"As this race moves into its final week I think fellow democrats who may not be on the central committee mailing list will be interested to read the following update from candidate Dwight Pelz. Much has been said here and elsewhere about the candidates. What follows is a reaffirmation of how Dwight sees the job in the short and longer term and gives an idea of the depth of his support. I welcome comment of course but let us try to focus in on the qualities each of the candidates will bring to the table and to remember that in one short week, regardless of who wins, we need to unite in the goal of electing democrats east west north center and south.
January 20, 2006
Dear State Central Committee Member,
First let me thank all of you for the time and attention you have given this
contest. I know that you have busy lives, which makes me even more
appreciative of the many considerations you have shown me. It has a
wonderful pleasure to meet so many of you in your own communities and to put
our Party and its work into the local context.
On the same day our Democratic Party will be electing our State Chair the
Republicans will be electing their chair too. Chris Vance has lost all
credibility. He's used up and has to be replaced. But whoever they elect
will not run their party. Professional operatives from Slade Gorton's
machine will move into Republican Headquarters. Their party will take the
high road and Gorton's hatchet men will take the low road to conduct a
determined and vicious campaign to capture Maria Cantwell's seat in the U.S.
Senate.
Our Party must be at maximum strength to meet their 2006 challenge. Our
Democratic Chair must be the best organizer in the state. Our Democratic
Chair must have the closest working relationship with our elected officials
and the powerhouse allies of our party. And he must be able to stand up -
toe to toe - to every maneuver and ploy the Republicans will throw at us.
I intend to be that Chair. I see the job ahead and I am ready for it by
talent, experience and temperament. I want you to join me in meeting this
challenge.
OUR PROGRESS REPORT
With more that a month of campaigning behind us and only a week to go before
the vote that will end this campaign I want to give you an update on our
progress toward that goal.
This campaign has been a great pleasure and a great learning experience for
me as I met Democrats and their Party leaders across the state to discuss
their political issues and to give them a flavor of what a Pelz
administration would mean for our Party. I did a four-day tour of Eastern
Washington, visiting Spokane, Newport, Colville, Davenport, Othello, Pasco,
Walla Walla, Clarkston and Pullman. I have met with Democrats in Aberdeen,
Shelton, Mt. Vernon, Chehalis, Longview and Vancouver. I have been to
Kitsap County and will be going to Ferndale, Olympia, Port Angeles and
Renton. Throughout my travels I found our Party committed to making our
state and our nation better places to live, work and raise our families.
WHAT LIES AHEAD
In each of these places our Party faces unique challenges. But everywhere
our local parties are as one in their need for help, not direction, from the
State Party. I have learned that the greatest service I can give as Chair
is to help in organizing so they can bring more grassroots Democrats into
their local Parties. They want training in recruiting candidates for all
their partisan offices and for non-partisan offices as well. Across the
board they need help in raising money so they too can play a part in funding
campaigns.
All of these needs play to my strengths as a grassroots political organizer
that I learned here in our state over the past 30 years. But I know that
the Party Chair cannot accomplish these things alone. As Chair I will build
the training component of the Party so we can depend on local Democrats to
do much of the important work that lies ahead.
I will continue to support our regional office and staff in Eastern
Washington. If circumstances permit I want to expand that effort so that
both the 4th and 5th CDs can have their own Party office and full time
staff. To attract more grassroots Democrats into our local Party
Organizations I want to continue meetings patterned on the successful
Eastern Washington Conference held in Moses Lake last year.
I am especially aware that great potential for our Party lies untapped in
our communities of color and in ethnic communities across the state. I want
to build the diversity of our current membership and use it to make the
Democratic Party more relevant in the communities where they live. We will
work together to increase our organizing and to find leaders who will run
for office throughout the state and I believe the State Party can and should
provide it.
THE PELZ DELEGATE COUNT
So far our campaign has been very successful in bring members of the Central
Committee into our effort. As of this writing more than a majority of the
members of the Central Committee have indicated their support for my
candidacy.
MY PLEDGE TO YOU
As State Democratic Chair my first priority will be to use the full
resources of the State Party to make every County Democratic Party and
Legislative District Organization as effective and successful as possible.
My second priority will be to make our local elections as victorious as
possible. At the same time I will bring the entire State Party together as
one to solidify our hold on Maria Cantwell's U.S. Senate seat and to expand
our representation in the U.S. House of Representative.
These are goals we can and will meet. Our Party has done great over the
years and together I know we can do even better.
Sincerely,
Dwight Pelz
SOME IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENTS OF SUPPORT
I'd like you to know the names of some of the people and groups who have
endorsed my efforts to be State Party Chair. I consider all of these
endorsements important because they each represent parts of the Party or the
Party's allies that the new chair will be working with in the years ahead.
You have already seen that Senator Patty Murray and Governor Christine
Gregoire have put their confidence in me. They and their staff believe I am
the strongest candidate running to build the Party in our state.
King County Executive Ron Sims and Council member Larry Gossett also
demonstrate that they know and trust that I will work with them in their
offices. Velma Veloria and Kip Tokuda, former members of the Legislature
from the largely minority 11th and 37th Districts endorse me and know that I
will work to develop the Democratic Party across the State.
Former State Party Chairs Karen Marchioro and Charles Rolland, who know the
job better than anyone besides Paul Berendt, both support my election
because they say that I represent our Party's best chance of meeting the
challenges that lie ahead in the 2006 elections. The same evaluation has
brought other Party leaders to support my candidacy, including D.N.C.
members Ed Cote and Pat Notter, LD Chairs Peter House and Scott White, and
Party activists like Greg Mowat, Betty Means and Jeanne Legult.
Dean Nielson the Washington Director of the Progressive Majority is a strong
Pelz supporter because he knows that our Party's success in Washington State
depends on a strong progressive State Chair.
Charles Hasse, the President of the Washington Education Association, addressed to WEA members who serve on the State Democratic Central Committee, saying that the WEA does not endorse in Party races such as this, but states clearly that they consider me a friend of
education.
I have received the endorsement of the Thurston, Lewis and Mason Counties
Central Labor Council. I am proud of their support because the bulk of the
union members this Council represents serve all of us as the people who make
government work in Olympia.
The State Association of Electrical Workers, the labor organization that
includes the IBEW, one of the most active unions working on the behalf of
Democratic candidates, says that it wants to work with me as the leader of
the Democratic Party as we go into battle with the Republicans this year.
The State Council of the Service Employees International Union has given me
their endorsement. I am particularly pleased by this show of support
because no other union is doing more to bring the advantages of collective
action to some of the hardest working and lowest paid members of the State's
workforce. The SEIU has more members from communities of color than any
other union. Their endorsement is a reflection of their trust that as Chair
of the Party I will work just as hard to bring greater political
participation to these same communities. SEIU is one of the three largest
contributors to the Washington State Democratic Party."-from the post on Washblog.
Thanks to Nigel Herbig for passing this along.
Friday, January 20, 2006
Cantwell "has no regrets" about Iraq War Vote
"According to yesterday's Seattle Post-Intelligencer, looks like Senator Maria Cantwell has not budged in her position on Iraq since the IWR.
Cantwell "has no regrets" P-I story.
It spurred me to fire off a letter to the Editor, reproduced below.
The topic of Cantwell and her upcoming re-election provokes a storm of squabbling among WA Kossaks--everything from "She's the greatest" to "She's useless"--depending on how monumental the war issue is to us. If you could see into my head (it's messy in there) the IRAQ WAR would be in 60-point type, most other issues of the day would be in 20- or 30-point type."-from Dina Lydia's post on Kos, in the diaries.
Cantwell "has no regrets" P-I story.
It spurred me to fire off a letter to the Editor, reproduced below.
The topic of Cantwell and her upcoming re-election provokes a storm of squabbling among WA Kossaks--everything from "She's the greatest" to "She's useless"--depending on how monumental the war issue is to us. If you could see into my head (it's messy in there) the IRAQ WAR would be in 60-point type, most other issues of the day would be in 20- or 30-point type."-from Dina Lydia's post on Kos, in the diaries.
Reminder: ''Democrats' unofficial wiretap hearings to be carried on CSPAN'' (UPDATED)
I'm listening and watching online now. Click here for the links. RAW STORY has "In opening statement, Democrat takes on warrantless wiretaps."
Update: RAW STORY continues its coverage with "Congressman, law scholar urge House to consider impeachment inquiry at hearing."
Update: RAW STORY continues its coverage with "Congressman, law scholar urge House to consider impeachment inquiry at hearing."
Molly Ivins: "I will not support Hillary Clinton for president"
"AUSTIN, Texas --- I'd like to make it clear to the people who run the Democratic Party that I will not support Hillary Clinton for president.
Enough. Enough triangulation, calculation and equivocation. Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone This is not a Dick Morris election. Sen. Clinton is apparently incapable of taking a clear stand on the war in Iraq, and that alone is enough to disqualify her. Her failure to speak out on Terri Schiavo, not to mention that gross pandering on flag-burning, are just contemptible little dodges.
The recent death of Gene McCarthy reminded me of a lesson I spent a long, long time unlearning, so now I have to re-learn it. It's about political courage and heroes, and when a country is desperate for leadership. There are times when regular politics will not do, and this is one of those times. There are times a country is so tired of bull that only the truth can provide relief.
If no one in conventional-wisdom politics has the courage to speak up and say what needs to be said, then you go out and find some obscure junior senator from Minnesota with the guts to do it. In 1968, Gene McCarthy was the little boy who said out loud, "Look, the emperor isn't wearing any clothes." Bobby Kennedy -- rough, tough Bobby Kennedy -- didn't do it. Just this quiet man trained by Benedictines who liked to quote poetry.
What kind of courage does it take, for mercy's sake? The majority of the American people (55 percent) think the war in Iraq is a mistake and that we should get out. The majority (65 percent) of the American people want single-payer health care and are willing to pay more taxes to get it. The majority (86 percent) of the American people favor raising the minimum wage. The majority of the American people (60 percent) favor repealing Bush's tax cuts, or at least those that go only to the rich. The majority (66 percent) wants to reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending, but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.
The majority (77 percent) thinks we should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment. The majority (87 percent) thinks big oil companies are gouging consumers and would support a windfall profits tax. That is the center, you fools. WHO ARE YOU AFRAID OF?
I listen to people like Rahm Emanuel superciliously explaining elementary politics to us clueless naifs outside the Beltway ("First, you have to win elections"). Can't you even read the damn polls?
Here's a prize example by someone named Barry Casselman, who writes, "There is an invisible civil war in the Democratic Party, and it is between those who are attempting to satisfy the defeatist and pacifist left base of the party and those who are attempting to prepare the party for successful elections in 2006 and 2008."
This supposedly pits Howard Dean, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, emboldened by "a string of bad new from the Middle East ... into calling for premature retreat from Iraq," versus those pragmatic folk like Steny Hoyer, Rahm Emmanuel, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Joe Lieberman.
Oh come on, people -- get a grip on the concept of leadership. Look at this war -- from the lies that led us into it, to the lies they continue to dump on us daily.
You sit there in Washington so frightened of the big, bad Republican machine you have no idea what people are thinking. I'm telling you right now, Tom DeLay is going to lose in his district. If Democrats in Washington haven't got enough sense to OWN the issue of political reform, I give up on them entirely.
Do it all, go long, go for public campaign financing for Congress. I'm serious as a stroke about this -- that is the only reform that will work, and you know it, as well as everyone else who's ever studied this. Do all the goo-goo stuff everybody has made fun of all these years: embrace redistricting reform, electoral reform, House rules changes, the whole package. Put up, or shut up. Own this issue, or let Jack Abramoff politics continue to run your town.
Bush, Cheney and Co. will continue to play the patriotic bully card just as long as you let them. I've said it before: War brings out the patriotic bullies. In World War I, they went around kicking dachshunds on the grounds that dachshunds were "German dogs." They did not, however, go around kicking German shepherds. The MINUTE someone impugns your patriotism for opposing this war, turn on them like a snarling dog and explain what loving your country really means. That, or you could just piss on them elegantly, as Rep. John Murtha did. Or eviscerate them with wit (look up Mark Twain on the war in the Philippines). Or point out the latest in the endless "string of bad news."
Do not sit there cowering and pretending the only way to win is as Republican-lite. If the Washington-based party can't get up and fight, we'll find someone who can."-from The Free Press (OH). Tipped by The Smirking Chimp.
