a damper on Howard Dean after he said on Monday that "the idea we're going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong."
White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Dean was advocating the United States "should cut and run and retreat."
Dean changed his tune on Thursday and proposed a "strategic redeployment" of the 160,000 U.S. troops in Iraq over two years. It's possible to imagine the twist marks on his arms, left there by timid Democrats.
On the domestic side, the Democrats should put on a well-lighted marquee the fact that the Republican-controlled Congress plans to save $50 billion over five years by cutting food stamps, student loans and by slapping new fees on Medicaid recipients and reducing child support enforcement. So much for compassionate conservativism.
At the same time, the House on Thursday passed tax cuts totaling $95 billion, sending a clear message that the budget deficits will continue to grow.
The Democrats should learn from the Cowardly Lion's story in the "The Wizard of Oz." The King of Beasts wanted courage and lamented:
"Life is sad, believe me Missy,
When you're born to be a sissy
Without the vim and verve."
There's still time for a courage transplant before the next elections."-Helen Thomas, in her syndicated column. You may also want to know that Ms. Thomas is "on the record" regarding our President's place in history: "GWB Is Worst President in American history," January 23, 2003. Thanks to floridagal on Booman Tribune for the wake-up call. She also quotes E. J. Dionne at length.
Too many Democrats are tiptoeing around the major issues facing our nation, afraid to venture out of the mainstream. This is a big mistake at a time when the nation is begging for true leadership.
Democrats with the courage to be leaders could have a field day pointing out that millions of Americans lack health insurance and that 37 million have fallen below the poverty line. Soon they will no longer be able to claim that theirs is a caring political party because they won't have evidence that this is true.
Take, for example, the case of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.
Instead of endorsing universal health care -- a topic that she knows a lot about -- Clinton is busy co-sponsoring with Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah, a law to bar desecration of the flag. Has anyone burned a flag lately?
Clinton is a leading contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, which might explain why she's busy pandering to conservatives instead of staking out a leadership role on more important issues.
The Democrats' lack of political courage has left voters with the choice of Republicans who call themselves that -- and Republicans who call themselves Democrats. The result: The GOP gets a free ride.
President Bush has been weakened this year and the allegations of corruption among GOP leadership have hurt the party.
Democrats have a golden opportunity to hammer away at the mistakes made by the Bush administration and to support Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who has made a dramatic and courageous call for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq within six months.
Murtha's House and Senate colleagues should rush to embrace him. Instead, many of them have scattered to the winds, carefully parsing out distinctions that they claim prove that they're not like Murtha. The Pennsylvania Democrat is a newly minted dove. He was in the Marine Corps for 37 years and had such close ties to the Pentagon brass that some believe he is speaking for many of them in his call to end the war in Iraq.
Murtha argues that we will confront less terrorism if the United States ends its occupation of Iraq. He also frets that the U.S. military will be caught in an Iraqi civil war if it stays behind.
To the alarm of the right-leaning Democrats, Murtha has been joined by House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who has endorsed his plan for a pullout from Iraq within six months. But most House Democrats are taking their marching orders from Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and Rep. Steny H. Hoyer, D-Md., the second-ranking House Democratic leader, who believe in a go-slow strategy.
It was sad to see Emanuel and his cohorts fail to endorse Murtha. Despite the realization that Congress was sold a bill of goods in endorsing the war, the Emanuel-led Democrats fled when Murtha took a strong stand.
They also put a damper on Howard Dean after he said on Monday that "the idea we're going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong."
White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Dean was advocating the United States "should cut and run and retreat."
Dean changed his tune on Thursday and proposed a "strategic redeployment" of the 160,000 U.S. troops in Iraq over two years. It's possible to imagine the twist marks on his arms, left there by timid Democrats.
On the domestic side, the Democrats should put on a well-lighted marquee the fact that the Republican-controlled Congress plans to save $50 billion over five years by cutting food stamps, student loans and by slapping new fees on Medicaid recipients and reducing child support enforcement. So much for compassionate conservativism.
At the same time, the House on Thursday passed tax cuts totaling $95 billion, sending a clear message that the budget deficits will continue to grow.
The Democrats should learn from the Cowardly Lion's story in the "The Wizard of Oz." The King of Beasts wanted courage and lamented:
"Life is sad, believe me Missy,
When you're born to be a sissy
Without the vim and verve."
There's still time for a courage transplant before the next elections."-Helen Thomas, in her syndicated column. You may also want to know that Ms. Thomas is "on the record" regarding our President's place in history: "GWB Is Worst President in American history," January 23, 2003. Thanks to floridagal on Booman Tribune for the wake-up call. She also quotes E. J. Dionne at length.
Monday, December 12, 2005
''Meet the Truth Squad''
Blogosphere meets MSM in the LA Times. Thanks to firedoglake for the tip on their post, "Crooks & Liars Goes Bigtime." Attention George Clooney fans: there's a photo.
''Fixing The Patriot Act''-Russ Feingold
"To start, I want to go back briefly to what happened in 2001 during the Patriot Act debate. I was the only Senator to vote against the Patriot Act, but I wasn't the only one back then who worried that some parts of the Patriot Act went too far. For one thing, the three amendments I offered on the floor got between 7 and 13 votes each! But more importantly, to help convince people to support the bill, the House and Senate negotiators who hammered out the final package created a four-year "sunset" for sixteen of the provisions that expanded the government's surveillance powers. They did this over the strong objection of the Administration, which wanted to take advantage of the immediate post-9/11 atmosphere to make permanent changes to the law.
Some of the sixteen provisions set to expire at the end of this year are really not problematic, but some surveillance sections not subject to the sunset are highly contentious. Those of us in Congress who want to make changes to the Patriot Act have now focused on the most critical issues, some that sunset and some that don't, and several of which were the very issues I was raising on the Senate floor back in 2001.
Often proponents of the Patriot Act respond to critics by pointing to non-controversial provisions that I support, like those that helped to facilitate information sharing between law enforcement and intelligence agents as proof of why the Patriot Act is so valuable. I agree that the Patriot Act contains important provisions, and no one is arguing that they should be allowed to expire or even that they should be subject to a new sunset provision.
Just this past summer, we worked hard in the Senate Judiciary Committee to hammer out a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the expiring provisions of the Patriot Act, while including new protections against government overreaching. We passed that bill unanimously in the Committee, and the full Senate adopted it without debate. That was an extraordinary result, and it gave me real hope that we had turned a corner on this issue and that people of good will could put aside political posturing and go about the serious business of protecting our national security and our constitutional freedoms at the same time. But we have to remember that the Senate bill was itself a compromise. It is not the bill that I and the other bipartisan sponsors of the SAFE Act would have written. But we accepted it because we felt it addressed some of our major concerns in a reasonable way.
Unfortunately, the House passed a very different bill and the Patriot Act conference report that was announced last week after the House and Senate conferees met doesn't do enough to protect the rights and liberties we all hold dear. None of the Democratic conferees signed the report. They deserve great credit for that. In addition, I'm very proud to be working closely with five of my colleagues, three Republicans and two other Democrats, to stop a conference report that doesn't make the changes to the Patriot Act that we believe are critical and justified.
I will do everything I can to prevent this bad conference report from going forward. But no one is trying to force the Patriot Act to expire. The President could sign Patriot Act reauthorization legislation into law tomorrow if the House would just take up and pass the compromise Senate bill that was approved unanimously in the Senate earlier this year - a bill that includes important and reasonable privacy protections. This isn't about stopping Patriot Act reauthorization, it's about getting it right this time around.
So, what happens next? The way things stand right now, it looks like the House will take a vote on the conference report on Tuesday or Wednesday of this week, and then it will come over to the Senate. That's when things could get very interesting.
Sorry for the long initial post, but I wanted to make sure that that everyone has the background and context to follow the show this week. Of course, if I'm busy on the floor, I may not be able to post here as often as I would like, but I will follow your comments and try to keep you up to date on the latest developments.
I'm looking forward to hearing from everyone on this and other issues this week."-Sen. Russ Feingold on TPMCafe.
U.S. Senators, as you may know, tend to be long-winded. Some of things I learned from this post: It is hard to get your hands on a copy of the legislation being proposed. It appears that there are some "secret laws" on the books. Feingold never tells us what the objectionable provisions are.
Some of the sixteen provisions set to expire at the end of this year are really not problematic, but some surveillance sections not subject to the sunset are highly contentious. Those of us in Congress who want to make changes to the Patriot Act have now focused on the most critical issues, some that sunset and some that don't, and several of which were the very issues I was raising on the Senate floor back in 2001.
Often proponents of the Patriot Act respond to critics by pointing to non-controversial provisions that I support, like those that helped to facilitate information sharing between law enforcement and intelligence agents as proof of why the Patriot Act is so valuable. I agree that the Patriot Act contains important provisions, and no one is arguing that they should be allowed to expire or even that they should be subject to a new sunset provision.
Just this past summer, we worked hard in the Senate Judiciary Committee to hammer out a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the expiring provisions of the Patriot Act, while including new protections against government overreaching. We passed that bill unanimously in the Committee, and the full Senate adopted it without debate. That was an extraordinary result, and it gave me real hope that we had turned a corner on this issue and that people of good will could put aside political posturing and go about the serious business of protecting our national security and our constitutional freedoms at the same time. But we have to remember that the Senate bill was itself a compromise. It is not the bill that I and the other bipartisan sponsors of the SAFE Act would have written. But we accepted it because we felt it addressed some of our major concerns in a reasonable way.
Unfortunately, the House passed a very different bill and the Patriot Act conference report that was announced last week after the House and Senate conferees met doesn't do enough to protect the rights and liberties we all hold dear. None of the Democratic conferees signed the report. They deserve great credit for that. In addition, I'm very proud to be working closely with five of my colleagues, three Republicans and two other Democrats, to stop a conference report that doesn't make the changes to the Patriot Act that we believe are critical and justified.
I will do everything I can to prevent this bad conference report from going forward. But no one is trying to force the Patriot Act to expire. The President could sign Patriot Act reauthorization legislation into law tomorrow if the House would just take up and pass the compromise Senate bill that was approved unanimously in the Senate earlier this year - a bill that includes important and reasonable privacy protections. This isn't about stopping Patriot Act reauthorization, it's about getting it right this time around.
So, what happens next? The way things stand right now, it looks like the House will take a vote on the conference report on Tuesday or Wednesday of this week, and then it will come over to the Senate. That's when things could get very interesting.
Sorry for the long initial post, but I wanted to make sure that that everyone has the background and context to follow the show this week. Of course, if I'm busy on the floor, I may not be able to post here as often as I would like, but I will follow your comments and try to keep you up to date on the latest developments.
I'm looking forward to hearing from everyone on this and other issues this week."-Sen. Russ Feingold on TPMCafe.
U.S. Senators, as you may know, tend to be long-winded. Some of things I learned from this post: It is hard to get your hands on a copy of the legislation being proposed. It appears that there are some "secret laws" on the books. Feingold never tells us what the objectionable provisions are.
''Gregoire works on bulldog image''
"Gov. Christine Gregoire, a tough, battle-scarred lawyer, earned her stripes brawling with Big Tobacco and other political tigers.
But some of her advisers and top aides, armed with results from four focus groups with voters last month, want to begin softening the aggressive image that helped put her on the map.
Gregoire rejects the notion that she needs a full-blown “makeover,” but she and her communications team readily acknowledge that the governor’s office needs to do a better job of promoting her accomplishments and presenting her softer side.
So far, the changes are subtle, and not full-fledged rebranding.
The office has re-christened the governor “Chris” in her news releases — her nickname rather than the more formal “Christine” she’s used during her decades in public life. They’re making liberal use of her folksy husband Mike, two overachieving daughters, and even the first dog, Franz, who now has his own wine label.
The governor and first gentleman dressed up as characters from “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory” to entertain kids for trick-or-treating at the mansion, inviting photographers in to catch the playful chief executive teasing kids and passing out chocolate bars.
The office recently published family recipes and began a folksy e-mail newsletter from “Chris” with as much emphasis on family and photos as on the official government stuff.
The first family has opened the mansion to large numbers of visitors, and red Washington wine is flowing again.
And they’ve freed up her schedule to put her on the road — a lot — for policy meetings, city tours, school visits and photo ops. She’s relaxed, smiling more, and sometimes shelves her trademark intensity to include laughter, colloquialisms and references to her com-pelling life story.
Tom Fitzsimmons, the governor’s chief of staff, said the rough, prolonged election worsened the public-relations challenge.
“People have an image of her as formal, stiff, focused, disciplined and targeted and intense,” he said. “That comes through. But she is also a warm, accessible and at times amazingly joking person. We have to get that across.”
The state Democratic Party, hoping to bolster Gregoire’s chronically low poll numbers, commissioned focus groups last month to get feedback from “real people,” including how the governor comes across.
“Her staff in Olympia needs to do a better job of communicating who she is,” said state party chairman Paul Berendt. “She needs to be who she is, but there is no harm in showing her to be a well-rounded person with a family. People do want a comprehensive idea of who she is.”
The focus groups, financed by the party at a cost of $18,000 and conducted by Portland pollster Lisa Grove, were part of an effort to help. More are planned each year, Berendt said.
Berendt said the Gregoire focus groups, representing unaffiliated voters from the Puget Sound region and the rest of the state, sam-pled male and female views on issues and about Gregoire’s performance and image.
Berendt refused to discuss what participants thought of Gregoire’s tough-guy style. The Democratic Governors’ Association said most governors regularly consult pollsters and use focus groups.
Election baggage
After three vote counts and a half-year battle in the courts, Gregoire won the nation’s closest gubernatorial contest by 133 votes out of 2.8 million cast. She ran an aggressive center-left agenda in the Legislature, including the biggest gasoline-tax increase in state history.
Voters upheld the gasoline-tax decision last month, but Gregoire’s poll numbers have yet to improve.
“She has quite an anvil she’s dragging around,” said independent pollster Stuart Elway. Many conservatives haven’t forgiven her for the perceived “stolen” election and she pursued a partisan agenda while not easing her hard-edged, hard-charging image, he and other analysts said.
Pollster David Johnson, who runs the GOP firm Strategic Vision in Atlanta, said Gregoire has one of the lowest ratings in the country.
“A lot can happen in three years, but traditionally, when an incumbent has ratings this low, they never seem to recover,” he said.
His December poll put Gregoire’s job approval rating at a dismal 37 percent.
“They’ll try to make a New Gregoire, but it won’t work,” said Republican State Chairman Chris Vance. “You only get one chance to make a first impression. The six-month election ordeal was her defining moment. Dino Rossi was decent, fair and optimistic. She was petulant and stubborn.”
The governor, meanwhile, sounds skeptical about efforts to polish her rough edges.
“Can we do a better job of getting the word out? Of course,” Gregoire said. “But a makeover? I’m not doing it. This is me.”
Gregoire concedes her job performance numbers are dreadful, but said her personal favorability numbers are slowly improving.
Fitzsimmons and other Gregoire insiders said they’ll work to free up the more playful and approachable side of the governor they know. Getting out of the Capitol more will help, they said.
Gregoire must be careful not to overdo any makeover, Elway said. Gimmicks backfire, he said.
“Focus groups can help you frame your message and present it in a way that people get. But you don’t want to be seen as changing your personality because of some focus group,” he said."-David Ammons' AP story.
Being a woman and a Democrat, you know they are going to "brand" you, in both senses of the word.
But some of her advisers and top aides, armed with results from four focus groups with voters last month, want to begin softening the aggressive image that helped put her on the map.
Gregoire rejects the notion that she needs a full-blown “makeover,” but she and her communications team readily acknowledge that the governor’s office needs to do a better job of promoting her accomplishments and presenting her softer side.
So far, the changes are subtle, and not full-fledged rebranding.
The office has re-christened the governor “Chris” in her news releases — her nickname rather than the more formal “Christine” she’s used during her decades in public life. They’re making liberal use of her folksy husband Mike, two overachieving daughters, and even the first dog, Franz, who now has his own wine label.
The governor and first gentleman dressed up as characters from “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory” to entertain kids for trick-or-treating at the mansion, inviting photographers in to catch the playful chief executive teasing kids and passing out chocolate bars.
The office recently published family recipes and began a folksy e-mail newsletter from “Chris” with as much emphasis on family and photos as on the official government stuff.
The first family has opened the mansion to large numbers of visitors, and red Washington wine is flowing again.
And they’ve freed up her schedule to put her on the road — a lot — for policy meetings, city tours, school visits and photo ops. She’s relaxed, smiling more, and sometimes shelves her trademark intensity to include laughter, colloquialisms and references to her com-pelling life story.
Tom Fitzsimmons, the governor’s chief of staff, said the rough, prolonged election worsened the public-relations challenge.
“People have an image of her as formal, stiff, focused, disciplined and targeted and intense,” he said. “That comes through. But she is also a warm, accessible and at times amazingly joking person. We have to get that across.”
The state Democratic Party, hoping to bolster Gregoire’s chronically low poll numbers, commissioned focus groups last month to get feedback from “real people,” including how the governor comes across.
“Her staff in Olympia needs to do a better job of communicating who she is,” said state party chairman Paul Berendt. “She needs to be who she is, but there is no harm in showing her to be a well-rounded person with a family. People do want a comprehensive idea of who she is.”
The focus groups, financed by the party at a cost of $18,000 and conducted by Portland pollster Lisa Grove, were part of an effort to help. More are planned each year, Berendt said.
Berendt said the Gregoire focus groups, representing unaffiliated voters from the Puget Sound region and the rest of the state, sam-pled male and female views on issues and about Gregoire’s performance and image.
Berendt refused to discuss what participants thought of Gregoire’s tough-guy style. The Democratic Governors’ Association said most governors regularly consult pollsters and use focus groups.
Election baggage
After three vote counts and a half-year battle in the courts, Gregoire won the nation’s closest gubernatorial contest by 133 votes out of 2.8 million cast. She ran an aggressive center-left agenda in the Legislature, including the biggest gasoline-tax increase in state history.
Voters upheld the gasoline-tax decision last month, but Gregoire’s poll numbers have yet to improve.
“She has quite an anvil she’s dragging around,” said independent pollster Stuart Elway. Many conservatives haven’t forgiven her for the perceived “stolen” election and she pursued a partisan agenda while not easing her hard-edged, hard-charging image, he and other analysts said.
Pollster David Johnson, who runs the GOP firm Strategic Vision in Atlanta, said Gregoire has one of the lowest ratings in the country.
“A lot can happen in three years, but traditionally, when an incumbent has ratings this low, they never seem to recover,” he said.
His December poll put Gregoire’s job approval rating at a dismal 37 percent.
“They’ll try to make a New Gregoire, but it won’t work,” said Republican State Chairman Chris Vance. “You only get one chance to make a first impression. The six-month election ordeal was her defining moment. Dino Rossi was decent, fair and optimistic. She was petulant and stubborn.”
The governor, meanwhile, sounds skeptical about efforts to polish her rough edges.
“Can we do a better job of getting the word out? Of course,” Gregoire said. “But a makeover? I’m not doing it. This is me.”
Gregoire concedes her job performance numbers are dreadful, but said her personal favorability numbers are slowly improving.
Fitzsimmons and other Gregoire insiders said they’ll work to free up the more playful and approachable side of the governor they know. Getting out of the Capitol more will help, they said.
Gregoire must be careful not to overdo any makeover, Elway said. Gimmicks backfire, he said.
“Focus groups can help you frame your message and present it in a way that people get. But you don’t want to be seen as changing your personality because of some focus group,” he said."-David Ammons' AP story.
Being a woman and a Democrat, you know they are going to "brand" you, in both senses of the word.
"Eugene McCarthy & the Smearing of Howard Dean"
"Nice things are being said today about Eugene McCarthy in the unlikeliest corners because he died yesterday. Here’s Paul at Powerline, in full-on disingenuous eulogy mode:
'McCarthy's most ardent supporters were college students. Most of my anti-war friends preferred him to Kennedy, as I did (and still do). First, McCarthy had shown more guts than Kennedy by challenging Johnson before it was clear how weak the president's position was. Second, McCarthy came across as cool; Kennedy as anything but. Yet deep down, most of the college kids I knew were mainly just interested in becoming involved. . . .
In many respects, some of them superficial, Robert Kennedy's position in 1967 can be compared to Hillary Clinton's position today. It's more difficult identify the new Gene McCarthy (it's certainly not Howard Dean). He was one of a kind.'