Enough. Enough triangulation, calculation and equivocation. Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone This is not a Dick Morris election. Sen. Clinton is apparently incapable of taking a clear stand on the war in Iraq, and that alone is enough to disqualify her. Her failure to speak out on Terri Schiavo, not to mention that gross pandering on flag-burning, are just contemptible little dodges.
The recent death of Gene McCarthy reminded me of a lesson I spent a long, long time unlearning, so now I have to re-learn it. It's about political courage and heroes, and when a country is desperate for leadership. There are times when regular politics will not do, and this is one of those times. There are times a country is so tired of bull that only the truth can provide relief.
If no one in conventional-wisdom politics has the courage to speak up and say what needs to be said, then you go out and find some obscure junior senator from Minnesota with the guts to do it. In 1968, Gene McCarthy was the little boy who said out loud, "Look, the emperor isn't wearing any clothes." Bobby Kennedy -- rough, tough Bobby Kennedy -- didn't do it. Just this quiet man trained by Benedictines who liked to quote poetry.
What kind of courage does it take, for mercy's sake? The majority of the American people (55 percent) think the war in Iraq is a mistake and that we should get out. The majority (65 percent) of the American people want single-payer health care and are willing to pay more taxes to get it. The majority (86 percent) of the American people favor raising the minimum wage. The majority of the American people (60 percent) favor repealing Bush's tax cuts, or at least those that go only to the rich. The majority (66 percent) wants to reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending, but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.
The majority (77 percent) thinks we should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment. The majority (87 percent) thinks big oil companies are gouging consumers and would support a windfall profits tax. That is the center, you fools. WHO ARE YOU AFRAID OF?
I listen to people like Rahm Emanuel superciliously explaining elementary politics to us clueless naifs outside the Beltway ("First, you have to win elections"). Can't you even read the damn polls?
Here's a prize example by someone named Barry Casselman, who writes, "There is an invisible civil war in the Democratic Party, and it is between those who are attempting to satisfy the defeatist and pacifist left base of the party and those who are attempting to prepare the party for successful elections in 2006 and 2008."
This supposedly pits Howard Dean, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, emboldened by "a string of bad new from the Middle East ... into calling for premature retreat from Iraq," versus those pragmatic folk like Steny Hoyer, Rahm Emmanuel, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Joe Lieberman.
Oh come on, people -- get a grip on the concept of leadership. Look at this war -- from the lies that led us into it, to the lies they continue to dump on us daily.
You sit there in Washington so frightened of the big, bad Republican machine you have no idea what people are thinking. I'm telling you right now, Tom DeLay is going to lose in his district. If Democrats in Washington haven't got enough sense to OWN the issue of political reform, I give up on them entirely.
Do it all, go long, go for public campaign financing for Congress. I'm serious as a stroke about this -- that is the only reform that will work, and you know it, as well as everyone else who's ever studied this. Do all the goo-goo stuff everybody has made fun of all these years: embrace redistricting reform, electoral reform, House rules changes, the whole package. Put up, or shut up. Own this issue, or let Jack Abramoff politics continue to run your town.
Bush, Cheney and Co. will continue to play the patriotic bully card just as long as you let them. I've said it before: War brings out the patriotic bullies. In World War I, they went around kicking dachshunds on the grounds that dachshunds were "German dogs." They did not, however, go around kicking German shepherds. The MINUTE someone impugns your patriotism for opposing this war, turn on them like a snarling dog and explain what loving your country really means. That, or you could just piss on them elegantly, as Rep. John Murtha did. Or eviscerate them with wit (look up Mark Twain on the war in the Philippines). Or point out the latest in the endless "string of bad news."
Do not sit there cowering and pretending the only way to win is as Republican-lite. If the Washington-based party can't get up and fight, we'll find someone who can."-from The Free Press (OH). Tipped by The Smirking Chimp.
Filibuster Alito: Call These Senators Today
Mary Robinson passes this along:
"Dear Friends,
I just spoke to someone in Biden's office about the chances of the dems
filibustering Alito. He said in order to do so,they need the four conservative democratic
holdouts:
Mary Landreau, LA
Landrieu, Mary - (D - LA)
(202) 224-5824
Web Form
Mark Pryor, AR
Pryor, Mark - (D - AR)
(202) 224-2353
Web Form
Blanche Lincoln, AR
Lincoln, Blanche - (D - AR)
(202) 224-4843
Web Form
Ben Nelson, Nebraska
Nelson, Ben - (D - NE) SAID HE MAY VOTE FOR ALITO
(202) 224-6551
Web Form
Capitol switchboard: 1-800-426-8073 or (202) 224-3121
Be sure and call your own two senators as well.
PLEASE MAKE THESE CALLS ASKING FOR THE DEMS TO FILIBUSTER. WE NEED A
MODERATE IN THAT SEAT!
IT TAKES ONLY A FEW SECONDS BECAUSE THEY REALLY DON'T WANT TO TALK TO
YOU.
PLEASE PASS THIS TO EVERY ONE YOU KNOW.
If the pols can't do it, the people will.
Peace,
Shelley"
Patty Murray (voted for Roberts)
US Senator for Washington (D)
Phone:(202) 224-2621
Maria Cantwell (voted against Roberts)
US Senator for Washington (D)
Phone: (202) 224-3441
The People's Email Network has a "one click form on this page (that) will send your personal message to both your Senators, with your "No" vote on the the question "Should Sandra Day O'Connor's Replacement be More Right Wing?" At the same time it will send your personal comments only as a letter to the editor of your nearest local daily newspaper, if that option is selected below." Thanks to Pacific Views for the tip.
BuzzFlash has this commentary: "Sam Alito and the End of Constitutional Checks and Balances: The Senate Dems are About to Hang Themselves."
"Dear Friends,
I just spoke to someone in Biden's office about the chances of the dems
filibustering Alito. He said in order to do so,they need the four conservative democratic
holdouts:
Mary Landreau, LA
Landrieu, Mary - (D - LA)
(202) 224-5824
Web Form
Mark Pryor, AR
Pryor, Mark - (D - AR)
(202) 224-2353
Web Form
Blanche Lincoln, AR
Lincoln, Blanche - (D - AR)
(202) 224-4843
Web Form
Ben Nelson, Nebraska
Nelson, Ben - (D - NE) SAID HE MAY VOTE FOR ALITO
(202) 224-6551
Web Form
Capitol switchboard: 1-800-426-8073 or (202) 224-3121
Be sure and call your own two senators as well.
PLEASE MAKE THESE CALLS ASKING FOR THE DEMS TO FILIBUSTER. WE NEED A
MODERATE IN THAT SEAT!
IT TAKES ONLY A FEW SECONDS BECAUSE THEY REALLY DON'T WANT TO TALK TO
YOU.
PLEASE PASS THIS TO EVERY ONE YOU KNOW.
If the pols can't do it, the people will.
Peace,
Shelley"
Patty Murray (voted for Roberts)
US Senator for Washington (D)
Phone:(202) 224-2621
Maria Cantwell (voted against Roberts)
US Senator for Washington (D)
Phone: (202) 224-3441
The People's Email Network has a "one click form on this page (that) will send your personal message to both your Senators, with your "No" vote on the the question "Should Sandra Day O'Connor's Replacement be More Right Wing?" At the same time it will send your personal comments only as a letter to the editor of your nearest local daily newspaper, if that option is selected below." Thanks to Pacific Views for the tip.
BuzzFlash has this commentary: "Sam Alito and the End of Constitutional Checks and Balances: The Senate Dems are About to Hang Themselves."
Thursday, January 19, 2006
''Democrats' unofficial wiretap hearings to be carried on CSPAN''
"House Democrats, led by liberal Michigan Congressmen John Conyers, will hold unofficial hearings on the legality of President Bush's warantless wiretap programs Friday, and CSPAN and Pacifica radio will carry the hearings live, RAW STORY can report.
Conyers office said in a release that CNN and ABC radio are also expected to be present at the event. Radio Pacifica affiliates will broadcast the forum beginning at 11:00am EST, and it will be streamed live on the internet at www.kpfa.org.
Democrats are holding the hearings, they say, because a request for hearings from the Republican-led Judiciary Committee have fallen on deaf ears. In the Senate, Republican Judiciary chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA) has said he will hold formal hearings to examine the ramifications of the taps.
A spokesman for the Republican-led Judiciary Committee declined to comment; he said that because the House was in recess nothing was currently planned.
At least seven Democratic members are scheduled to attend the hearings: Reps. John Conyers, Jr., Bobby Scott, Chris Van Hollen, Adam Schiff, Maxine Waters, Jerrold Nadler and Maurice Hinchey.
Among the more prominent witnesses include Bruce Fein, an Associate Deputy Attorney General under President Ronald Reagan, and James Bamford, an intelligence expert who has revealed details about the NSA spying project.
Also attending: George Washington Law School Professor Jonathan Turley, the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington Legislative Director Caroline Frederickson, Director of the Center for National Security Studies Kate Martin, and the Truth Project's Richard Hersh.
"Last month all 17 House Judiciary Democrats called on Chairman Sensenbrenner to convene hearings to investigate the President's use of the National Security Agency to conduct surveillance involving U.S. citizens on U.S. soil," Conyers said in a statement. "As our request has since been ignored, it is our job, as Members of Congress, to review the program and consider whether our criminal laws have been violated and our citizen's constitutional rights trampled upon.
He added: "We simply cannot tolerate a situation where the Administration is operating as prosecutor, judge and jury and excluding Congress and the courts from providing any meaningful check or balance to the process."
The hearings are open to the public and will be held Friday, Jan. 20 at 11:00am in room B339 at the Rayburn House Office Building in Washington."-RAW STORY.
Conyers office said in a release that CNN and ABC radio are also expected to be present at the event. Radio Pacifica affiliates will broadcast the forum beginning at 11:00am EST, and it will be streamed live on the internet at www.kpfa.org.
Democrats are holding the hearings, they say, because a request for hearings from the Republican-led Judiciary Committee have fallen on deaf ears. In the Senate, Republican Judiciary chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA) has said he will hold formal hearings to examine the ramifications of the taps.
A spokesman for the Republican-led Judiciary Committee declined to comment; he said that because the House was in recess nothing was currently planned.
At least seven Democratic members are scheduled to attend the hearings: Reps. John Conyers, Jr., Bobby Scott, Chris Van Hollen, Adam Schiff, Maxine Waters, Jerrold Nadler and Maurice Hinchey.
Among the more prominent witnesses include Bruce Fein, an Associate Deputy Attorney General under President Ronald Reagan, and James Bamford, an intelligence expert who has revealed details about the NSA spying project.
Also attending: George Washington Law School Professor Jonathan Turley, the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington Legislative Director Caroline Frederickson, Director of the Center for National Security Studies Kate Martin, and the Truth Project's Richard Hersh.
"Last month all 17 House Judiciary Democrats called on Chairman Sensenbrenner to convene hearings to investigate the President's use of the National Security Agency to conduct surveillance involving U.S. citizens on U.S. soil," Conyers said in a statement. "As our request has since been ignored, it is our job, as Members of Congress, to review the program and consider whether our criminal laws have been violated and our citizen's constitutional rights trampled upon.
He added: "We simply cannot tolerate a situation where the Administration is operating as prosecutor, judge and jury and excluding Congress and the courts from providing any meaningful check or balance to the process."
The hearings are open to the public and will be held Friday, Jan. 20 at 11:00am in room B339 at the Rayburn House Office Building in Washington."-RAW STORY.
''Howard Dean's speech to Democracy Bond owners in Columbus''
"I think most people in America know what's bad about the Bush administration. But I can spend a little time telling you what we're going to do about it and ask for your help. We are remodeling the Democratic party--you're going to see a very different party in '06 and '08. And it comes from a lot of the experiences I had in the campaign. Because we started out, as you know, in a state of 600,000 people, and 160,000 in the bank, and you built the campaign. A lot of you here *were* with me, and we learned to trust people who were out in the states and out in the communities, to do what they needed to do, and we felt that they knew best what to do in their own communities. And so you built our campaign from the bottom up. And it was an extraordinary experience because it made me understand that centralized government and centralized anything is not the most effective way to govern a country. It's not even the most effective way to run a presidential campagn. So, with that in mind as I took over the Democratic National Committee almost a year ago, we decided that we needed to invigorate this party. And let people know that they own the party. The idear, since I didn't get the job of my choice, was to change the country by first changing the Democratic party, and then changing the country through the Democratic party. And so, with extraordinary people like Mary Jo and Mary Ann and others who have been so wonderful, we are doing this county by county and precinct by precinct.