Despite the concerted effort to distinguish (with no reasons given) McCarthy from Howard Dean, everything which was said here (and elsewhere) in praise of Eugene McCarthy’s anti-war candidacy applies at least as much to Howard Dean’s presidential campaign. But Dean is still very much alive (and relevant) and McCarthy isn’t, so it’s safe to praise McCarthy but not Dean.
One of the most profoundly dishonest media distortions over the last decade was the almost instantaneous transformation of Howard Dean from what he really is and has long been – a non-ideological, sensible, solidly mainstream, and highly rational medical doctor, Vermont Governor and American citizen whose politics are decidedly moderate and even, with regard to many issues (such as states’ rights, government spending, gun control, and many others), quite conservative – into a freakish cartoon whose insanity and emotional instability are matched only by his rabid affection for socialism and Islamic terrorism. That patently false illusion persists today and will likely never be expunged from many minds.
But whatever else one thinks of Dean, it is impossible to praise McCarthy’s candidacy without praising Dean’s candidacy as well. The factors cited by Paul for admiring McCarthy -- the adoption of his anti-war stance before it was safe and popular, the way in which he galvanized young voters, the obvious authenticity of his beliefs, even his "cool" image -- are all entirely applicable to Howard Dean.
Dean's criticism of the Iraq war has never been even remotely pacifistic, but instead has always been pragmatic, even arguably hawkish. Dean's opposition to this war was predicated upon the (now vindicated) belief that our invasion would distract attention and resources from combating real threats to the U.S., would unleash all sorts of undesirable outcomes, and was based on an exaggerated assessment of the threat posed by Saddam. And while Bush Administration officials and pro-war advocates were issuing absurdly optimistic and inaccurate predictions of what was to come, the highly rational, pragmatic and non-ideological reasonsgiven by Dean for opposing the war were, as it turned out, downright prescient.
Moreover, once we were in Iraq, Dean was at least as hawkish as any other Democratic candidate, and much more hawkish than most of them, about the need to win in Iraq. Once we had invaded and the insurgency flourished, he criticized the Administration for insufficient resolve in our commitment to winning there.
But few people realize any of that today because Dean – who supported both the first Gulf War and the invasion of Afghanistan – has been outrageously depicted as a zen-chanting pacifist, some sort of hideous leftist hybrid of Joan Baez, Ward Churchill, and Abbie Hoffman, all rolled into one bike-riding, mentally ill, terrorist sympathizing hippy. Just yesterday, Norman Podhoretz in Commentary disgustingly paired Dean with socialist and genuine America-hater Rep. Cynthia McKinney as examples of today’s "Tories" -- those individuals whose allegiance in the Revolutionary War lay not with America but with the British Crown.
Even more significant than Dean’s substantive and largely accurate criticisms of the Iraq war was the effect which his candidacy had on the political dynamic in this country. Like McCarthy’s candidacy, it obviously galvanized huge numbers of young and first-time voters who never had any previous (or subsequent) interest in the political process. But even more so, Dean was one of the very few mainstream political figures willing to stand up and aggressively criticize the President in the 9/11-driven militarized climate in 2002 and 2003, which was characterized by an intimidated reverence for George Bush as the Commander-in-Chief.
It was the time of the almost-unanimously and hastily passed Patriot Act, anthrax attacks, a para-military presence in many of our nation’s cities, Homeland Security alerts, and sky-high popularity ratings for Bush. Most Democrats were cowed into submission, virtually always endorsing every Bush desire and offering only the meekest and most apologetic resistance when they resisted at all.
Howard Dean single-handedly exploded that repressive environment. He galvanized young voters and the Left not because he spouted socialistic ideals or leftist rhetoric (he did not). He energized his supporters because – like the praise for McCarthy today describes – he took his anti-war stand at a time when it was highly unpopular to do so, long before it was safe to do so, and did so unapologetically, with passion and conviction rare for political candidates, leaving it impossible to doubt the authenticity of his beliefs.
And Dean wasn’t the least bit intimidated by George Bush, and wasn’t the slightest bit afraid to challenge and criticize the highly popular President. As a result, Dean forced other Democrats to at least pretend that they had a spine, and he diffused the idea that Democrats, and even Republicans -- in the wake of 9/11 -- had to cower meekly and obediently in the corner and give carte blanche to George Bush as the Great Leader to do whatever he wanted. Regardless of whether one agrees with Dean’s views or not, that was an invaluable service he performed for American politics.
Dean was a threat not just to Republicans, but even more so to establishment Democrats and the privileged media stars who always are hostile to outsiders. That was why it was so easy to caricature and destroy him. He had no real defenders in any power circles to battle against the smear campaign.
Dean is not and never was the crazed Leftist which he has been depicted to be. He is to the right of most Democrats on many vital issues, and he governed Vermont for 10 years as a hard-core fiscal conservative. What he was, and is, is a passionate opponent of Bush’s invasion of Iraq, which -- contrary to prevailing wisdom -- makes one neither a Leftist nor a hater of America. As the praise for Eugene McCarthy streams forth over the next couple of days, it is worth analyzing that praise and appreciating its wholesale applicability to Howard Dean."-from Glenn Greenwald's Unclaimed Territory, via The Smirking Chimp. Some of the posters in the comments in both places are taking offense at his shot at Cynthia McKinney.
In a later post, Greenwald delves into the right-wing blogosphere's reactions to Eugene McCarthy and his political ancestors today: "Sending Eugene McCarthy off to hell."
'McCarthy's most ardent supporters were college students. Most of my anti-war friends preferred him to Kennedy, as I did (and still do). First, McCarthy had shown more guts than Kennedy by challenging Johnson before it was clear how weak the president's position was. Second, McCarthy came across as cool; Kennedy as anything but. Yet deep down, most of the college kids I knew were mainly just interested in becoming involved. . . .
In many respects, some of them superficial, Robert Kennedy's position in 1967 can be compared to Hillary Clinton's position today. It's more difficult identify the new Gene McCarthy (it's certainly not Howard Dean). He was one of a kind.'
Despite the concerted effort to distinguish (with no reasons given) McCarthy from Howard Dean, everything which was said here (and elsewhere) in praise of Eugene McCarthy’s anti-war candidacy applies at least as much to Howard Dean’s presidential campaign. But Dean is still very much alive (and relevant) and McCarthy isn’t, so it’s safe to praise McCarthy but not Dean.
One of the most profoundly dishonest media distortions over the last decade was the almost instantaneous transformation of Howard Dean from what he really is and has long been – a non-ideological, sensible, solidly mainstream, and highly rational medical doctor, Vermont Governor and American citizen whose politics are decidedly moderate and even, with regard to many issues (such as states’ rights, government spending, gun control, and many others), quite conservative – into a freakish cartoon whose insanity and emotional instability are matched only by his rabid affection for socialism and Islamic terrorism. That patently false illusion persists today and will likely never be expunged from many minds.
But whatever else one thinks of Dean, it is impossible to praise McCarthy’s candidacy without praising Dean’s candidacy as well. The factors cited by Paul for admiring McCarthy -- the adoption of his anti-war stance before it was safe and popular, the way in which he galvanized young voters, the obvious authenticity of his beliefs, even his "cool" image -- are all entirely applicable to Howard Dean.
Dean's criticism of the Iraq war has never been even remotely pacifistic, but instead has always been pragmatic, even arguably hawkish. Dean's opposition to this war was predicated upon the (now vindicated) belief that our invasion would distract attention and resources from combating real threats to the U.S., would unleash all sorts of undesirable outcomes, and was based on an exaggerated assessment of the threat posed by Saddam. And while Bush Administration officials and pro-war advocates were issuing absurdly optimistic and inaccurate predictions of what was to come, the highly rational, pragmatic and non-ideological reasonsgiven by Dean for opposing the war were, as it turned out, downright prescient.
Moreover, once we were in Iraq, Dean was at least as hawkish as any other Democratic candidate, and much more hawkish than most of them, about the need to win in Iraq. Once we had invaded and the insurgency flourished, he criticized the Administration for insufficient resolve in our commitment to winning there.
But few people realize any of that today because Dean – who supported both the first Gulf War and the invasion of Afghanistan – has been outrageously depicted as a zen-chanting pacifist, some sort of hideous leftist hybrid of Joan Baez, Ward Churchill, and Abbie Hoffman, all rolled into one bike-riding, mentally ill, terrorist sympathizing hippy. Just yesterday, Norman Podhoretz in Commentary disgustingly paired Dean with socialist and genuine America-hater Rep. Cynthia McKinney as examples of today’s "Tories" -- those individuals whose allegiance in the Revolutionary War lay not with America but with the British Crown.
Even more significant than Dean’s substantive and largely accurate criticisms of the Iraq war was the effect which his candidacy had on the political dynamic in this country. Like McCarthy’s candidacy, it obviously galvanized huge numbers of young and first-time voters who never had any previous (or subsequent) interest in the political process. But even more so, Dean was one of the very few mainstream political figures willing to stand up and aggressively criticize the President in the 9/11-driven militarized climate in 2002 and 2003, which was characterized by an intimidated reverence for George Bush as the Commander-in-Chief.
It was the time of the almost-unanimously and hastily passed Patriot Act, anthrax attacks, a para-military presence in many of our nation’s cities, Homeland Security alerts, and sky-high popularity ratings for Bush. Most Democrats were cowed into submission, virtually always endorsing every Bush desire and offering only the meekest and most apologetic resistance when they resisted at all.
Howard Dean single-handedly exploded that repressive environment. He galvanized young voters and the Left not because he spouted socialistic ideals or leftist rhetoric (he did not). He energized his supporters because – like the praise for McCarthy today describes – he took his anti-war stand at a time when it was highly unpopular to do so, long before it was safe to do so, and did so unapologetically, with passion and conviction rare for political candidates, leaving it impossible to doubt the authenticity of his beliefs.
And Dean wasn’t the least bit intimidated by George Bush, and wasn’t the slightest bit afraid to challenge and criticize the highly popular President. As a result, Dean forced other Democrats to at least pretend that they had a spine, and he diffused the idea that Democrats, and even Republicans -- in the wake of 9/11 -- had to cower meekly and obediently in the corner and give carte blanche to George Bush as the Great Leader to do whatever he wanted. Regardless of whether one agrees with Dean’s views or not, that was an invaluable service he performed for American politics.
Dean was a threat not just to Republicans, but even more so to establishment Democrats and the privileged media stars who always are hostile to outsiders. That was why it was so easy to caricature and destroy him. He had no real defenders in any power circles to battle against the smear campaign.
Dean is not and never was the crazed Leftist which he has been depicted to be. He is to the right of most Democrats on many vital issues, and he governed Vermont for 10 years as a hard-core fiscal conservative. What he was, and is, is a passionate opponent of Bush’s invasion of Iraq, which -- contrary to prevailing wisdom -- makes one neither a Leftist nor a hater of America. As the praise for Eugene McCarthy streams forth over the next couple of days, it is worth analyzing that praise and appreciating its wholesale applicability to Howard Dean."-from Glenn Greenwald's Unclaimed Territory, via The Smirking Chimp. Some of the posters in the comments in both places are taking offense at his shot at Cynthia McKinney.
In a later post, Greenwald delves into the right-wing blogosphere's reactions to Eugene McCarthy and his political ancestors today: "Sending Eugene McCarthy off to hell."
''Stars & Stripes - Ed Schultz and Al Franken Shows now on AFR''
Cool Aqua: "The Stars and Stripes is reporting that Armed Forces Radio is now airing one hour each of the Ed Schultz Show and the Al Franken Show each day. Exactly who will be receiving the broadcasts is somewhat vague however, as many regional AFR re-broadcasters still can decide if they will actually air the shows."
''McCarthy was hero of antiwar movement''
"An unpopular war was going badly. The nation was restless. One politician stepped up.
The year was 1968. The war was in Vietnam. The politician was Eugene J. McCarthy.
McCarthy died in his sleep Saturday at an assisted living facility in Washington, D.C. He was 89 years old, and in his way, he was a hero.
At a crucial point of his life and in the nation's history, McCarthy took a stand and he helped to end a war, and he showed that it could be done within the system.
''The fellows running this war don't know where they're going or what they're up to,'' McCarthy said in retrospect during an interview years later. 'You didn't have to make a great moral judgment on it. You could simply say, `It doesn't make any sense.' ''
Howard Forman, a former Democratic state senator and Broward County clerk of courts, hailed McCarthy for compelling Americans to consider the morality of the Vietnam War. ''He had the courage of his convictions,'' Forman said. ``His bravery and intellect will be remembered for decades to come.''
A historian by training, a poet and a not-particularly accomplished U.S. senator from Minnesota, McCarthy ran for president five times and never came close.
But, in 1968, he forced President Lyndon B. Johnson to drop a bid for reelection, he nudged his Democratic Party toward opposition of the war and he galvanized a generation younger than his own."-excerpted from MARTIN MERZER's op-ed in the Miami Herald.
"Eugene McCarthy for President" Stephen Kaus (Mickey's bro), has this: "From the vantage point of almost forty years later, McCarthy seems better credited with causing the reform of the Democratic Party nominating process than ending the war, which dragged on for years. However, at the time, he was at the center of a campaign to bring realism and nuance to American foreign policy, a battle that, rather obviously, goes on after his passing. It would be a fitting memorial for Democrats to continue that fight."-from The Huffington Post.
The year was 1968. The war was in Vietnam. The politician was Eugene J. McCarthy.
McCarthy died in his sleep Saturday at an assisted living facility in Washington, D.C. He was 89 years old, and in his way, he was a hero.
At a crucial point of his life and in the nation's history, McCarthy took a stand and he helped to end a war, and he showed that it could be done within the system.
''The fellows running this war don't know where they're going or what they're up to,'' McCarthy said in retrospect during an interview years later. 'You didn't have to make a great moral judgment on it. You could simply say, `It doesn't make any sense.' ''
Howard Forman, a former Democratic state senator and Broward County clerk of courts, hailed McCarthy for compelling Americans to consider the morality of the Vietnam War. ''He had the courage of his convictions,'' Forman said. ``His bravery and intellect will be remembered for decades to come.''
A historian by training, a poet and a not-particularly accomplished U.S. senator from Minnesota, McCarthy ran for president five times and never came close.
But, in 1968, he forced President Lyndon B. Johnson to drop a bid for reelection, he nudged his Democratic Party toward opposition of the war and he galvanized a generation younger than his own."-excerpted from MARTIN MERZER's op-ed in the Miami Herald.
"Eugene McCarthy for President" Stephen Kaus (Mickey's bro), has this: "From the vantage point of almost forty years later, McCarthy seems better credited with causing the reform of the Democratic Party nominating process than ending the war, which dragged on for years. However, at the time, he was at the center of a campaign to bring realism and nuance to American foreign policy, a battle that, rather obviously, goes on after his passing. It would be a fitting memorial for Democrats to continue that fight."-from The Huffington Post.
Sunday, December 11, 2005
''Connelly Attempts To Say Something Nice About The Governor''
"Moderate Democratic governors in pro-Bush "red" states of the West currently enjoy sky-high popularity. Gov. Brian Schweitzer of Montana was touting his 68 percent job approval rating in a poll as he attended a football game with Gregoire in Cheney last month.
Gregoire gets a thumbs-up of only 44 percent in the latest SurveyUSA poll, up from past surveys but nothing to carry around and display.
Understandably, Washington's governor has a different message: It's not about me. In Cheney, she carried around another set of figures -- county-by-county totals by which voters rejected the gas tax rollback and sustained the state's ambitious transportation program.
"The defeat of Initiative 912 not only means an investment in infrastructure, but it will encourage legislators to take on tough issues. It frees them to continue to be bold," she said.
What can we look for in year two of Gregoire's government? Activism, on several fronts:
The heat on Seattle: Gregoire had what she calls "a very direct conversation" with Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels about the Alaskan Way Viaduct the day before Thanksgiving.
Hizzoner was told that the city will have to come up with the additional money -- $1 billion-plus -- to build his cherished tunnel option, or the state will move in and replace the seismically challenge highway. No drop-dead date was set -- yet. "It's their decision to make," Gregoire said. "The state is ready to replace the viaduct. We are not prepared to wait."
The focus on Puget Sound: Gregoire will meet later this month with Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., to begin scoping out an ambitious strategy to restore Puget Sound. Its key ingredients -- federal money and state action. "For us to get federal dollars, we will have to get a credible plan: We have to explain why this is crucial for our state -- its fisheries, its tourism, its very quality of life," said Dicks, dean of our congressional delegation.
As models, Gregoire and Dicks look to the multistate effort to get pollutants out of Chesapeake Bay, and the Great Lakes cleanup that has involved the United States, Canada and eight states.
The heat on Victoria: A byproduct of the Puget Sound cleanup will be renewed pressure on British Columbia to force its capital city, Victoria, to stop dumping raw sewage into the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
"It's a great time for us to put that issue squarely on the table," Gregoire said. "Premier (Gordon) Campbell is trying to send a message on the environment for the 2010 Winter Olympics."
Gregoire is also going to be a political animal.
It's an American tradition that an incumbent governor is leader of his (or her) state party. But it has not been a tradition in Washington.
Gov.-elect Mike Lowry played no role as state Democrats picked a chairman after the 1992 election: The party suffered disastrous defeats in 1994. Gov. Gary Locke endorsed Mark Sidran for mayor of Seattle in 2001. The state Democrats backed and put muscle behind Greg Nickels.
State Democratic Chairman Paul Berendt announced Wednesday that he will retire next month.
"I would sure like to be engaged in selection of a successor," Gregoire said. She has also installed Ron Judd, once a highly successful head of the King County Labor Council, as external affairs officer for the governor.
To use a famous Bushism -- coined as self-description by the president -- Gov. Gregoire should not be "misunderestimated."-excerpted from Joel Connelly's P-I column. Thanks to Fired Up Washington for the tip. Say whatever you want about Joel Connelly, and I know you will, he does his homework and turns it in on time.
Gregoire gets a thumbs-up of only 44 percent in the latest SurveyUSA poll, up from past surveys but nothing to carry around and display.
Understandably, Washington's governor has a different message: It's not about me. In Cheney, she carried around another set of figures -- county-by-county totals by which voters rejected the gas tax rollback and sustained the state's ambitious transportation program.
"The defeat of Initiative 912 not only means an investment in infrastructure, but it will encourage legislators to take on tough issues. It frees them to continue to be bold," she said.
What can we look for in year two of Gregoire's government? Activism, on several fronts:
The heat on Seattle: Gregoire had what she calls "a very direct conversation" with Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels about the Alaskan Way Viaduct the day before Thanksgiving.
Hizzoner was told that the city will have to come up with the additional money -- $1 billion-plus -- to build his cherished tunnel option, or the state will move in and replace the seismically challenge highway. No drop-dead date was set -- yet. "It's their decision to make," Gregoire said. "The state is ready to replace the viaduct. We are not prepared to wait."
The focus on Puget Sound: Gregoire will meet later this month with Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., to begin scoping out an ambitious strategy to restore Puget Sound. Its key ingredients -- federal money and state action. "For us to get federal dollars, we will have to get a credible plan: We have to explain why this is crucial for our state -- its fisheries, its tourism, its very quality of life," said Dicks, dean of our congressional delegation.
As models, Gregoire and Dicks look to the multistate effort to get pollutants out of Chesapeake Bay, and the Great Lakes cleanup that has involved the United States, Canada and eight states.
The heat on Victoria: A byproduct of the Puget Sound cleanup will be renewed pressure on British Columbia to force its capital city, Victoria, to stop dumping raw sewage into the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
"It's a great time for us to put that issue squarely on the table," Gregoire said. "Premier (Gordon) Campbell is trying to send a message on the environment for the 2010 Winter Olympics."
Gregoire is also going to be a political animal.
It's an American tradition that an incumbent governor is leader of his (or her) state party. But it has not been a tradition in Washington.
Gov.-elect Mike Lowry played no role as state Democrats picked a chairman after the 1992 election: The party suffered disastrous defeats in 1994. Gov. Gary Locke endorsed Mark Sidran for mayor of Seattle in 2001. The state Democrats backed and put muscle behind Greg Nickels.
State Democratic Chairman Paul Berendt announced Wednesday that he will retire next month.