We started off first with the state partnership program. We are paying for staffers in every single state, and we have them in every single state now, and they're on the DNC payroll, but they're picked by the local parties, we train them. And their obligation is, one, they've got to sign on for four years. We want the *party* to be strong. We don't want these folks to get good and then go off and work for a governor or a senator. Two, they have to be diverse. They have to look like the people whose vote we're asking for. The state parties haven't been so good about that always. In Texas for example, they have one state organizer in the whole state party who's Hispanic, in a state which is 40% Hispanic. Three, we train them. They come to Washington, usually for two to three days, and we'll continue to do that. So, everybody knows what the techniques are around the country. And four, there has to be a Democratic organization in every precinct in the state, in every precinct in America.
It has become socially unacceptable because of the propaganda of the right wing, to be a Democrat in about a third of America's precincts. Just like it was socially unacceptable to be a Republican about 40 years ago in the South. We can't do that. We're not going to do that. And it's not a hard thing to fix--I learned that from my campaign too. There was a woman in a place called West County Missouri, which I wasn't familiar with, but she told me it was the most conservative county in Missouri. She said, "You know, I was a campaign supporter of yours, and we decided we were going to have a Democratic party in West County Missouri. We hadn't had one for a long time. So I had my friends over, and three of us sat in my kitchen, and that was the Democratic party in West County Missouri. And today, we have 250 people meeting every week. There are Democrats everywhere. Our job is to make sure they're willing to stand up and say so. And that's what these organizers are going to do in every single precinct. We lost Ohio in the rural areas because we didn't get out there. There are Democrats all over in rural Ohio, everywhere. We just didn't get out there and let them be proud of who they were. So that's the number one thing--every single precinct.
Now, the next thing we're going to have is a synchronized voter (bar?) and I'm not going to get into all that because it's technical, but we have to do it. Mostly it's infrastructure. But the next thing we have to do is have a unified message. Now we have done a lot of work on the unified message. I'll tell you what the difference is. We're going to pick up 2 or 3 or 4 seats, or 5 in the House this year. And we're going to pick up 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 seats in the Senate. But we're going to take the House back, the United States House of Representatives back if we can nationalize this election and have a unified message. And you don't have to take my word for this. Newt Gingrich proved that was true. The way we lost in 1994 after years of domination, was the Republicans finally figured out that in order to win, you have to not be like the other party. Because even when America wants change, if they have to choose between two parties that look the same to them, they're not going to make that change. We need to differentiate ourselves from the Republican party and be clear about what we stand for (applause). Because America wants a change, and they can't have a change without having a choice. And it's our business to provide them with a choice, and that's exactly what I intend to do. And that's exactly what I'm hoping the Democratic party is going to do.
It's not easy. The Washington folks, they get complacent, they enjoy their life. They don't enjoy their life in the minority very much, and that's where they are now. The truth is, nobody cares what Democrats say in Washington right now, because we're in the minority. In the House, I don't care what Hillary Clinton said--she was right. The fact is, they are treated like dirt, and you know who said that first? It wasn't Hillary Clinton, it was Newt Gingrich twelve years ago. It's true, they get treated like dirt. It is outrageous. FIfty percent of Americans have been disenfranchised in this country by the right wing, who don't believe fundamentally that they are to represent Americans. They only believe they are there to represent themselves. And we think that the other 50% deserves some say too, and when we get back in power, we're actually going to listen to those folks.
When I was governor, I believed that everyone was my boss. Including the Republicans who didn't vote for me, because they were part of the hiring process. So when I had meetings around the state, I used to include everybody. If they asked me some tough questions, they asked me some tough questions. I got paid to answer them. Imagine the embarrassment having a president of the United States who only lets people talk to him if they already agree with him ahead of time. You wonder why this country's in trouble? It's because the president doesn't respect half of us. That's what we're going to change. And when we get back in power, we're going to reach out to those folks who disagree with us, which is what I'm going to ask you to do right now.
There's two things I need you to do. One is to get a Democracy Bond if you don't already have one, which I know a lot of you do. Go to Democrats.org, and we ask you to sign up for what you can afford--ten or twenty or thirty dollars a month. If you're a wealthy attorney, give us a hundred or two hundred dollars a month. Whatever it is, it gives us a steady stream of income and it buys back America from the special interests. The only special interest that matters, is you. And the only special interest that we ought to raise our money from is you. If we've got a million people giving us $20 a month, that means that we don't ever have to depend on any special interests, or any money that there might be some quid pro quo for. Now the truth is, most of you know me well enough to know that there's not going to be a quid pro quo anyway. Because if they want one I say the quid is over there out the door and you can take yourself with it. But we need that sustaining membership of ordinary Americans to make this party work. The truth is, we are the party of ordinary Americans.
The second thing I need you to do, which is in some ways even tougher... It's fun to come here when we're all of like mind, and maybe we can have a little fun at the president's expense. But what we really need you to do is reach out and talk to those who didn't vote with us the last time. People who disagree with us. Because the truth is, we have something in common with a lot of those folks.
Evangelical Christians. People think they're all Republicans--it's not true. Because their values include making sure no child goes to bed hungry at night. A lot of Republicans are cutting school lunch programs. Their values include not leaving more debt to our children than we found ourselves. The Republicans are the largest borrow and spend thrift group I've ever seen. The largest deficit in the history of the country and going up. Evangelical Christians believe it is immoral to treat the earth that God gave us the way that this administration is. That's something that we have in common.
In fact, there's a lot that Americans have in common. You know what the greatest sin of George Bush and his administration is? It's not the Iraq war. And it's not even the enormous budget deficit which going to hurt us for years and years. It's the fact that he has chosen to deliberately divide America in order to win elections. To separate ourselves from each other. He's done more harm to this country, even than his lame-brained foreign policy, his incompetence in terms of the budget, by being willing to use divisive tactics to win elections. We can't do that any more, and when we get back in power we're not going to do that, because it's bad for America. (Applause.)
So I need you to reach out to people who you maybe don't know very well and who don't agree with you. Now, I'm not talking about the hard right, the intolerance of the hard right. But I am talking about a lot of the people who vote for them. Because, guess what? They're not that different from us. I'm going to tell you one quick story and then I want to get on to finish this up. When Katrina hit, there were a lot of people at the DNC who had relatives and friends there and so forth. It was a very upsetting time as you can imagine. It was upsetting even for those who didn't know anybody there, to see how incompetent the federal government was in dealing with it. It was a really bad time at the Democratic National Committee. So we shut down our fundraising operations because we didn't think it was proper to raise money for politics while that kind of thing was going on. And we said to everybody, we will pay your salary for three weeks if you feel like you need to go down to the Gulf and help out.
So, a bunch of people did, including two young women who work in our finance department. And they went down there and they got teamed up with five ladies from the Southern Baptist Conference. Now, for those of you who know anything about the Southern Baptist, they're a somewhat conservative, to put it mildly, denomination, who often have preachers who preach that it's a sin to vote for Democrats. So, these two young ladies from the finance department sort of had a debate among themselves, "Should we tell them who we work for?" And they decided they would, in the interests of standing up for who they were. So they fessed up that they worked for the Democratic National Committee, and they sort of got this reaction, and thought that maybe they were thinking the word "Satan" when they heard that pronouncement. But everyone got along pretty well, and they were handing out food and water to people who really needed it. At the end of the time, one of the women said, "You know, we're all here together, and we're just trying to do things for our fellow people.
Now, I'll tell you why this is important. About a year from now, I can tell you that when these ladies from the Southern Baptist Convention go back to their home churches, some pastor in that church is going to stand up and say it's a sin to vote for a Democrat. And they're going to think back to the two young women who worked for the Democratic National Committee and say to themselves, "Now, wait a minute. I know two Democrats who work for the Democratic party. We were all in this together when we worked together." Personal experience trumps what the pastor tells you, and personal experience even trumps what your parents tell you."-excerpted from the post on Howard-Empowered People.
We started off first with the state partnership program. We are paying for staffers in every single state, and we have them in every single state now, and they're on the DNC payroll, but they're picked by the local parties, we train them. And their obligation is, one, they've got to sign on for four years. We want the *party* to be strong. We don't want these folks to get good and then go off and work for a governor or a senator. Two, they have to be diverse. They have to look like the people whose vote we're asking for. The state parties haven't been so good about that always. In Texas for example, they have one state organizer in the whole state party who's Hispanic, in a state which is 40% Hispanic. Three, we train them. They come to Washington, usually for two to three days, and we'll continue to do that. So, everybody knows what the techniques are around the country. And four, there has to be a Democratic organization in every precinct in the state, in every precinct in America.
It has become socially unacceptable because of the propaganda of the right wing, to be a Democrat in about a third of America's precincts. Just like it was socially unacceptable to be a Republican about 40 years ago in the South. We can't do that. We're not going to do that. And it's not a hard thing to fix--I learned that from my campaign too. There was a woman in a place called West County Missouri, which I wasn't familiar with, but she told me it was the most conservative county in Missouri. She said, "You know, I was a campaign supporter of yours, and we decided we were going to have a Democratic party in West County Missouri. We hadn't had one for a long time. So I had my friends over, and three of us sat in my kitchen, and that was the Democratic party in West County Missouri. And today, we have 250 people meeting every week. There are Democrats everywhere. Our job is to make sure they're willing to stand up and say so. And that's what these organizers are going to do in every single precinct. We lost Ohio in the rural areas because we didn't get out there. There are Democrats all over in rural Ohio, everywhere. We just didn't get out there and let them be proud of who they were. So that's the number one thing--every single precinct.
Now, the next thing we're going to have is a synchronized voter (bar?) and I'm not going to get into all that because it's technical, but we have to do it. Mostly it's infrastructure. But the next thing we have to do is have a unified message. Now we have done a lot of work on the unified message. I'll tell you what the difference is. We're going to pick up 2 or 3 or 4 seats, or 5 in the House this year. And we're going to pick up 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 seats in the Senate. But we're going to take the House back, the United States House of Representatives back if we can nationalize this election and have a unified message. And you don't have to take my word for this. Newt Gingrich proved that was true. The way we lost in 1994 after years of domination, was the Republicans finally figured out that in order to win, you have to not be like the other party. Because even when America wants change, if they have to choose between two parties that look the same to them, they're not going to make that change. We need to differentiate ourselves from the Republican party and be clear about what we stand for (applause). Because America wants a change, and they can't have a change without having a choice. And it's our business to provide them with a choice, and that's exactly what I intend to do. And that's exactly what I'm hoping the Democratic party is going to do.
It's not easy. The Washington folks, they get complacent, they enjoy their life. They don't enjoy their life in the minority very much, and that's where they are now. The truth is, nobody cares what Democrats say in Washington right now, because we're in the minority. In the House, I don't care what Hillary Clinton said--she was right. The fact is, they are treated like dirt, and you know who said that first? It wasn't Hillary Clinton, it was Newt Gingrich twelve years ago. It's true, they get treated like dirt. It is outrageous. FIfty percent of Americans have been disenfranchised in this country by the right wing, who don't believe fundamentally that they are to represent Americans. They only believe they are there to represent themselves. And we think that the other 50% deserves some say too, and when we get back in power, we're actually going to listen to those folks.
When I was governor, I believed that everyone was my boss. Including the Republicans who didn't vote for me, because they were part of the hiring process. So when I had meetings around the state, I used to include everybody. If they asked me some tough questions, they asked me some tough questions. I got paid to answer them. Imagine the embarrassment having a president of the United States who only lets people talk to him if they already agree with him ahead of time. You wonder why this country's in trouble? It's because the president doesn't respect half of us. That's what we're going to change. And when we get back in power, we're going to reach out to those folks who disagree with us, which is what I'm going to ask you to do right now.
There's two things I need you to do. One is to get a Democracy Bond if you don't already have one, which I know a lot of you do. Go to Democrats.org, and we ask you to sign up for what you can afford--ten or twenty or thirty dollars a month. If you're a wealthy attorney, give us a hundred or two hundred dollars a month. Whatever it is, it gives us a steady stream of income and it buys back America from the special interests. The only special interest that matters, is you. And the only special interest that we ought to raise our money from is you. If we've got a million people giving us $20 a month, that means that we don't ever have to depend on any special interests, or any money that there might be some quid pro quo for. Now the truth is, most of you know me well enough to know that there's not going to be a quid pro quo anyway. Because if they want one I say the quid is over there out the door and you can take yourself with it. But we need that sustaining membership of ordinary Americans to make this party work. The truth is, we are the party of ordinary Americans.
The second thing I need you to do, which is in some ways even tougher... It's fun to come here when we're all of like mind, and maybe we can have a little fun at the president's expense. But what we really need you to do is reach out and talk to those who didn't vote with us the last time. People who disagree with us. Because the truth is, we have something in common with a lot of those folks.
Evangelical Christians. People think they're all Republicans--it's not true. Because their values include making sure no child goes to bed hungry at night. A lot of Republicans are cutting school lunch programs. Their values include not leaving more debt to our children than we found ourselves. The Republicans are the largest borrow and spend thrift group I've ever seen. The largest deficit in the history of the country and going up. Evangelical Christians believe it is immoral to treat the earth that God gave us the way that this administration is. That's something that we have in common.
In fact, there's a lot that Americans have in common. You know what the greatest sin of George Bush and his administration is? It's not the Iraq war. And it's not even the enormous budget deficit which going to hurt us for years and years. It's the fact that he has chosen to deliberately divide America in order to win elections. To separate ourselves from each other. He's done more harm to this country, even than his lame-brained foreign policy, his incompetence in terms of the budget, by being willing to use divisive tactics to win elections. We can't do that any more, and when we get back in power we're not going to do that, because it's bad for America. (Applause.)
So I need you to reach out to people who you maybe don't know very well and who don't agree with you. Now, I'm not talking about the hard right, the intolerance of the hard right. But I am talking about a lot of the people who vote for them. Because, guess what? They're not that different from us. I'm going to tell you one quick story and then I want to get on to finish this up. When Katrina hit, there were a lot of people at the DNC who had relatives and friends there and so forth. It was a very upsetting time as you can imagine. It was upsetting even for those who didn't know anybody there, to see how incompetent the federal government was in dealing with it. It was a really bad time at the Democratic National Committee. So we shut down our fundraising operations because we didn't think it was proper to raise money for politics while that kind of thing was going on. And we said to everybody, we will pay your salary for three weeks if you feel like you need to go down to the Gulf and help out.
So, a bunch of people did, including two young women who work in our finance department. And they went down there and they got teamed up with five ladies from the Southern Baptist Conference. Now, for those of you who know anything about the Southern Baptist, they're a somewhat conservative, to put it mildly, denomination, who often have preachers who preach that it's a sin to vote for Democrats. So, these two young ladies from the finance department sort of had a debate among themselves, "Should we tell them who we work for?" And they decided they would, in the interests of standing up for who they were. So they fessed up that they worked for the Democratic National Committee, and they sort of got this reaction, and thought that maybe they were thinking the word "Satan" when they heard that pronouncement. But everyone got along pretty well, and they were handing out food and water to people who really needed it. At the end of the time, one of the women said, "You know, we're all here together, and we're just trying to do things for our fellow people.
Now, I'll tell you why this is important. About a year from now, I can tell you that when these ladies from the Southern Baptist Convention go back to their home churches, some pastor in that church is going to stand up and say it's a sin to vote for a Democrat. And they're going to think back to the two young women who worked for the Democratic National Committee and say to themselves, "Now, wait a minute. I know two Democrats who work for the Democratic party. We were all in this together when we worked together." Personal experience trumps what the pastor tells you, and personal experience even trumps what your parents tell you."-excerpted from the post on Howard-Empowered People.
''Governing by ''Soap Opera''
"Republican campaign consultants are, in one way, right about the Democratic leadership.
It is out of touch with the meat and potatoes American who watches the equivalent of 77 days a year of television. The Democratic leaders, college-educated and generally a bit contemptuous of television outside of PBS, "The Daily Show" and some other hip offerings, don't get what's going on.
Just look at the on-cue crying jag and trembling flight of Mrs. Alito from her husband's hearings, egged on by Lindsey Graham, a former impeachment floor manager and now a senator who unethically was involved in the "coaching" of Alito during "mock Senate hearings" to prepare him. We can also safely assume that Graham was involved in the scripting of the hearings that included the soap opera dramatic moment of Mrs. Alito breaking down in tears.
It's not like the Democrats should have been surprised. For one thing, it was a warmed-over script. Clarence Thomas's wife had the same calculated "soap opera" moment during his hearings, and some of the Dem Senators were around then.
And despite the Democratic leadership's derisive dismissal of these tactics, they work in the elusive "Middle America," among those Americans for whom news and entertainment are so intertwined that they are indistinguishable. Take this account of a talk radio "experience" the Capital Times (Wisconsin) columnist Dave Zweifel had after the Mrs. Alito-staged "cry me a river" moment:
'I got firsthand experience the other day on how this phenomenon some call "attack radio" is creating a misinformed and distrustful public....I was treated to the tail end of strident attacker Vicki McKenna's ranting and raving over the news that Sam Alito's wife had to leave the hearing on her husband's Supreme Court nomination in tears. This was the first I heard of the episode so I listened more closely. Clearing implying that the nasty Democrats on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee had caused this embarrassing situation with their over-the-top questioning of Alito, McKenna said if it was her she wouldn't have left in tears, but instead have thrown something at the nasty senators. What really happened, obviously, was a far cry from what the attackers had led me to believe.Incredibly, a fair number of Americans list attack radio shows as the place they get their news.'
And the crying scene (p. 43 of the White House script, no doubt) coverage wasn't limited to the right wing media echo chamber -- as vast as it is -- it was all over mainstream television and print, particularly Cable TV news. The people involved with the Swift Boat attacks were handing out press releases that they had no doubt prepared in advance, egging on coverage of the fabricated personal emotional moment. It was quite a propaganda operation.
The Democrats in Congress always looked dazed and confused when this tactic occurs, as if a nude streaker had suddenly jogged into the hearing, run a celebratory lap, and then disappeared. But that is why they are not blameless; this is a technique that Republicans almost daily employ -- and certainly trot out at decisive moments to compensate for their vulnerabilities and incompetence.
When John Kerry expressed admiration for how the Cheneys handled their daughter being a lesbian in a debate in which he, for the third time, pummeled Bush in the polls, the GOP propaganda machine was ready with an onslaught of feigned outrage. The claim was that Kerry was a cad who was using Mary Cheney's sexual orientation for political gain.
The fake uproar from the Cheneys was disingenuous and calculated, given that John Edwards had made a similar compliment directly to Cheney during the vice-presidential debate and Cheney thanked him for it.
But given Bush's lamentable performance during the debates, the Republicans desperately needed a "soap opera moment" to distract from Kerry's clear superior debating and policy articulation skills. So they turned to the same type of emotional news/entertainment story that dominates television: the GOP White House version of the "runaway bride." They made the debate pivot on a personal emotional moment, a diversion that dominated the airwaves of television and radio, because this is a story (the "protective parents" appeal) that voters who no longer have a choice between news and entertainment (since they are now pretty much one and the same) can relate to.
That's why the Republican consultants employ the formulaic appeal of the soap opera to get out of a jam, while the Democrats attempt cautious public policy approaches, urged on by fat cat consultants who are clueless except in knowing how to milk a cash cow. In this sense, the Republican consultants earn their money, while the Democratic veteran campaign and policy advisors don't.
In a nutshell, putting the multi-billion dollar funded right wing think tanks aside for the moment, almost the entire "appeal" of a radical, extremist political fringe element to television-addled Americans can be attributed to "soap opera" tactics to manipulate emotions.
There is a word for this and it's called acting like a demagogue.
And people who play the demagogue card usually end up being dictators. It doesn't matter whether they are Fascists, Communists or Nationalists, the two go hand in hand. That is how we go from "soap opera" moments that manipulate emotions, to the creation of a concept of a permanent war that manipulates fear, to the solidification of a "unitary executive" with powers to break the law and ignore the Constitution.
It's a sleight of hand all right. While many Americans are diverted by a tearful Mrs. Alito, her husband, who believes in the imperial Republican Il Duce, gets seated on the Supreme Court to help coronate King George.
The Democratic leadership in Congress believes you can appeal to public policy issues and the separation of powers in a Senate confirmation hearing. But reason and logic are not tools in the arsenal of the GOP demagogue. The GOP radicals have only emotions as their target, not reason.
The Democrats are looking to appeal to the brain; the Republicans to the manipulation of emotions that race through the heart -- and are subject to the strategic use of television "stories" and photo ops.
The parties are targeting two different body organs.
And in a world dominated by trivial news that appeals to the emotions -- and sensational celebrity gaffes, romantic entanglements and crimes -- the appeal to the brain has but the shortest of shelf lives.
It's barely but a blip on the radar screen of the evening news.-from Buzzflash. For a second opinion, mostly in line with this one, check out Geov Parrish's "The Democrats surrender," on Working for Change.
It is out of touch with the meat and potatoes American who watches the equivalent of 77 days a year of television. The Democratic leaders, college-educated and generally a bit contemptuous of television outside of PBS, "The Daily Show" and some other hip offerings, don't get what's going on.
Just look at the on-cue crying jag and trembling flight of Mrs. Alito from her husband's hearings, egged on by Lindsey Graham, a former impeachment floor manager and now a senator who unethically was involved in the "coaching" of Alito during "mock Senate hearings" to prepare him. We can also safely assume that Graham was involved in the scripting of the hearings that included the soap opera dramatic moment of Mrs. Alito breaking down in tears.
It's not like the Democrats should have been surprised. For one thing, it was a warmed-over script. Clarence Thomas's wife had the same calculated "soap opera" moment during his hearings, and some of the Dem Senators were around then.
And despite the Democratic leadership's derisive dismissal of these tactics, they work in the elusive "Middle America," among those Americans for whom news and entertainment are so intertwined that they are indistinguishable. Take this account of a talk radio "experience" the Capital Times (Wisconsin) columnist Dave Zweifel had after the Mrs. Alito-staged "cry me a river" moment:
'I got firsthand experience the other day on how this phenomenon some call "attack radio" is creating a misinformed and distrustful public....I was treated to the tail end of strident attacker Vicki McKenna's ranting and raving over the news that Sam Alito's wife had to leave the hearing on her husband's Supreme Court nomination in tears. This was the first I heard of the episode so I listened more closely. Clearing implying that the nasty Democrats on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee had caused this embarrassing situation with their over-the-top questioning of Alito, McKenna said if it was her she wouldn't have left in tears, but instead have thrown something at the nasty senators. What really happened, obviously, was a far cry from what the attackers had led me to believe.Incredibly, a fair number of Americans list attack radio shows as the place they get their news.'
And the crying scene (p. 43 of the White House script, no doubt) coverage wasn't limited to the right wing media echo chamber -- as vast as it is -- it was all over mainstream television and print, particularly Cable TV news. The people involved with the Swift Boat attacks were handing out press releases that they had no doubt prepared in advance, egging on coverage of the fabricated personal emotional moment. It was quite a propaganda operation.
The Democrats in Congress always looked dazed and confused when this tactic occurs, as if a nude streaker had suddenly jogged into the hearing, run a celebratory lap, and then disappeared. But that is why they are not blameless; this is a technique that Republicans almost daily employ -- and certainly trot out at decisive moments to compensate for their vulnerabilities and incompetence.
When John Kerry expressed admiration for how the Cheneys handled their daughter being a lesbian in a debate in which he, for the third time, pummeled Bush in the polls, the GOP propaganda machine was ready with an onslaught of feigned outrage. The claim was that Kerry was a cad who was using Mary Cheney's sexual orientation for political gain.
The fake uproar from the Cheneys was disingenuous and calculated, given that John Edwards had made a similar compliment directly to Cheney during the vice-presidential debate and Cheney thanked him for it.
But given Bush's lamentable performance during the debates, the Republicans desperately needed a "soap opera moment" to distract from Kerry's clear superior debating and policy articulation skills. So they turned to the same type of emotional news/entertainment story that dominates television: the GOP White House version of the "runaway bride." They made the debate pivot on a personal emotional moment, a diversion that dominated the airwaves of television and radio, because this is a story (the "protective parents" appeal) that voters who no longer have a choice between news and entertainment (since they are now pretty much one and the same) can relate to.
That's why the Republican consultants employ the formulaic appeal of the soap opera to get out of a jam, while the Democrats attempt cautious public policy approaches, urged on by fat cat consultants who are clueless except in knowing how to milk a cash cow. In this sense, the Republican consultants earn their money, while the Democratic veteran campaign and policy advisors don't.
In a nutshell, putting the multi-billion dollar funded right wing think tanks aside for the moment, almost the entire "appeal" of a radical, extremist political fringe element to television-addled Americans can be attributed to "soap opera" tactics to manipulate emotions.
There is a word for this and it's called acting like a demagogue.