"I would sure like to be engaged in selection of a successor," Gregoire said. She has also installed Ron Judd, once a highly successful head of the King County Labor Council, as external affairs officer for the governor.
To use a famous Bushism -- coined as self-description by the president -- Gov. Gregoire should not be "misunderestimated."-excerpted from Joel Connelly's P-I column. Thanks to Fired Up Washington for the tip. Say whatever you want about Joel Connelly, and I know you will, he does his homework and turns it in on time.
Saturday, December 10, 2005
''Chairman Dean Speaks For Me On the War In Iraq''
"If according to Harry Reid, Dean is not setting the message for the Democratic Party...
Then why are his truthful words about the war in Iraq ruffling so many feathers? Personally, I wish he could set the message about this. At least we would then have someone who speaks his mind in there, and who tells it like it is. And "immediate withdrawal" to me is not defined in that every troop just picks up their knapsack and makes a run for it. It is absolutely SHAMEFUL how the Democratic Party is once again allowing the Republicans to define these terms and set the tone when they should be out there explaining what this means.
To me it means you start drawing down numbers NOW ( hence, "immediate") so that within at least three to six months you have the majority of these troops home, and just have a small contingent there to work with humanitarian workers and aid the people. They then are handed the keys to their country to run it perfect or not, and our representatives then get down to taking care of the AMERICAN peoples's business and OUR security, damn it.
Is that also why Dean got the DNC Chairmanship? To box him in and shut him up, and to USE his tremendous grassroots support to fund these phony asses who go the way the wind blows instead of telling the truth? Howard Dean is not someone I have always backed regarding remarks he has made in the past either. However, on this war, HE IS ABSOLUTLELY F**** RIGHT, and I for one think that this Party is going the way of the jackbooters of the Republican Party with this "let's put a muzzle on Dean" crap.
They also only play into the media and the Bush administration's propaganda instead of stating that in the Democratic Party all opinions are welcomed. Is that not the BIG TENT so many continue to talk about? Or is that tent only reserved for those who tout the Party rhetoric just to win, instead of truly having principles?"-excerpted from the diary on Kos by Patriot for Al Gore.
Then why are his truthful words about the war in Iraq ruffling so many feathers? Personally, I wish he could set the message about this. At least we would then have someone who speaks his mind in there, and who tells it like it is. And "immediate withdrawal" to me is not defined in that every troop just picks up their knapsack and makes a run for it. It is absolutely SHAMEFUL how the Democratic Party is once again allowing the Republicans to define these terms and set the tone when they should be out there explaining what this means.
To me it means you start drawing down numbers NOW ( hence, "immediate") so that within at least three to six months you have the majority of these troops home, and just have a small contingent there to work with humanitarian workers and aid the people. They then are handed the keys to their country to run it perfect or not, and our representatives then get down to taking care of the AMERICAN peoples's business and OUR security, damn it.
Is that also why Dean got the DNC Chairmanship? To box him in and shut him up, and to USE his tremendous grassroots support to fund these phony asses who go the way the wind blows instead of telling the truth? Howard Dean is not someone I have always backed regarding remarks he has made in the past either. However, on this war, HE IS ABSOLUTLELY F**** RIGHT, and I for one think that this Party is going the way of the jackbooters of the Republican Party with this "let's put a muzzle on Dean" crap.
They also only play into the media and the Bush administration's propaganda instead of stating that in the Democratic Party all opinions are welcomed. Is that not the BIG TENT so many continue to talk about? Or is that tent only reserved for those who tout the Party rhetoric just to win, instead of truly having principles?"-excerpted from the diary on Kos by Patriot for Al Gore.
''Blood''
Blah3.com has produced a response to the rovian "white flag" video, "Republicans, The Party of Bloody Hands." I like the shirt they're selling: "Indict, Impeach, Imprison."
Bill Gates' Dad is worried---and Clean Gene and Richard Pryor are gone
"Bill Gates Sr., co-chairman of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, gave a CityClub gathering their money's worth Friday at a luncheon to review the year almost gone.
As a participant on a panel that included Sen. Patty Murray, state Secretary of Health Mary Selecky and Issaquah developer George W. "Skip" Rowley, Gates, along with the others, was asked to tell about someone he'd been impressed by and to say why.
He picked Wall Street big shot Pete Peterson, who, Gates said, has warned against "the pending bankruptcy of the U.S."
His response drew shocked laughter from the crowd. But Gates wasn't kidding, and he would return to that theme later in the luncheon.
Gates said he is worried about a lot of things -- the Bush administration's tax-cutting policies at a time of war, the financial problems forecast for Social Security and Medicare and a national debt that appears to be flying off the chart as it is being underwritten by foreign governments."-excerpted from the P-I story, "Elder Gates is worried about Ameroca."
For a lesson in political history, read the AP account of the passing of Clean Gene McCarthy. Richard Pryor never ran for president, but he offered us "profanely personal insights into race relations and modern life," as noted tonight in this AP story.
As a participant on a panel that included Sen. Patty Murray, state Secretary of Health Mary Selecky and Issaquah developer George W. "Skip" Rowley, Gates, along with the others, was asked to tell about someone he'd been impressed by and to say why.
He picked Wall Street big shot Pete Peterson, who, Gates said, has warned against "the pending bankruptcy of the U.S."
His response drew shocked laughter from the crowd. But Gates wasn't kidding, and he would return to that theme later in the luncheon.
Gates said he is worried about a lot of things -- the Bush administration's tax-cutting policies at a time of war, the financial problems forecast for Social Security and Medicare and a national debt that appears to be flying off the chart as it is being underwritten by foreign governments."-excerpted from the P-I story, "Elder Gates is worried about Ameroca."
For a lesson in political history, read the AP account of the passing of Clean Gene McCarthy. Richard Pryor never ran for president, but he offered us "profanely personal insights into race relations and modern life," as noted tonight in this AP story.
''Iraq and the Democrats''
"Here's the deal: we invaded Iraq to establish a permanent, muscular military presence in the Middle East; we invaded Iraq to take control of their petroleum reserves for the next hundred years, a pretty little piggy bank in a world where oil is becoming harder to find; we invaded Iraq so we could use our military presence there to attack and invade several other countries in the region; we invaded Iraq to establish strategic positioning for any economic and/or resource struggles with China and Russia; we invaded Iraq because administration officials who think they are members of the Likud Party believed this war would serve to protect and defend the state of Israel; we invaded Iraq so a bunch of military contractors with umbilical ties to the administration could get paid.
All of this is enshrined in the codicils of the Project for a New American Century, the organization whose membership rolls include Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Abrams, Libby and a pile of others who have crafted our insane foreign policy and thrown us into this mess. This is what they wanted. They've been planning it for years, well before they ever got into the White House with Bush. For them, victory had nothing to do with defeating Hussein or fighting terrorism or establishing democracy. Victory means we stay in Iraq forever.
Period. End of file.
When Wesley Clark and these other Democratic aspirants talk about "winning" in Iraq before we get out, they accept a premise that should be rejected out of hand. For the architects of this war, victory has already been achieved, and all arguments in favor of remaining in Iraq until impossible goals are reached strengthen that victory. There is no democracy at the end of this tunnel, only more tunnel.
When Wesley Clark and these other Democratic aspirants talk about "winning" in Iraq, they buy into the fantasy that there is anything to win. The invasion and occupation created a breeding ground for terrorism, immeasurably strengthened the resolve of Islamic fanaticism, ravaged the US treasury, and has seriously weakened our ability to defend ourselves against other global threats.
We cannot stay in Iraq. Were we to withdraw tomorrow, we would sow the seeds of future bloodshed and risk an all-out civil war. We would compound the crime already committed against the Iraqi people. But if we stay, if we buy into the idea that remaining in Iraq will cure these problems, we do exactly the same thing.
Rep. Murtha was right. It is the presence of American troops in Iraq that inspires the violence today. The solution, therefore, is beyond sloganeering or open-ended promises that cannot be fulfilled. We have to exit Iraq, but we must do so far more responsibly than the manner in which we first arrived there. We need a plan that involves international cooperation with organizations like NATO and the Arab League. The Iraqi people must be given the help they need to take over the security and economy of their own country, but this help cannot be provided by the United States. We do no good there, but only harm.
We absolutely need a timetable established for this to happen. Some have argued that the "terrorists" will use a timetable for withdrawal against us. This may be true, but such statements blue-sky right past a glaring reality: they are presently using the lack of a timetable for withdrawal against us, they are doing so effectively, and the body count continues to rise because of it.
An exit from Iraq is the only rational course of action. How and when we do it must become the central point of discussion in American politics. Timetables for that withdrawal must be established, and a real plan must be agreed upon. This administration, which has no interest in withdrawal for its own nefarious reasons, must be forced to accept this.
Democrats who aspire to higher office must not derail this process by accepting GOP talking points, talking points which serve to do little more than ensure that we will still be in Iraq when our great-grandchildren are old enough to vote.
Take all the rhetoric you've heard from Republicans and Democrats alike regarding "winning" in Iraq, wad it up, throw it into a metal wastecan, and set it on fire. Put all the talk about weapons of mass destruction and al Qaeda alliances and Hussein was a bad man and bringing democracy to the torch. Give this nonsense a good, old-fashioned Viking funeral, which provides far more of a dignified departure from this world than it deserves. Cast the ashes to the wind. Salt the earth where the ashes fall so that nothing so pestilently wrong can grow there.
We can win nothing in Iraq. We can only hope to survive the incredible disaster that has been foisted upon us. Rejecting the premise of "winning" is the first step toward that survival. Rejecting wrong-headed, deliberately misleading GOP talking points would be a good idea, as well. Getting out of Iraq is the only sane, sensible, responsible course of action. Any Democrats who hope to be President should heed this. They are ten steps behind the rest of the country, and when they buy into the nonsense, they only ensure their electoral doom."-excerpted from the post by Bill Pitt on truthout.org.
All of this is enshrined in the codicils of the Project for a New American Century, the organization whose membership rolls include Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Abrams, Libby and a pile of others who have crafted our insane foreign policy and thrown us into this mess. This is what they wanted. They've been planning it for years, well before they ever got into the White House with Bush. For them, victory had nothing to do with defeating Hussein or fighting terrorism or establishing democracy. Victory means we stay in Iraq forever.
Period. End of file.