And people who play the demagogue card usually end up being dictators. It doesn't matter whether they are Fascists, Communists or Nationalists, the two go hand in hand. That is how we go from "soap opera" moments that manipulate emotions, to the creation of a concept of a permanent war that manipulates fear, to the solidification of a "unitary executive" with powers to break the law and ignore the Constitution.
It's a sleight of hand all right. While many Americans are diverted by a tearful Mrs. Alito, her husband, who believes in the imperial Republican Il Duce, gets seated on the Supreme Court to help coronate King George.
The Democratic leadership in Congress believes you can appeal to public policy issues and the separation of powers in a Senate confirmation hearing. But reason and logic are not tools in the arsenal of the GOP demagogue. The GOP radicals have only emotions as their target, not reason.
The Democrats are looking to appeal to the brain; the Republicans to the manipulation of emotions that race through the heart -- and are subject to the strategic use of television "stories" and photo ops.
The parties are targeting two different body organs.
And in a world dominated by trivial news that appeals to the emotions -- and sensational celebrity gaffes, romantic entanglements and crimes -- the appeal to the brain has but the shortest of shelf lives.
It's barely but a blip on the radar screen of the evening news.-from Buzzflash. For a second opinion, mostly in line with this one, check out Geov Parrish's "The Democrats surrender," on Working for Change.
''Let's Get Murtha's Back''
"When John Murtha stuck his neck out to call Bush's war a fiasco, he must've known that he would be the next one to be Swift Boated. That no major Democrat has endorsed his plan or called out the Washington Post and others for legitimizing the attacks of GOP-funded "Cybercast News" is shameful.
A couple of nights ago a commenter here suggested that Murtha be the one to give the Democratic rebuttal to the SOTU address. It is usually a pretty lackluster affair and everyone agreed that having Murtha do it would really invigorate the event, throwing Commander Codpiece into sharp contrast with a genuine military hero who spent 37 years defending his country.
On a blogger conference call with Harry Reid yesterday, I asked Reid who was going to be giving the rebuttal and he wouldn't say. I think it would be a good thing for Reid and all the Democrats to know just how strongly we feel about Murtha and the courage he has shown, because I'm not sure they do.
Democratic Underground has set up a board dedicated to Murtha giving the SOTU address. I urge everyone to stop by and let the Democrat establishment know just how you feel about John Murtha.
(Note: the registration link on the Murtha page seems to be broken, so if you're not a registered DU member, you can do so here.)"-from firedoglake. Thanks to Annie Robbins for the tip.
A couple of nights ago a commenter here suggested that Murtha be the one to give the Democratic rebuttal to the SOTU address. It is usually a pretty lackluster affair and everyone agreed that having Murtha do it would really invigorate the event, throwing Commander Codpiece into sharp contrast with a genuine military hero who spent 37 years defending his country.
On a blogger conference call with Harry Reid yesterday, I asked Reid who was going to be giving the rebuttal and he wouldn't say. I think it would be a good thing for Reid and all the Democrats to know just how strongly we feel about Murtha and the courage he has shown, because I'm not sure they do.
Democratic Underground has set up a board dedicated to Murtha giving the SOTU address. I urge everyone to stop by and let the Democrat establishment know just how you feel about John Murtha.
(Note: the registration link on the Murtha page seems to be broken, so if you're not a registered DU member, you can do so here.)"-from firedoglake. Thanks to Annie Robbins for the tip.
QUOTE OF THE DAY
"Doesn't the Democratic leadership understand what's going on in the nation outside of Washington? The majority of the country is behind them. We want the fucking fight. We want to see the bullies get their comeuppence. We want some smashed nutsacks and some kicked asses and some bloodied noses. Resistance is not only noble, it's the most goddamned American thing you can do. So what if Alito was soft-spoken and not a raging lunatic? The scariest lunatics are the quiet ones - at least a screaming Bork'll let you know he's gonna shiv you when you turn your back. Creepy-ass Alito stares at you blankly and makes you think he's benign. Those're the nutzoids who'll gut you the second they get the chance."-from The Rude Pundit, in the post "Why the Democrats Have To Filibuster Alito."
Out of courtesy to the author of the quote, I left in the word that cheney used on the Senate floor.
Out of courtesy to the author of the quote, I left in the word that cheney used on the Senate floor.
Memo to Chris
"Gregoire is a terrific governor. She pays attention to people and interests from across the state; she builds alliances; and she is a sharp negotiator. Because she has Democratic allies in the leadership of both the Senate and the House, she has the ability to get a lot of good accomplished in the state.
I'd bet anything that Rove is personally directing the consistent attacks against her because they national Republicans are afraid of her. She is so effective and can demonstrate what good governing looks like. If she were to go nationwide, on talk shows and such, it would be a stark contrast to the crummy governing going on in the other Washington.
Michael Hood of blatherwatch has been saying that Democrats, particularly the governor, need to go on right-wing radio shows and take calls; these shows have middle of the road listeners. He is right. She’ll be fine with the callers. And the hosts are apparently respectful to all their guests, whatever they say at other times."-from Lynn Allen on Evergreen Politics, in her post "Watching the Governor on TV."
I'd bet anything that Rove is personally directing the consistent attacks against her because they national Republicans are afraid of her. She is so effective and can demonstrate what good governing looks like. If she were to go nationwide, on talk shows and such, it would be a stark contrast to the crummy governing going on in the other Washington.
Michael Hood of blatherwatch has been saying that Democrats, particularly the governor, need to go on right-wing radio shows and take calls; these shows have middle of the road listeners. He is right. She’ll be fine with the callers. And the hosts are apparently respectful to all their guests, whatever they say at other times."-from Lynn Allen on Evergreen Politics, in her post "Watching the Governor on TV."
''More than 3,200 still listed as missing after Katrina''
"Meanwhile, the former director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency on Wednesday accepted a greater share of the blame for the government's failures after Hurricane Katrina, saying he fell short in conveying the magnitude of the disaster and calling for help.
"I should have asked for the military sooner. I should have demanded the military sooner," Michael Brown told a gathering of meteorologists at a ski resort in Mammoth Lakes, Calif.
"It was beyond the capacity of the state and local governments, and it was beyond the capacity of FEMA," he said.
Brown's remarks Wednesday stood in sharp contrast to his testimony at a congressional hearing in September, when he blamed most of the government's failures on Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin.
In an interview after his speech Wednesday, Brown said: "I think it's important to realize that all of us made mistakes. ... After a while you get a different perspective."-from the AP story in today's Seattle Times.
Goldy comments on Horsesass.org:
"Whew… that’s a relief. The past few months have been a living hell, as I’ve had to struggle with the guilt of having been personally responsible for hundreds of deaths and untold human suffering in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. At least, that’s what Brownie implied in his congressional testimony last September, when he blamed me not only for his fall from power, but for FEMA’s inability to respond to the disaster:
While FEMA was trying to respond to probably the largest natural disaster in the history of this country, a catastrophic disaster that the president has described covering an area the size of Great Britain — I have heard 90,000 square miles — unless you have been there and seen it, you don’t realize exactly how bad and how big it was — but in the middle of trying to respond to that, FEMA’s press office became bombarded with requests to respond mmediately to false statements about my resume and my background. Ironically, it started with an organization called horsesass.org, that on some blog published a false, and, frankly, in my opinion, defamatory statement that the media just continued to repeat over and over."
"I should have asked for the military sooner. I should have demanded the military sooner," Michael Brown told a gathering of meteorologists at a ski resort in Mammoth Lakes, Calif.
"It was beyond the capacity of the state and local governments, and it was beyond the capacity of FEMA," he said.
Brown's remarks Wednesday stood in sharp contrast to his testimony at a congressional hearing in September, when he blamed most of the government's failures on Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin.
In an interview after his speech Wednesday, Brown said: "I think it's important to realize that all of us made mistakes. ... After a while you get a different perspective."-from the AP story in today's Seattle Times.
Goldy comments on Horsesass.org:
"Whew… that’s a relief. The past few months have been a living hell, as I’ve had to struggle with the guilt of having been personally responsible for hundreds of deaths and untold human suffering in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. At least, that’s what Brownie implied in his congressional testimony last September, when he blamed me not only for his fall from power, but for FEMA’s inability to respond to the disaster:
While FEMA was trying to respond to probably the largest natural disaster in the history of this country, a catastrophic disaster that the president has described covering an area the size of Great Britain — I have heard 90,000 square miles — unless you have been there and seen it, you don’t realize exactly how bad and how big it was — but in the middle of trying to respond to that, FEMA’s press office became bombarded with requests to respond mmediately to false statements about my resume and my background. Ironically, it started with an organization called horsesass.org, that on some blog published a false, and, frankly, in my opinion, defamatory statement that the media just continued to repeat over and over."
''Democrats bring ethics reform proposals to Ohio battleground''
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- National Democrats promoted their ethics reform package Wednesday in battleground Ohio, which party Chairman Howard Dean called the center of Republican corruption scandals.
Dean outlined a package of measures to bar members of Congress from accepting gifts from lobbyists, pointing to a federal investigation of GOP Rep. Bob Ney of Ohio, who is accused of taking bribes from former Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
Abramoff has pleaded guilty to bribing members of Congress and other charges.
"The cost of corruption is real to Ohioans, and it's real to Americans, and we're going to put an end to that," said Dean, standing just a few feet away from the ceremonial Statehouse office of Gov. Bob Taft.
The Republican governor pleaded no contest in August to failing to report golf outings and other gifts he was treated to, becoming the state's first governor convicted of a crime.
The event, at which Democrats signed a petition in support of ethics reform, was the first outside Washington in support of the reform proposals.
Dean's visit gave a national stage to an argument Ohio Democrats have been making for months: voters should end 12 years of Republican domination of state government because of pervasive GOP corruption. That includes a scandal involving $300 million in investment losses at the state insurance fund for injured workers.
Democratic candidates for several statewide offices including governor are sounding similar themes as they try to win back seats in the state that has failed to elect a president just twice in more than 100 years.
Rep. Ted Strickland, an eastern Ohio Democrat running for governor, describes "a state that has lost its way" in campaign materials.
Sen. Marc Dann, a Democratic candidate for attorney general, referred to a "culture of corruption" Wednesday as he said, "People are really going to be ready for office holders in 2006 that are willing to stand up to that historic way of doing business."
Dean's appearance didn't resonate with all Democrats. State Sen. Eric Fingerhut of Cleveland, also running for governor, said he was insulted by a Washington politician coming to Ohio to talk about corruption.
"People know what's happening in the Statehouse. They don't need Howard Dean to come and tell them that," Fingerhut said.
Republicans dismissed the event as a publicity stunt and said GOP leaders have moved quickly to address problems. "The people of Ohio and all Americans would be better served if Howard Dean and the Democrat Party focused less on partisan grandstanding and more on working with Republicans to change how business is done in Washington," said Jo Ann Davidson, co-chair of the Republican National Committee.
However, Ohio House Speaker Jon Husted said Wednesday that lawmakers plan to introduce a bill soon that would respond to issues raised by the state's corruption scandal.
Husted disclosed the proposed legislation while giving no details and saying it should be something both Democrats and Republicans support. "You have some people that probably do the right thing and err on the side of caution, and some people don't," said Husted, a Dayton area Republican. "We need to be clear about what the rules are on what you're allowed to do and what the standards are for government." Husted said he would provide more information on his schedule, not Dean's.
The top House Democrat said she was pleased to hear Husted was working on a bill but said it was overdue.
"Republicans are in charge _ they don't have a time table? Shame on them," said Rep. Joyce Beatty of Columbus. "The 11 million people in Ohio need a time table."
Dean's appearance could bolster Democrats' campaign hopes by bringing national attention to state politics, but the impact depends on how long corruption charges stay in the headlines, said Paul Beck, a political analyst at Ohio State University.
He added that in an age of increasingly partisan politics, the voters likely to be influenced are few in number. "We're really only talking about a swing group of voters who will be upset by the corruption issues," Beck said. "Loyal Democrats are inclined to vote for Democrats _ loyal Republicans are heavily inclined to vote for Republicans."-from the AP story.
"A swing group of voters".........aren't they the most important ones to get? Anyway, that's what I learned in my political science classes at the University of California. Maybe they teach it differently at Ohio State.
Dean outlined a package of measures to bar members of Congress from accepting gifts from lobbyists, pointing to a federal investigation of GOP Rep. Bob Ney of Ohio, who is accused of taking bribes from former Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
Abramoff has pleaded guilty to bribing members of Congress and other charges.
"The cost of corruption is real to Ohioans, and it's real to Americans, and we're going to put an end to that," said Dean, standing just a few feet away from the ceremonial Statehouse office of Gov. Bob Taft.
The Republican governor pleaded no contest in August to failing to report golf outings and other gifts he was treated to, becoming the state's first governor convicted of a crime.
The event, at which Democrats signed a petition in support of ethics reform, was the first outside Washington in support of the reform proposals.
Dean's visit gave a national stage to an argument Ohio Democrats have been making for months: voters should end 12 years of Republican domination of state government because of pervasive GOP corruption. That includes a scandal involving $300 million in investment losses at the state insurance fund for injured workers.
Democratic candidates for several statewide offices including governor are sounding similar themes as they try to win back seats in the state that has failed to elect a president just twice in more than 100 years.
Rep. Ted Strickland, an eastern Ohio Democrat running for governor, describes "a state that has lost its way" in campaign materials.
Sen. Marc Dann, a Democratic candidate for attorney general, referred to a "culture of corruption" Wednesday as he said, "People are really going to be ready for office holders in 2006 that are willing to stand up to that historic way of doing business."
Dean's appearance didn't resonate with all Democrats. State Sen. Eric Fingerhut of Cleveland, also running for governor, said he was insulted by a Washington politician coming to Ohio to talk about corruption.
"People know what's happening in the Statehouse. They don't need Howard Dean to come and tell them that," Fingerhut said.
Republicans dismissed the event as a publicity stunt and said GOP leaders have moved quickly to address problems. "The people of Ohio and all Americans would be better served if Howard Dean and the Democrat Party focused less on partisan grandstanding and more on working with Republicans to change how business is done in Washington," said Jo Ann Davidson, co-chair of the Republican National Committee.
However, Ohio House Speaker Jon Husted said Wednesday that lawmakers plan to introduce a bill soon that would respond to issues raised by the state's corruption scandal.
Husted disclosed the proposed legislation while giving no details and saying it should be something both Democrats and Republicans support. "You have some people that probably do the right thing and err on the side of caution, and some people don't," said Husted, a Dayton area Republican. "We need to be clear about what the rules are on what you're allowed to do and what the standards are for government." Husted said he would provide more information on his schedule, not Dean's.
The top House Democrat said she was pleased to hear Husted was working on a bill but said it was overdue.
"Republicans are in charge _ they don't have a time table? Shame on them," said Rep. Joyce Beatty of Columbus. "The 11 million people in Ohio need a time table."
Dean's appearance could bolster Democrats' campaign hopes by bringing national attention to state politics, but the impact depends on how long corruption charges stay in the headlines, said Paul Beck, a political analyst at Ohio State University.
He added that in an age of increasingly partisan politics, the voters likely to be influenced are few in number. "We're really only talking about a swing group of voters who will be upset by the corruption issues," Beck said. "Loyal Democrats are inclined to vote for Democrats _ loyal Republicans are heavily inclined to vote for Republicans."-from the AP story.
"A swing group of voters".........aren't they the most important ones to get? Anyway, that's what I learned in my political science classes at the University of California. Maybe they teach it differently at Ohio State.
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
''A Tribute to Iraqi Ingenuity...''
"January 17, 2006 marks the 15th commemoration of the Gulf War in 1991 after Iraq occupied Kuwait (briefly) in 1990. (Or according to American terminology, after Iraq ‘liberated’ Kuwait in 1990.
For 42 days, Baghdad and other cities and towns were bombarded with nearly 140,000 tons of explosives, by international estimates. The bombing was relentless- schools, housing complexes, factories, bridges, electric power stations, ministries, sewage facilities, oil refineries, operators, and even bomb shelters (including the only baby formula factory in Iraq and the infamous Amirya Shelter bombing where almost 400 civilians were killed).
According to reports and statistics made by the “Iraqi Reconstruction Bureau” and the ministries involved in reconstruction, prior to the 2003 war/occupation, the following damage was done through 42 days of continuous bombing, and various acts of vandalism:
Schools and scholastic facilities – 3960
Universities, labs, dormitories – 40
Health facilities (including hospitals, clinics, medical warehouses) – 421
Telephone operators, communication towers, etc. – 475
Bridges, buildings, housing complexes – 260
Warehouses, shopping centers, grain silos – 251
Churches and mosques – 159
Dams, water pumping stations, agricultural facilities – 200
Petroleum facilities (including refineries) – 145
General services (shelters, sewage treatment plants, municipalities) - 830
Factories, mines, industrial facilities - 120
…And much, much more- including radio broadcasting towers, museums, orphanages, retirement homes, etc. While the larger damage- damage to dams, bridges, warehouses, ministries, food silos, etc.- was done by warplanes and missiles, the damage to smaller facilities was caused largely by vandalism in the south of the country and in areas like Kirkuk. In the south it was mainly the work of the “intifadah” which was initiated by the ‘tawabin’ or “The Repentant” who infiltrated the south from Iran and found supporters inside of the country. (Many of the ‘Tawabin’ are known today as Badir’s Brigade.)
What happened in the south in 1991 is similar to what happened in Baghdad in 2003- burning, looting and attacks. The area fell into chaos after the Republican Guard was pulled out to different governorates for the duration of the war. Meanwhile, the US was bombing the Iraqi army as it was pulling out of Kuwait and the Tawabin were killing off some of the Iraqi troops who had abandoned their tanks and artillery and were coming back on foot through the south. Many of those troops, and the civilians killed during the attacks, looting, and burning, were buried in some of the mass graves we conveniently blame solely on Saddam and the Republican Guard- but no one bothers to mention this anymore because it’s easier to blame the dictator.
But I digress- the topic today is reconstruction. Immediately after the war, various ministries were brought together to do the reconstruction work. The focus was on the infrastructure- to bring back the refineries, electricity, water, bridges, and telecommunications.
The task was a daunting one because so many of Iraq’s major infrastructure projects and buildings had been designed and built by foreign contractors from all over the world including French, German, Chinese and Japanese companies. The foreign expertise was unavailable after 1991 due to the war and embargo and Iraqi engineers and technicians found themselves facing the devastation of the Gulf War all alone with limited supplies.
Two years and approximately 8 billion Iraqi dinars later, nearly 90% of the damage had been repaired. It took an estimated 6,000 engineers (all Iraqi), 42,000 technicians, and 12,000 administrators, but bridges were soon up again, telephones were more or less functioning in most areas, refineries were working, water was running and electricity wasn’t back 100%, but it was certainly better than it is today. Within the first two years over 100 small and large bridges had been reconstructed, 16 refineries, over 50 factories and industrial compounds, etc.
It wasn’t perfect- it wasn’t Halliburton… It wasn’t KBR…but it was Iraqi. There was that sense of satisfaction and pride looking upon a building or bridge that was damaged during the war and seeing it up and running and looking better than it did before.
Now, nearly three years after this war, the buildings are still piles of debris. Electricity is terrible. Water is cut off for days at a time. Telephone lines come and go. Oil production isn’t even at pre-war levels… and Iraqis hear about the billions upon billions that come and go. A billion here for security… Five hundred million there for the infrastructure… Millions for voting… Iraq falling into deeper debt… Engineers without jobs simply because they are not a part of this political party or that religious group… And the country still in shambles.
One of the biggest, most complicated and most swiftly executed reconstruction projects was the Dawra Refinery in Baghdad. It is Iraq’s oldest refinery and one of its largest. It was bombed several times during the Gulf War and oil production came to a halt. After the war, it is said that the Iraqi government negotiated with an Italian company to reconstruct it but the price requested by the company was extremely high. It was decided then that the reconstruction effort would be completely local and the work began almost immediately. Several months later, during the summer of 1991, when the Italian experts came back to assess the damage, they found that the refinery was functioning.
Below are some pictures that were sent to me by an engineer who was a part of the reconstruction effort and is currently jobless in Amman. The pictures are both painful and inspiring. Fifteen years later and it is difficult to see the damage that was wrought on the country… But the ‘after’ pictures give me faith that Iraq will rise once more- in spite of occupiers and meddlers.
Note: I was tempted to stamp all the ‘after’ pictures with “AMERICANS DID NOT RECONSTRUCT THIS” as I know that in a month some clueless Republican will send them back to me with the words, “Look at how we reconstructed your country!”-Riverbend on her blog, "Baghdad Burning."
For 42 days, Baghdad and other cities and towns were bombarded with nearly 140,000 tons of explosives, by international estimates. The bombing was relentless- schools, housing complexes, factories, bridges, electric power stations, ministries, sewage facilities, oil refineries, operators, and even bomb shelters (including the only baby formula factory in Iraq and the infamous Amirya Shelter bombing where almost 400 civilians were killed).
According to reports and statistics made by the “Iraqi Reconstruction Bureau” and the ministries involved in reconstruction, prior to the 2003 war/occupation, the following damage was done through 42 days of continuous bombing, and various acts of vandalism:
Schools and scholastic facilities – 3960
Universities, labs, dormitories – 40
Health facilities (including hospitals, clinics, medical warehouses) – 421
Telephone operators, communication towers, etc. – 475
Bridges, buildings, housing complexes – 260
Warehouses, shopping centers, grain silos – 251
Churches and mosques – 159
Dams, water pumping stations, agricultural facilities – 200
Petroleum facilities (including refineries) – 145
General services (shelters, sewage treatment plants, municipalities) - 830
Factories, mines, industrial facilities - 120
…And much, much more- including radio broadcasting towers, museums, orphanages, retirement homes, etc. While the larger damage- damage to dams, bridges, warehouses, ministries, food silos, etc.- was done by warplanes and missiles, the damage to smaller facilities was caused largely by vandalism in the south of the country and in areas like Kirkuk. In the south it was mainly the work of the “intifadah” which was initiated by the ‘tawabin’ or “The Repentant” who infiltrated the south from Iran and found supporters inside of the country. (Many of the ‘Tawabin’ are known today as Badir’s Brigade.)
What happened in the south in 1991 is similar to what happened in Baghdad in 2003- burning, looting and attacks. The area fell into chaos after the Republican Guard was pulled out to different governorates for the duration of the war. Meanwhile, the US was bombing the Iraqi army as it was pulling out of Kuwait and the Tawabin were killing off some of the Iraqi troops who had abandoned their tanks and artillery and were coming back on foot through the south. Many of those troops, and the civilians killed during the attacks, looting, and burning, were buried in some of the mass graves we conveniently blame solely on Saddam and the Republican Guard- but no one bothers to mention this anymore because it’s easier to blame the dictator.
But I digress- the topic today is reconstruction. Immediately after the war, various ministries were brought together to do the reconstruction work. The focus was on the infrastructure- to bring back the refineries, electricity, water, bridges, and telecommunications.
The task was a daunting one because so many of Iraq’s major infrastructure projects and buildings had been designed and built by foreign contractors from all over the world including French, German, Chinese and Japanese companies. The foreign expertise was unavailable after 1991 due to the war and embargo and Iraqi engineers and technicians found themselves facing the devastation of the Gulf War all alone with limited supplies.
Two years and approximately 8 billion Iraqi dinars later, nearly 90% of the damage had been repaired. It took an estimated 6,000 engineers (all Iraqi), 42,000 technicians, and 12,000 administrators, but bridges were soon up again, telephones were more or less functioning in most areas, refineries were working, water was running and electricity wasn’t back 100%, but it was certainly better than it is today. Within the first two years over 100 small and large bridges had been reconstructed, 16 refineries, over 50 factories and industrial compounds, etc.
It wasn’t perfect- it wasn’t Halliburton… It wasn’t KBR…but it was Iraqi. There was that sense of satisfaction and pride looking upon a building or bridge that was damaged during the war and seeing it up and running and looking better than it did before.
Now, nearly three years after this war, the buildings are still piles of debris. Electricity is terrible. Water is cut off for days at a time. Telephone lines come and go. Oil production isn’t even at pre-war levels… and Iraqis hear about the billions upon billions that come and go. A billion here for security… Five hundred million there for the infrastructure… Millions for voting… Iraq falling into deeper debt… Engineers without jobs simply because they are not a part of this political party or that religious group… And the country still in shambles.
One of the biggest, most complicated and most swiftly executed reconstruction projects was the Dawra Refinery in Baghdad. It is Iraq’s oldest refinery and one of its largest. It was bombed several times during the Gulf War and oil production came to a halt. After the war, it is said that the Iraqi government negotiated with an Italian company to reconstruct it but the price requested by the company was extremely high. It was decided then that the reconstruction effort would be completely local and the work began almost immediately. Several months later, during the summer of 1991, when the Italian experts came back to assess the damage, they found that the refinery was functioning.