When Wesley Clark and these other Democratic aspirants talk about "winning" in Iraq before we get out, they accept a premise that should be rejected out of hand. For the architects of this war, victory has already been achieved, and all arguments in favor of remaining in Iraq until impossible goals are reached strengthen that victory. There is no democracy at the end of this tunnel, only more tunnel.
When Wesley Clark and these other Democratic aspirants talk about "winning" in Iraq, they buy into the fantasy that there is anything to win. The invasion and occupation created a breeding ground for terrorism, immeasurably strengthened the resolve of Islamic fanaticism, ravaged the US treasury, and has seriously weakened our ability to defend ourselves against other global threats.
We cannot stay in Iraq. Were we to withdraw tomorrow, we would sow the seeds of future bloodshed and risk an all-out civil war. We would compound the crime already committed against the Iraqi people. But if we stay, if we buy into the idea that remaining in Iraq will cure these problems, we do exactly the same thing.
Rep. Murtha was right. It is the presence of American troops in Iraq that inspires the violence today. The solution, therefore, is beyond sloganeering or open-ended promises that cannot be fulfilled. We have to exit Iraq, but we must do so far more responsibly than the manner in which we first arrived there. We need a plan that involves international cooperation with organizations like NATO and the Arab League. The Iraqi people must be given the help they need to take over the security and economy of their own country, but this help cannot be provided by the United States. We do no good there, but only harm.
We absolutely need a timetable established for this to happen. Some have argued that the "terrorists" will use a timetable for withdrawal against us. This may be true, but such statements blue-sky right past a glaring reality: they are presently using the lack of a timetable for withdrawal against us, they are doing so effectively, and the body count continues to rise because of it.
An exit from Iraq is the only rational course of action. How and when we do it must become the central point of discussion in American politics. Timetables for that withdrawal must be established, and a real plan must be agreed upon. This administration, which has no interest in withdrawal for its own nefarious reasons, must be forced to accept this.
Democrats who aspire to higher office must not derail this process by accepting GOP talking points, talking points which serve to do little more than ensure that we will still be in Iraq when our great-grandchildren are old enough to vote.
Take all the rhetoric you've heard from Republicans and Democrats alike regarding "winning" in Iraq, wad it up, throw it into a metal wastecan, and set it on fire. Put all the talk about weapons of mass destruction and al Qaeda alliances and Hussein was a bad man and bringing democracy to the torch. Give this nonsense a good, old-fashioned Viking funeral, which provides far more of a dignified departure from this world than it deserves. Cast the ashes to the wind. Salt the earth where the ashes fall so that nothing so pestilently wrong can grow there.
We can win nothing in Iraq. We can only hope to survive the incredible disaster that has been foisted upon us. Rejecting the premise of "winning" is the first step toward that survival. Rejecting wrong-headed, deliberately misleading GOP talking points would be a good idea, as well. Getting out of Iraq is the only sane, sensible, responsible course of action. Any Democrats who hope to be President should heed this. They are ten steps behind the rest of the country, and when they buy into the nonsense, they only ensure their electoral doom."-excerpted from the post by Bill Pitt on truthout.org.
Dean: ''War is winnable with a new plan''
"As Republicans released an ad saying Democrats' plan for Iraq is "retreat and defeat," Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean said clearly Friday that the war is winnable.
"We can and we must win the war on terror," Dean told attendees at the Florida Democratic Party convention. "A smarter, more honest strategy that respects our troops and our military leaders is possible. And I believe our course is far more likely to defeat terror than the Bush administration's failed policy in Iraq."
Dean called for bringing home all 50,000 National Guard troops stationed in Iraq within six months, redeploying 20,000 troops from Iraq to Afghanistan and assigning several thousand anti-terror troops in countries around Iraq.
"Strategic redeployment addresses a broader battle against global terrorist networks. We need to re-engage our allies and a military realignment of our troops will make our forces stronger and save American lives," Dean said.
His remarks came as Republicans continued to criticize Dean for a statement made Monday that the United States can't win the war. Dean on Thursday said the remarks were taken out of context and that he meant the war was not winnable under the current strategy.
On Friday, he was met by an enthusiastic crowd, many of whom said they agreed with Dean's statements.
"If you go in and attack like a bully, you won't win," Valerie Guenther of Charlotte County said before Dean spoke. "Our greatest strength as a nation is we're solution finders, and I don't think we are right now."
Dean compared the war to Vietnam and repeatedly accused President Bush of lying to the nation and to troops.
"Tell the American people the truth," Dean said. "Policies which are built on truth, on honest dealings with our soldiers, our citizens and our allies are much more likely to succeed than policies built on the quicksand of deceiving the American people. Our troops deserve better."
Dean's remarks came at the convention's opening reception. Republicans sent out a barrage of press releases ahead of the speech, attacking Dean's position on Iraq.
"The liberal rhetoric and defeatist mentality of Democrats may make for a good five second sound bite, but the majority of Americans recognize these blatant political attacks for what they are, a desperate attempt by a party without a clear agenda or strategy for success or a will for victory," U.S. Rep. Tom Feeney said in one release.
The Republican National Committee released a Web ad Friday showing Dean's previous remarks with a white flag superimposed over his image.
Dean was introduced by Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, who is considered a potential presidential candidate in 2008.
The three-day event will be a showcase for gubernatorial candidates U.S. Rep. Jim Davis and state Sen. Rod Smith, as well as a rally for U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson's re-election. Nelson is being challenged by U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris, who was secretary of state during the disputed 2000 presidential election.
Among other Democrats to speak at the event are last year's vice presidential candidate John Edwards, Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, and U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, a rising Democratic star from Illinois."-from the AP story.
"We can and we must win the war on terror," Dean told attendees at the Florida Democratic Party convention. "A smarter, more honest strategy that respects our troops and our military leaders is possible. And I believe our course is far more likely to defeat terror than the Bush administration's failed policy in Iraq."
Dean called for bringing home all 50,000 National Guard troops stationed in Iraq within six months, redeploying 20,000 troops from Iraq to Afghanistan and assigning several thousand anti-terror troops in countries around Iraq.
"Strategic redeployment addresses a broader battle against global terrorist networks. We need to re-engage our allies and a military realignment of our troops will make our forces stronger and save American lives," Dean said.
His remarks came as Republicans continued to criticize Dean for a statement made Monday that the United States can't win the war. Dean on Thursday said the remarks were taken out of context and that he meant the war was not winnable under the current strategy.
On Friday, he was met by an enthusiastic crowd, many of whom said they agreed with Dean's statements.
"If you go in and attack like a bully, you won't win," Valerie Guenther of Charlotte County said before Dean spoke. "Our greatest strength as a nation is we're solution finders, and I don't think we are right now."
Dean compared the war to Vietnam and repeatedly accused President Bush of lying to the nation and to troops.
"Tell the American people the truth," Dean said. "Policies which are built on truth, on honest dealings with our soldiers, our citizens and our allies are much more likely to succeed than policies built on the quicksand of deceiving the American people. Our troops deserve better."
Dean's remarks came at the convention's opening reception. Republicans sent out a barrage of press releases ahead of the speech, attacking Dean's position on Iraq.
"The liberal rhetoric and defeatist mentality of Democrats may make for a good five second sound bite, but the majority of Americans recognize these blatant political attacks for what they are, a desperate attempt by a party without a clear agenda or strategy for success or a will for victory," U.S. Rep. Tom Feeney said in one release.
The Republican National Committee released a Web ad Friday showing Dean's previous remarks with a white flag superimposed over his image.
Dean was introduced by Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, who is considered a potential presidential candidate in 2008.
The three-day event will be a showcase for gubernatorial candidates U.S. Rep. Jim Davis and state Sen. Rod Smith, as well as a rally for U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson's re-election. Nelson is being challenged by U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris, who was secretary of state during the disputed 2000 presidential election.
Among other Democrats to speak at the event are last year's vice presidential candidate John Edwards, Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, and U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, a rising Democratic star from Illinois."-from the AP story.
Friday, December 09, 2005
''Two Candidates Announce for the Office of Washington State Democrats Chair''
"Two candidates have now announced that they are seeking election as Chair of the Washington State Democrats, replacing Paul Berendt whose resignation is effective on January 28. The election of the new Chair will take place at the Washington State Democrats meeting in Ellensburg on January 28.
More candidates are expected to announce in the next weeks.
The two announced candidates are:
Dwight Pelz, member of the Seattle City Council,
Website.
Greg Rodriguez, former Chair of the King County Democratic Central Committee,
Website."
-from the Clallam County Democrats via Susan Hu (thanks!). Actually Dwight would like to be on the Seattle City Council, but he is currently on the King County Council. Both of these candidates played active roles in Howard Dean's campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination.
More candidates are expected to announce in the next weeks.
The two announced candidates are:
Dwight Pelz, member of the Seattle City Council,
Website.
Greg Rodriguez, former Chair of the King County Democratic Central Committee,
Website."
-from the Clallam County Democrats via Susan Hu (thanks!). Actually Dwight would like to be on the Seattle City Council, but he is currently on the King County Council. Both of these candidates played active roles in Howard Dean's campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Anybody know a good bumper sticker maker?
Worst President Ever: There is actually quite a body of literature on the subject. Time for a grassroots campaign, don't ya think? Actually, this one looks pretty good.
''Shadow Over Both Parties' Houses''
"Speaking to a group about politics in the spring of the year 2000 when the primaries had hardly gotten under way, I was challenged to predict who would be the next president. Not having the foggiest idea, I said, deadpan, that the Democratic convention would break up in chaos, unable to nominate anybody, the Republicans would nominate George W. Bush, who would run unopposed - and lose.
It was just a joke, mind you, but it is now happening that Americans, fed up with Republicans and not seeing much better among the Democrats, are more and more inclined to express their disillusionment with the political system by saying, "a plague on both your houses."
In an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, only 24 percent say Republicans represent their priorities, but only 26 percent favor the Democrats. Similarly, in a Washington Post/ABC poll, 35 percent approve of the job Republicans are doing, but the Democrats fare little better with 41 percent.
Why this deep disillusionment with the American political system? The Republicans have to contend with the growing unpopularity of the Iraq war, the halting response to the Katrina disaster, high gas prices, and now a series of bribery and corruption scandals.