Below are some pictures that were sent to me by an engineer who was a part of the reconstruction effort and is currently jobless in Amman. The pictures are both painful and inspiring. Fifteen years later and it is difficult to see the damage that was wrought on the country… But the ‘after’ pictures give me faith that Iraq will rise once more- in spite of occupiers and meddlers.
Note: I was tempted to stamp all the ‘after’ pictures with “AMERICANS DID NOT RECONSTRUCT THIS” as I know that in a month some clueless Republican will send them back to me with the words, “Look at how we reconstructed your country!”-Riverbend on her blog, "Baghdad Burning."
''Howard Dean in WA Presidents' Day!''
I am happy to report to you that I have arranged for National Party
Chairman HOWARD DEAN to come and be our featured speaker at the annual
State Party Democratic Crab Feed to be held at Saint Martin College in
Lacey Washington on Monday, February 20th. The Crab Feed starts at 5:30
PM.
Additionally, I am happy to report that Dean will conduct a segment of
the PCO/Grassroots training to be held earlier in the day at the
Worthington Center on the St. Martin College Campus. Please make plans to
attend the Grassroots/PCO training and Crab Feed on Presidents day. This
will be the first major party event for the new State Democratic Chair.
Let's all participate in this event and make it the best Crab Feed
ever!
Paul Berendt
State Chair"
You can get your tickets online here.
Chairman HOWARD DEAN to come and be our featured speaker at the annual
State Party Democratic Crab Feed to be held at Saint Martin College in
Lacey Washington on Monday, February 20th. The Crab Feed starts at 5:30
PM.
Additionally, I am happy to report that Dean will conduct a segment of
the PCO/Grassroots training to be held earlier in the day at the
Worthington Center on the St. Martin College Campus. Please make plans to
attend the Grassroots/PCO training and Crab Feed on Presidents day. This
will be the first major party event for the new State Democratic Chair.
Let's all participate in this event and make it the best Crab Feed
ever!
Paul Berendt
State Chair"
You can get your tickets online here.
''GETTING REACQUAINTED WITH AL GORE''
"Al Gore's remarkable speech on Bush's illegal wiretapping - combined with his earlier criticisms of the Iraq war and his longstanding attention to the dangers of climate change - make him the only major Democratic figure, save Russ Feingold, worth the attention of the decent and democratic wing of the Democratic Party.
Once you give him that attention, however, you are left with the problem that Al Gore isn't always your friend, hasn't always taken the positions he takes today, and can't be relied upon to do right in the future. In other words, traits of your average politician.
From a literary standpoint, however, Gore is about the only interesting major Democratic politician around, in part because his compromises and failures in judgment seem not - as with the Clintons - based simply on cold, cruel calculation but are the errant result of the clash between clear perception and the miasma of ambition, honest assessment and easier articulations, a moral heart and amoral muscles.
Al Gore could have grabbed a piece of greatness, but often took what seemed the easy and clever way out. . . which repeatedly turned out to be no such thing, perhaps because the conflicts within himself could produce neither efficient cynicism nor charismatic nobility.
The causes may have included being the son of a senator, living like Eloise in a Washington hotel as a young man, going to St. Alban's prep school where the future capital elite was trained in pompous and sometimes pathological certainty, and periodically visiting the strikingly different ecology of Tennessee.
No matter. He's back. He's says he's not running, but such statements don't count until the year in question. He's only done a couple of things right lately, but that easily puts him at the head of the Democratic pack.
For progressives, Gore presents an interesting problem because regardless of whether one would choose to vote for him, his success at this time will have an effect on the success of all of us. Certainly, as the following suggests, there is plenty to concern one about Gore. You may find things that alternately please or annoy you or that you just shrug off. But if Gore becomes the prophetic voice of a revived America - failed and flawed as the sound may be - we will all be better off. For the moment, we should enjoy the resonance of anyone with that many microphones in front of him saying the right thing for a change."-excerpted from The Progressive Review, tipped by News Dissector.
Should you want to contact Al directly, here's where you do it:
Al Gore
2100 West End Avenue
Nashville, TN 37203
His office phone: (615) 327-2227
Fax: (615) 327-1323
Once you give him that attention, however, you are left with the problem that Al Gore isn't always your friend, hasn't always taken the positions he takes today, and can't be relied upon to do right in the future. In other words, traits of your average politician.
From a literary standpoint, however, Gore is about the only interesting major Democratic politician around, in part because his compromises and failures in judgment seem not - as with the Clintons - based simply on cold, cruel calculation but are the errant result of the clash between clear perception and the miasma of ambition, honest assessment and easier articulations, a moral heart and amoral muscles.
Al Gore could have grabbed a piece of greatness, but often took what seemed the easy and clever way out. . . which repeatedly turned out to be no such thing, perhaps because the conflicts within himself could produce neither efficient cynicism nor charismatic nobility.
The causes may have included being the son of a senator, living like Eloise in a Washington hotel as a young man, going to St. Alban's prep school where the future capital elite was trained in pompous and sometimes pathological certainty, and periodically visiting the strikingly different ecology of Tennessee.
No matter. He's back. He's says he's not running, but such statements don't count until the year in question. He's only done a couple of things right lately, but that easily puts him at the head of the Democratic pack.
For progressives, Gore presents an interesting problem because regardless of whether one would choose to vote for him, his success at this time will have an effect on the success of all of us. Certainly, as the following suggests, there is plenty to concern one about Gore. You may find things that alternately please or annoy you or that you just shrug off. But if Gore becomes the prophetic voice of a revived America - failed and flawed as the sound may be - we will all be better off. For the moment, we should enjoy the resonance of anyone with that many microphones in front of him saying the right thing for a change."-excerpted from The Progressive Review, tipped by News Dissector.
Should you want to contact Al directly, here's where you do it:
Al Gore
2100 West End Avenue
Nashville, TN 37203
His office phone: (615) 327-2227
Fax: (615) 327-1323
''Courageous Outsiders''
"Comparing King and Gore, Susan G, one of the new front-pagers over at DailyKos, says both are asking us to look at what is going on and to throw off our powerlessness and take action. The speech that Gore gave today echoes the call that King made four decades ago:
"We were treated today to what I can only think of as a uniquely American experience: A white former future president, a son of privilege, summoning up the words and life of a black minister who rocked this country to its roots with his dream 40 years ago, both of whom referred back more than a century to a rural lawyer who took on the burden of the presidency when this nation's indivisibility and very survival were in doubt."
"Both stressed the immediate dangers to our democracy, with King's words urging an expansion of rights and a national commitment to tolerance, and Gore sounding the alarm that those rights - to all Americans - are at risk as never before from a "strong arm" presidency. Both painted the contemporary picture as stark and dark and true. King acknowledged the deep divide between black and white, Gore talked of the divisiveness along party and constitutional lines. But both were and are committed to an incontrovertible and optimistic belief that there is a solution to the recurring problem of power in America: this republic's people. We feel, in short, like outsiders to our own system. Like King. Like Gore. Like Rosa Parks. Like Cindy Sheehan."
I was struck by one of Susan H’s later observations:
"We feel, in short, like outsiders to our own system. Like King. Like Gore. Like Rosa Parks. Like Cindy Sheehan.
I'm coming to think it takes outsiders to change the world. And that we need to pay attention to these outsiders who have a gift for speech."
This is true at every level of politics right now. This is the time of the ‘courageous outsider’. It’s not just Gore. It’s Howard Dean. That’s what is so very special about him. He came in as one of the first courageous outsiders in quite a while and, when he didn’t get to be the Democratic candidate for President, he moved onto the next place he thought he could make a contribution. It’s Barack Obama, someone who has been willing to say what is true about this country, both ‘good’ and ‘bad’ and say it with conviction.
On the local level, it’s Darcy Burner, candidate for Congress in the 8th, new to politics but willing to take risks and to be authentic with us. Darcy has been an outsider much of her life, as evidenced by this great interview over at Washblog by Noemie Maxwell. She came from a solidly working class family and went to Harvard and has done a lot of different work in various high-tech companies. She has made connections and kept connections with people from all walks of life. I’ve met Darcy about four times and am more impressed each time I talk with her. She is very astute, filled with integrity and passion and determination. And playfulness. She is not cautious in the way that so many politicians, Democrats as well as Republican, are. She sees that there is a lot that needs to be done at the national level to re-secure America financially and diplomatically and will see what she can do to make those happen. And she sees the value of us bloggers, other courageous outsiders.
It’s State Party Chair candidate Mark Hintz, whom I just met last evening at a gathering in Snohomish County. Hintz is currently chair of the Snohomish County Democratic Party and formerly chair of the 44th LD. Hintz does not like to call attention to himself and it was only because the others started talking about what he had done in Snohomish County that he would add in thoughts or clarify something or share a vision. He backed away from any credit. These people who had worked with him both at the LD and County level talked about how he encouraged participation and listened to people and acted on good ideas and set goals and met them and raised a lot of money in the process. He's the real deal (as other candidates may be as well; I haven't met them in this way.)
Like other courageous outsiders, all these folks are not hooked into the status quo. They think like outsiders; they are willing to takes risks; they bring gifts of creativity and relationship-building and knowing how to get things done.
Hintz talks about how to make the Party stronger – to get way better communications amongst Party groups at every level, more transparency, a think tank, links with us bloggers. He mulls them over, works with them and says that these are things we have to do whether or not he becomes Chair, things I feel pretty confident he will work on from the outside if need be.
Courageous outsiders may be inside or outside and most likely go back and forth. The forms of the insider are not important to them. Relationships are. Integrity is. Security is not.
Gore lost and became an outsider immediately and then over a few years, he chose to become a courageous outsider. What a great one he is. Dean lost and stayed in, taking on a thankless job that no one could have done better. We don’t know what will happen with Burner and Hintz and the many other courageous outsiders who will show up this year. It is the year for it. But we want them to stay and work from the outside or inside alongside us as we take back our democracy.
Speaking of our part in this, Susan H alternates quotes from King’s speeches and from Gore’s speech today, and ends with these two:
"The people of this nation ultimately determine its course and not executive officials operating in secret without constraint.
We cannot walk alone. And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back."
And then she says:
"Pay particular attention to that last paragraph.
I think it's directed at ... us."
This is going to be a very interesting couple of years."-Lynn Allen on Evergreen Politics.
"We were treated today to what I can only think of as a uniquely American experience: A white former future president, a son of privilege, summoning up the words and life of a black minister who rocked this country to its roots with his dream 40 years ago, both of whom referred back more than a century to a rural lawyer who took on the burden of the presidency when this nation's indivisibility and very survival were in doubt."
"Both stressed the immediate dangers to our democracy, with King's words urging an expansion of rights and a national commitment to tolerance, and Gore sounding the alarm that those rights - to all Americans - are at risk as never before from a "strong arm" presidency. Both painted the contemporary picture as stark and dark and true. King acknowledged the deep divide between black and white, Gore talked of the divisiveness along party and constitutional lines. But both were and are committed to an incontrovertible and optimistic belief that there is a solution to the recurring problem of power in America: this republic's people. We feel, in short, like outsiders to our own system. Like King. Like Gore. Like Rosa Parks. Like Cindy Sheehan."
I was struck by one of Susan H’s later observations:
"We feel, in short, like outsiders to our own system. Like King. Like Gore. Like Rosa Parks. Like Cindy Sheehan.
I'm coming to think it takes outsiders to change the world. And that we need to pay attention to these outsiders who have a gift for speech."
This is true at every level of politics right now. This is the time of the ‘courageous outsider’. It’s not just Gore. It’s Howard Dean. That’s what is so very special about him. He came in as one of the first courageous outsiders in quite a while and, when he didn’t get to be the Democratic candidate for President, he moved onto the next place he thought he could make a contribution. It’s Barack Obama, someone who has been willing to say what is true about this country, both ‘good’ and ‘bad’ and say it with conviction.
On the local level, it’s Darcy Burner, candidate for Congress in the 8th, new to politics but willing to take risks and to be authentic with us. Darcy has been an outsider much of her life, as evidenced by this great interview over at Washblog by Noemie Maxwell. She came from a solidly working class family and went to Harvard and has done a lot of different work in various high-tech companies. She has made connections and kept connections with people from all walks of life. I’ve met Darcy about four times and am more impressed each time I talk with her. She is very astute, filled with integrity and passion and determination. And playfulness. She is not cautious in the way that so many politicians, Democrats as well as Republican, are. She sees that there is a lot that needs to be done at the national level to re-secure America financially and diplomatically and will see what she can do to make those happen. And she sees the value of us bloggers, other courageous outsiders.