It's "a party that has lost its moral compass," says Democratic National Committee spokesperson Karen Finney, "a culture of corruption." But that has not translated into any surge of support for the Democrats.
If the Republican tax program favors the rich, people don't see much better coming from the Democrats. If the Iraq war was wrong, Americans don't remember many Democrats saying so when the issue was being debated.
How this widespread cynicism will reflect itself is hard to predict, except to say that if the two parties fail to find issues that resonate with the public, the turnout on election day next November may be heading toward record lows."-Daniel Schorr in The Christian Science Monitor via The Huffington Post.
It was just a joke, mind you, but it is now happening that Americans, fed up with Republicans and not seeing much better among the Democrats, are more and more inclined to express their disillusionment with the political system by saying, "a plague on both your houses."
In an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, only 24 percent say Republicans represent their priorities, but only 26 percent favor the Democrats. Similarly, in a Washington Post/ABC poll, 35 percent approve of the job Republicans are doing, but the Democrats fare little better with 41 percent.
Why this deep disillusionment with the American political system? The Republicans have to contend with the growing unpopularity of the Iraq war, the halting response to the Katrina disaster, high gas prices, and now a series of bribery and corruption scandals.
It's "a party that has lost its moral compass," says Democratic National Committee spokesperson Karen Finney, "a culture of corruption." But that has not translated into any surge of support for the Democrats.
If the Republican tax program favors the rich, people don't see much better coming from the Democrats. If the Iraq war was wrong, Americans don't remember many Democrats saying so when the issue was being debated.
How this widespread cynicism will reflect itself is hard to predict, except to say that if the two parties fail to find issues that resonate with the public, the turnout on election day next November may be heading toward record lows."-Daniel Schorr in The Christian Science Monitor via The Huffington Post.
''Campaigners accuse leaders of 'war crimes' ''
"The governments of Tony Blair and George Bush have been charged with war crimes by a distinguished group of anti-war campaigners, who are calling for an investigation by the UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, into breaches of international law.
Harold Pinter, the playwright, Tony Benn, the former Labour MP, Michael Mansfield QC and Professor Richard Dawkins were among the signatories to 28 charges against the Blair and Bush administrations, covering ministers, officials and generals who were a party to the decisions that led to war on Iraq and the chaos in its aftermath.
The charges were sent to Mr Annan and the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, last night, with a demand that the investigation should go beyond the Prime Minister and the US President to all those involved in setting the policy decisions that led to abuses including the ill-treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib.
"These charges are carefully documented and we want those responsible to be held to account," Mr Benn said. "We are talking about the top people, not just Bush and Blair, but ministers, generals, who were responsible for the decisions that led to prisoners being inhumanely treated or sexually abused."
The charges will be read out at the weekend at a London conference, and Mr Benn said his message to the campaigners was that they had succeeded in ensuring that Mr Blair would not be able to support Mr Bush again, if the US took military action against Iran. The charges claim that Britain is a signatory to the Geneva and Hague conventions and the Nuremberg charter of 1945, but had breached them all during the Iraq war in 2003 and its aftermath to the present day.
The use of white phosphorus as a weapon in the assault on Fallujah is also cited as a war crime. This was initially denied by the Bush administration, until US troops boasted on a website that it had been used to flush out insurgents. The charge sheet includes the use of cable ties as a restraint; hooding of detainees which causes mental suffering; the use of dogs as a means of obtaining information, which was authorised by the US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, in December 2002; sexual humiliation of detainees, including rapes; and the use of cluster bombs and depleted uranium shells.
The indictments include: crimes against peace; planning and conducting an aggressive war using deceit; failure to ensure public order and safety by disbanding the army and police of Iraq; extensive destruction of service infrastructure; deliberate damage to hospitals; failure to prohibit looting and arson; failure to respect cultural property; and economic exploitation of occupied territories."-from The Independent (UK).
Harold Pinter, the playwright, Tony Benn, the former Labour MP, Michael Mansfield QC and Professor Richard Dawkins were among the signatories to 28 charges against the Blair and Bush administrations, covering ministers, officials and generals who were a party to the decisions that led to war on Iraq and the chaos in its aftermath.
The charges were sent to Mr Annan and the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, last night, with a demand that the investigation should go beyond the Prime Minister and the US President to all those involved in setting the policy decisions that led to abuses including the ill-treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib.
"These charges are carefully documented and we want those responsible to be held to account," Mr Benn said. "We are talking about the top people, not just Bush and Blair, but ministers, generals, who were responsible for the decisions that led to prisoners being inhumanely treated or sexually abused."
The charges will be read out at the weekend at a London conference, and Mr Benn said his message to the campaigners was that they had succeeded in ensuring that Mr Blair would not be able to support Mr Bush again, if the US took military action against Iran. The charges claim that Britain is a signatory to the Geneva and Hague conventions and the Nuremberg charter of 1945, but had breached them all during the Iraq war in 2003 and its aftermath to the present day.
The use of white phosphorus as a weapon in the assault on Fallujah is also cited as a war crime. This was initially denied by the Bush administration, until US troops boasted on a website that it had been used to flush out insurgents. The charge sheet includes the use of cable ties as a restraint; hooding of detainees which causes mental suffering; the use of dogs as a means of obtaining information, which was authorised by the US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, in December 2002; sexual humiliation of detainees, including rapes; and the use of cluster bombs and depleted uranium shells.
The indictments include: crimes against peace; planning and conducting an aggressive war using deceit; failure to ensure public order and safety by disbanding the army and police of Iraq; extensive destruction of service infrastructure; deliberate damage to hospitals; failure to prohibit looting and arson; failure to respect cultural property; and economic exploitation of occupied territories."-from The Independent (UK).
Thursday, December 08, 2005
''Cantwell In Good Position for Re-Election''
"A new Strategic Vision (R) poll shows Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) beating both potential GOP rivals. Among likely voters, she leads Mike McGavick (R), 50% to 39%, and tops Susan Hutchinson (R), 53% to 35%."-from Political Wire.
''Howard on CNN's American Morning''
Here's the text from this morning's appearance, via Howard-Empowered People. Here's the video (scroll down and look on the right side of the page), from CNN.
''IN DEFENSE OF DEAN'' (UPDATED)
You have to be a little nervous when the folks at The New Republican defend you, but they got it at least half right this time(excerpt):
"There are, however, two very different questions to ask about Dean's statements on Iraq. The first is whether they are politic--whether they have advanced his own or his party's electoral chances. Probably not--I am no fan of Dean as a national politician or party chair; and I would certainly concede that a Democrat in Georgia, Florida, or Nebraska might not want to run on what he says.
The second question, though, is whether his judgment on Iraq has been sound. And there I would say that it certainly has been. During the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq, and during the invasion and occupation, Dean has been almost consistently correct in his statements. He has been the Democrats' and the nation's Cassandra--willing to reveal bitter truths about which Republicans and his fellow Democrats would prefer that he remain silent." Another Howard, named Stern, defends Dean, too. Update II: Susan Hu on Booman Tribune brings in Ray Minchew, Jerry Springer, and others to the discussion. She avoids The New Republican, though, not that I blame her.
"There are, however, two very different questions to ask about Dean's statements on Iraq. The first is whether they are politic--whether they have advanced his own or his party's electoral chances. Probably not--I am no fan of Dean as a national politician or party chair; and I would certainly concede that a Democrat in Georgia, Florida, or Nebraska might not want to run on what he says.
The second question, though, is whether his judgment on Iraq has been sound. And there I would say that it certainly has been. During the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq, and during the invasion and occupation, Dean has been almost consistently correct in his statements. He has been the Democrats' and the nation's Cassandra--willing to reveal bitter truths about which Republicans and his fellow Democrats would prefer that he remain silent." Another Howard, named Stern, defends Dean, too. Update II: Susan Hu on Booman Tribune brings in Ray Minchew, Jerry Springer, and others to the discussion. She avoids The New Republican, though, not that I blame her.
Ohio: Still Leading the Nation in Voter Suppression
Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman, writing in The Free Press (OH), remind us that you can't just be confident that your side is right on the issues; the rules of the game matter:
"A law that will make democracy all but moot in Ohio is about to pass the state legislature and to be signed by its Republican governor. Despite massive corruption scandals besieging the Ohio GOP, any hope that the Democratic party could win this most crucial swing state in future presidential elections, or carry its pivotal US Senate seat in 2006, are about to end.
House Bill 3 has already passed the Ohio House of Representatives and is about to be approved by the Republican-dominated Senate, probably before the holiday recess. Republicans dominate the Ohio legislature thanks to a heavily gerrymandered crazy quilt of rigged districts, and to a moribund Ohio Democratic party. The GOP-drafted HB3 is designed to all but obliterate any possible future Democratic revival. Opposition from the Ohio Democratic Party, where it exists at all, is diffuse and ineffectual.
HB3's most publicized provision will require positive identification before casting a vote. But it also opens voter registration activists to partisan prosecution, exempts electronic voting machines from public scrutiny, quintuples the cost of citizen-requested statewide recounts and makes it illegal to challenge a presidential vote count or, indeed, any federal election result in Ohio. When added to the recently passed HB1, which allows campaign financing to be dominated by the wealthy and by corporations, and along with a Rovian wish list of GOP attacks on the ballot box, democracy in Ohio could be all but over.
The GOP is ramming similar bills through state legislatures around the US, starting with Georgia and Indiana. The ID requirements in particular have provoked widespread opposition from newspapers such as the New York Times. The Times, among others, argues that the ID requirements and the costs associated with them, constitute an unconstitutional discriminatory poll tax."
Thanks to Jason Call for reminding me, by sending this along.
"A law that will make democracy all but moot in Ohio is about to pass the state legislature and to be signed by its Republican governor. Despite massive corruption scandals besieging the Ohio GOP, any hope that the Democratic party could win this most crucial swing state in future presidential elections, or carry its pivotal US Senate seat in 2006, are about to end.
House Bill 3 has already passed the Ohio House of Representatives and is about to be approved by the Republican-dominated Senate, probably before the holiday recess. Republicans dominate the Ohio legislature thanks to a heavily gerrymandered crazy quilt of rigged districts, and to a moribund Ohio Democratic party. The GOP-drafted HB3 is designed to all but obliterate any possible future Democratic revival. Opposition from the Ohio Democratic Party, where it exists at all, is diffuse and ineffectual.
HB3's most publicized provision will require positive identification before casting a vote. But it also opens voter registration activists to partisan prosecution, exempts electronic voting machines from public scrutiny, quintuples the cost of citizen-requested statewide recounts and makes it illegal to challenge a presidential vote count or, indeed, any federal election result in Ohio. When added to the recently passed HB1, which allows campaign financing to be dominated by the wealthy and by corporations, and along with a Rovian wish list of GOP attacks on the ballot box, democracy in Ohio could be all but over.
The GOP is ramming similar bills through state legislatures around the US, starting with Georgia and Indiana. The ID requirements in particular have provoked widespread opposition from newspapers such as the New York Times. The Times, among others, argues that the ID requirements and the costs associated with them, constitute an unconstitutional discriminatory poll tax."
Thanks to Jason Call for reminding me, by sending this along.
''Dean Seeks to Clarify Comments on Iraq''
"Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean said Thursday his assertion that the United States cannot win the war in Iraq was reported "a little out of context," saying Democrats believe a new U.S. strategy is needed to succeed there.
Seeking to clarify a statement in a Texas radio interview that Republicans harshly assailed and some Democrats questioned, Dean said, "They kind of cheery-picked that one the same way the president cherry-picked the intelligence going into Iraq."
Dean was questioned on CNN about an interview he gave Monday to radio station WOAI in San Antonio. "The idea that we're going to win this war is an ideal that unfortunately is just plain wrong," the former Vermont governor and unsuccessful 2004 presidential candidate said.
His Republican counterpart, Ken Mehlman, called Dean's prediction "outrageous" and said it "sends the wrong message to our troops, the enemy, and the Iraqi people just 10 days before historic elections."
On Thursday, Dean stressed at several junctures in the interview that Democrats support U.S. troops struggling to secure Iraq. He seemed to be striving to counter charges that statements by some Democrats suggesting a pullout are having the effect of undermining U.S. servicemen and women.
Democrats have been struggling to find party unity on Iraq. Dean's broadside Monday, likening Iraq to the Vietnam experience, went beyond an earlier call by Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), D-Pa., to begin to pull troops out. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., embraced Murtha's position Wednesday. But other Democrats have been more cautious about second-guessing President Bush on this issue.
Sen. Joseph Lieberman (news, bio, voting record), D-Conn., said earlier this week that Democrats "undercut the president's credibility at our nation's peril."
Asked Thursday to defend his statement in the Texas radio interview, Dean said: "It was a little out of context. ... We can only win if we change our strategy dramatically. ... We want to serve our troops well. They're doing a fantastic job in Iraq."
Dean charged that Bush is "going in the wrong direction. We'll go in the right direction and save soldiers lives while we're doing it."
"We can and we have to win the war on terror," the Democratic Party chairman added. "We can't do it with this kind of approach."
Asked about Lieberman's statement, Dean replied, "I am not as worried about the president's credibility. ... We need to redeploy our troops and stop making our troops the target over there. We believe that talking about the president's failed strategy is not unpatriotic. It may undercut the president but it does not undercut the troops. We are for the troops and we are going to support the troops."
He acknowledged, however, that Democrats "may have some small disagreements" on the timing of any withdrawal."-from the AP story this morning.
Seeking to clarify a statement in a Texas radio interview that Republicans harshly assailed and some Democrats questioned, Dean said, "They kind of cheery-picked that one the same way the president cherry-picked the intelligence going into Iraq."
Dean was questioned on CNN about an interview he gave Monday to radio station WOAI in San Antonio. "The idea that we're going to win this war is an ideal that unfortunately is just plain wrong," the former Vermont governor and unsuccessful 2004 presidential candidate said.
His Republican counterpart, Ken Mehlman, called Dean's prediction "outrageous" and said it "sends the wrong message to our troops, the enemy, and the Iraqi people just 10 days before historic elections."
On Thursday, Dean stressed at several junctures in the interview that Democrats support U.S. troops struggling to secure Iraq. He seemed to be striving to counter charges that statements by some Democrats suggesting a pullout are having the effect of undermining U.S. servicemen and women.
Democrats have been struggling to find party unity on Iraq. Dean's broadside Monday, likening Iraq to the Vietnam experience, went beyond an earlier call by Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), D-Pa., to begin to pull troops out. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., embraced Murtha's position Wednesday. But other Democrats have been more cautious about second-guessing President Bush on this issue.
Sen. Joseph Lieberman (news, bio, voting record), D-Conn., said earlier this week that Democrats "undercut the president's credibility at our nation's peril."
Asked Thursday to defend his statement in the Texas radio interview, Dean said: "It was a little out of context. ... We can only win if we change our strategy dramatically. ... We want to serve our troops well. They're doing a fantastic job in Iraq."
Dean charged that Bush is "going in the wrong direction. We'll go in the right direction and save soldiers lives while we're doing it."
"We can and we have to win the war on terror," the Democratic Party chairman added. "We can't do it with this kind of approach."
Asked about Lieberman's statement, Dean replied, "I am not as worried about the president's credibility. ... We need to redeploy our troops and stop making our troops the target over there. We believe that talking about the president's failed strategy is not unpatriotic. It may undercut the president but it does not undercut the troops. We are for the troops and we are going to support the troops."
He acknowledged, however, that Democrats "may have some small disagreements" on the timing of any withdrawal."-from the AP story this morning.
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
''Paul Berendt is out as Democrat's Party Chief'' (UPDATED)
Oy vey, this isn't all pretty. There is the letter from Paul that mentions all the good things as well as the wish to spend more time cooking dinner for his wife, etc. There is also a new story in The Stranger, "Glass Houses," that tells us about a little financial hanky-panky that involved a former staffer. Paul wasn't involved himself, but it occured on his watch. Turns out there is also a new post in The Stranger blog that explains why they think this is a story worth telling. The WA State Dems have done a lot we can be proud of under Paul's leadership.
Thanks to Pike Place Politics for the tip. KOMO News covers the story, minus the issue raised in The Stranger and adds the names of some potential successors, suggested by Paul. Carl at Washington State Political Report posts there and in his diary on Kos, with his thoughts and some background information about some of the potential candidates to succeed Paul.
Update: The Seattle P-I has a story, "Berendt to retire as state chairman of the Democrats." from AP that is pretty much the same as the KOMO one. The Seattle Times has "State Democratic Party chairman resigning" by David Postman. Here a taste:
"During his tenure Berendt helped the party retake control of the Legislature, put a Democratic majority in the state's congressional delegation and give the state two Democratic U.S. senators.
He also helped make former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean chairman of the Democratic National Committee and teamed up with his rival, state Republican Party Chairman Chris Vance, for a legal challenge to the state's primary-election system.
He said the "crowning event of my chairmanship" was the hard-fought legal challenge to the election of Democratic Gov. Christine Gregoire. Berendt was the chief fundraiser for a recount that put Gregoire in office and for the expensive legal battle that followed.
"It was just an epic event," he said.
But it also left the party deeply in debt, by about $600,000. Berendt said he wants to cut the debt at least in half before he leaves. Some prominent Democrats, including U.S. Rep. Adam Smith, D-Tacoma, were particularly unhappy with Berendt's early and ardent support of Dean in last year's Democratic presidential caucus.
Talk about Berendt's departure popped up this week after The Stranger reported on its blog that Berendt was the topic of gossip at the state Democrats' Christmas party. Berendt says he has been talking to people about leaving and urging some Democrats to consider replacing him."
Andrew at Northwest Progressive Institute is first out of the gate with his endorsement, before any candidates have even formally declared.
Thanks to Pike Place Politics for the tip. KOMO News covers the story, minus the issue raised in The Stranger and adds the names of some potential successors, suggested by Paul. Carl at Washington State Political Report posts there and in his diary on Kos, with his thoughts and some background information about some of the potential candidates to succeed Paul.
Update: The Seattle P-I has a story, "Berendt to retire as state chairman of the Democrats." from AP that is pretty much the same as the KOMO one. The Seattle Times has "State Democratic Party chairman resigning" by David Postman. Here a taste:
"During his tenure Berendt helped the party retake control of the Legislature, put a Democratic majority in the state's congressional delegation and give the state two Democratic U.S. senators.
He also helped make former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean chairman of the Democratic National Committee and teamed up with his rival, state Republican Party Chairman Chris Vance, for a legal challenge to the state's primary-election system.
He said the "crowning event of my chairmanship" was the hard-fought legal challenge to the election of Democratic Gov. Christine Gregoire. Berendt was the chief fundraiser for a recount that put Gregoire in office and for the expensive legal battle that followed.
"It was just an epic event," he said.
But it also left the party deeply in debt, by about $600,000. Berendt said he wants to cut the debt at least in half before he leaves. Some prominent Democrats, including U.S. Rep. Adam Smith, D-Tacoma, were particularly unhappy with Berendt's early and ardent support of Dean in last year's Democratic presidential caucus.
Talk about Berendt's departure popped up this week after The Stranger reported on its blog that Berendt was the topic of gossip at the state Democrats' Christmas party. Berendt says he has been talking to people about leaving and urging some Democrats to consider replacing him."
Andrew at Northwest Progressive Institute is first out of the gate with his endorsement, before any candidates have even formally declared.
"Pinter demands war crimes trial for Blair" (UPDATED)
"How many people do you have to kill before you qualify to be described as a mass murderer and a war criminal? One hundred thousand? More than enough, I would have thought," he said.
"Therefore it is just that Bush and Blair be arraigned before the international criminal court of justice. But Bush has been clever. He has not ratified the international criminal court of justice ..."-from the story in the Guardian Unlimited (UK).
The New York Times story, "Playwright Takes a Prize and a Jab at U.S.," casts Pinter as an America-hater and doesn't mention his call for Bush to face international justice. Update: This story from the BBC, "Bush and Blair slated by Pinter" sharpens and echoes the earlier story.
"Therefore it is just that Bush and Blair be arraigned before the international criminal court of justice. But Bush has been clever. He has not ratified the international criminal court of justice ..."-from the story in the Guardian Unlimited (UK).
The New York Times story, "Playwright Takes a Prize and a Jab at U.S.," casts Pinter as an America-hater and doesn't mention his call for Bush to face international justice. Update: This story from the BBC, "Bush and Blair slated by Pinter" sharpens and echoes the earlier story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)