It’s State Party Chair candidate Mark Hintz, whom I just met last evening at a gathering in Snohomish County. Hintz is currently chair of the Snohomish County Democratic Party and formerly chair of the 44th LD. Hintz does not like to call attention to himself and it was only because the others started talking about what he had done in Snohomish County that he would add in thoughts or clarify something or share a vision. He backed away from any credit. These people who had worked with him both at the LD and County level talked about how he encouraged participation and listened to people and acted on good ideas and set goals and met them and raised a lot of money in the process. He's the real deal (as other candidates may be as well; I haven't met them in this way.)
Like other courageous outsiders, all these folks are not hooked into the status quo. They think like outsiders; they are willing to takes risks; they bring gifts of creativity and relationship-building and knowing how to get things done.
Hintz talks about how to make the Party stronger – to get way better communications amongst Party groups at every level, more transparency, a think tank, links with us bloggers. He mulls them over, works with them and says that these are things we have to do whether or not he becomes Chair, things I feel pretty confident he will work on from the outside if need be.
Courageous outsiders may be inside or outside and most likely go back and forth. The forms of the insider are not important to them. Relationships are. Integrity is. Security is not.
Gore lost and became an outsider immediately and then over a few years, he chose to become a courageous outsider. What a great one he is. Dean lost and stayed in, taking on a thankless job that no one could have done better. We don’t know what will happen with Burner and Hintz and the many other courageous outsiders who will show up this year. It is the year for it. But we want them to stay and work from the outside or inside alongside us as we take back our democracy.
Speaking of our part in this, Susan H alternates quotes from King’s speeches and from Gore’s speech today, and ends with these two:
"The people of this nation ultimately determine its course and not executive officials operating in secret without constraint.
We cannot walk alone. And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back."
And then she says:
"Pay particular attention to that last paragraph.
I think it's directed at ... us."
This is going to be a very interesting couple of years."-Lynn Allen on Evergreen Politics.
''Leading Conservatives Call for Extensive Hearings on NSA Surveillance; Checks on Invasive Federal Powers Essential''
"Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances (PRCB) today called upon Congress to hold open, substantive oversight hearings examining the President's authorization of the National Security Agency (NSA) to violate domestic surveillance requirements outlined in the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
Former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, chairman of PRCB, was joined by fellow conservatives Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR); David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union; Paul Weyrich, chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation and Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, in urging lawmakers to use NSA hearings to establish a solid foundation for restoring much needed constitutional checks and balances to intelligence law.
"When the Patriot Act was passed shortly after 9-11, the federal government was granted expanded access to Americans' private information," said Barr. "However, federal law still clearly states that intelligence agents must have a court order to conduct electronic surveillance of Americans on these shores. Yet the federal government overstepped the protections of the Constitution and the plain language of FISA to eavesdrop on Americans' private communication without any judicial checks and without proof that they are involved in terrorism."
The following can be attributed to PRCB members:
"I believe that our executive branch cannot continue to operate without the checks of the other branches. However, I stand behind the President in encouraging Congress to operate cautiously during the hearings so that sensitive government intelligence is not given to our enemies." -- Paul Weyrich, chairman and CEO, Free Congress Foundation.
"Public hearings on this issue are essential to addressing the serious concerns raised by alarming revelations of NSA electronic eavesdropping." -- Grover Norquist, president, Americans for Tax Reform.
"The need to reform surveillance laws and practices adopted since 9/11 is more apparent now than ever. No one would deny the government the power it needs to protect us all, but when that power poses a threat to the basic rights that make our nation unique, its exercise must be carefully monitored by Congress and the courts. This is not a partisan issue; it is an issue of safeguarding the fundamental freedoms of all Americans so that future administrations do not interpret our laws in ways that pose constitutional concerns." -- David Keene, chairman, American Conservative Union.
"If the law is not reformed, ordinary Americans' personal information could be swept into all-encompassing federal databases encroaching upon every aspect of their private lives. This is of particular concern to gun owners, whose rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment are currently being infringed upon under the Patriot Act's controversial record search provisions." -- Alan Gottlieb, founder, Second Amendment Foundation.
Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances is an organization dedicated to protecting Americans' fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment and ensuring that all provisions of the Patriot Act are in line with the Constitution. For more information, go here."-from U.S. Newswire.
Former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, chairman of PRCB, was joined by fellow conservatives Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR); David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union; Paul Weyrich, chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation and Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, in urging lawmakers to use NSA hearings to establish a solid foundation for restoring much needed constitutional checks and balances to intelligence law.
"When the Patriot Act was passed shortly after 9-11, the federal government was granted expanded access to Americans' private information," said Barr. "However, federal law still clearly states that intelligence agents must have a court order to conduct electronic surveillance of Americans on these shores. Yet the federal government overstepped the protections of the Constitution and the plain language of FISA to eavesdrop on Americans' private communication without any judicial checks and without proof that they are involved in terrorism."
The following can be attributed to PRCB members:
"I believe that our executive branch cannot continue to operate without the checks of the other branches. However, I stand behind the President in encouraging Congress to operate cautiously during the hearings so that sensitive government intelligence is not given to our enemies." -- Paul Weyrich, chairman and CEO, Free Congress Foundation.
"Public hearings on this issue are essential to addressing the serious concerns raised by alarming revelations of NSA electronic eavesdropping." -- Grover Norquist, president, Americans for Tax Reform.
"The need to reform surveillance laws and practices adopted since 9/11 is more apparent now than ever. No one would deny the government the power it needs to protect us all, but when that power poses a threat to the basic rights that make our nation unique, its exercise must be carefully monitored by Congress and the courts. This is not a partisan issue; it is an issue of safeguarding the fundamental freedoms of all Americans so that future administrations do not interpret our laws in ways that pose constitutional concerns." -- David Keene, chairman, American Conservative Union.
"If the law is not reformed, ordinary Americans' personal information could be swept into all-encompassing federal databases encroaching upon every aspect of their private lives. This is of particular concern to gun owners, whose rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment are currently being infringed upon under the Patriot Act's controversial record search provisions." -- Alan Gottlieb, founder, Second Amendment Foundation.
Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances is an organization dedicated to protecting Americans' fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment and ensuring that all provisions of the Patriot Act are in line with the Constitution. For more information, go here."-from U.S. Newswire.
A Sneak Peek at ''Al vs. Hillary''
"Have you seen the coming attraction trailer for "Democratic Presidential Nomination '08: Al vs. Hillary" yet? It just opened yesterday, in the dueling speeches by Al Gore and Hillary Clinton.
And you can already see the two different approaches.
Gore came out swinging, charging the president with breaking the law "repeatedly and insistently." He said that Bush had mounted a "direct assault" on the system set up for obtaining warrants for spying, and concluded: "A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government."
In the other corner: Hillary.
She, too, came out swinging, claiming the Bush administration would "go down in history as one of the worst that has ever governed our country."
One of?! I suppose we were lucky she didn't go Full Senate Jacket on us, with something like: "If you were to make a list of the worst administrations, the present one could certainly be among the ones you could consider including on that list."
If there are still any left doubting that Hillary would be a good senator, she has certainly proved them wrong. She is a senator through and through. And she is just one more example, as if we needed one after John Kerry, of why sitting senators almost never become sitting presidents.
We'll see how the race develops, but right now I'd put my money on Gore. He didn't just get rid of the beard, he also got rid of the mitigating, the qualifying, and the equivocating that plagues sitting senators.
As Kerry showed, if you can't do that during a presidential campaign, you'll find yourself right back in the Senate when the campaign is over."-Arianna Huffington, on her blog.
And you can already see the two different approaches.
Gore came out swinging, charging the president with breaking the law "repeatedly and insistently." He said that Bush had mounted a "direct assault" on the system set up for obtaining warrants for spying, and concluded: "A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government."
In the other corner: Hillary.
She, too, came out swinging, claiming the Bush administration would "go down in history as one of the worst that has ever governed our country."
One of?! I suppose we were lucky she didn't go Full Senate Jacket on us, with something like: "If you were to make a list of the worst administrations, the present one could certainly be among the ones you could consider including on that list."
If there are still any left doubting that Hillary would be a good senator, she has certainly proved them wrong. She is a senator through and through. And she is just one more example, as if we needed one after John Kerry, of why sitting senators almost never become sitting presidents.
We'll see how the race develops, but right now I'd put my money on Gore. He didn't just get rid of the beard, he also got rid of the mitigating, the qualifying, and the equivocating that plagues sitting senators.
As Kerry showed, if you can't do that during a presidential campaign, you'll find yourself right back in the Senate when the campaign is over."-Arianna Huffington, on her blog.
Thank you for your support
Since we began on June 28th, 2003, SeatttleforDean.com, the "parent" of this site, has now had over 1,000,000 page views. In January, 2006, we are averaging over 5,000 page views per day. I don't do this to get a lot of "hits," but it is good to know that my own journey through the progressive blogosphere is of interest and of value to others.
I hope we can translate this interest into a movement that will "take our country back."
Howard Martin
I hope we can translate this interest into a movement that will "take our country back."
Howard Martin
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
''Gore fires back''
"Every time the White House responds to Gore, they extend the story for another 24 hours. Let's hope they keep it up.
Al Gore's response to Scottie's and Alberto's lies:
The Administration's response to my speech illustrates perfectly the need for a special counsel to review the legality of the NSA wiretapping program. The Attorney General is making a political defense of the President without even addressing the substantive legal questions that have so troubled millions of Americans in both political parties.
There are two problems with the Attorney General's effort to focus attention on the past instead of the present Administration's behavior. First, as others have thoroughly documented, his charges are factually wrong. Both before and after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was amended in 1995, the Clinton/Gore Administration complied fully and completely with the terms of the law.
Second, the Attorney General's attempt to cite a previous administration's activity as precedent for theirs -- even though factually wrong -- ironically demonstrates another reason why we must be so vigilant about their brazen disregard for the law. If unchecked, their behavior would serve as a precedent to encourage future presidents to claim these same powers, which many legal experts in both parties believe are clearly illegal.
The issue, simply put, is that for more than four years, the executive branch has been wiretapping many thousands of American citizens without warrants in direct contradiction of American law. It is clearly wrong and disrespectful to the American people to allow a close political associate of the president to be in charge of reviewing serious charges against him.
The country needs a full and independent investigation into the facts and legality of the present Administration's program."-Kos.
Al Gore's response to Scottie's and Alberto's lies:
The Administration's response to my speech illustrates perfectly the need for a special counsel to review the legality of the NSA wiretapping program. The Attorney General is making a political defense of the President without even addressing the substantive legal questions that have so troubled millions of Americans in both political parties.
There are two problems with the Attorney General's effort to focus attention on the past instead of the present Administration's behavior. First, as others have thoroughly documented, his charges are factually wrong. Both before and after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was amended in 1995, the Clinton/Gore Administration complied fully and completely with the terms of the law.
Second, the Attorney General's attempt to cite a previous administration's activity as precedent for theirs -- even though factually wrong -- ironically demonstrates another reason why we must be so vigilant about their brazen disregard for the law. If unchecked, their behavior would serve as a precedent to encourage future presidents to claim these same powers, which many legal experts in both parties believe are clearly illegal.
The issue, simply put, is that for more than four years, the executive branch has been wiretapping many thousands of American citizens without warrants in direct contradiction of American law. It is clearly wrong and disrespectful to the American people to allow a close political associate of the president to be in charge of reviewing serious charges against him.
The country needs a full and independent investigation into the facts and legality of the present Administration's program."-Kos.
''While Gore Walks Upright, Gonzales Hunches in the Ditch''
"Man, someone spiked Al Gore's coffee with spinach yesterday, 'cause he went all Popeye on the Bush administration's Bluto ass. Here's the Rude Pundit's favorite section from Al Gore's erection-inspiring speech yesterday:
"The founders of our country faced dire threats. If they failed in their endeavors, they would have been hung as traitors. The very existence of our country was at risk.
"Yet, in the teeth of those dangers, they insisted on establishing the Bill of Rights.
"Is our Congress today in more danger than were their predecessors when the British army was marching on the Capitol? Is the world more dangerous than when we faced an ideological enemy with tens of thousands of missiles poised to be launched against us and annihilate our country at a moment's notice? Is America in more danger now than when we faced worldwide fascism on the march -- when our fathers fought and won two World Wars simultaneously?
"It is simply an insult to those who came before us and sacrificed so much on our behalf to imply that we have more to be fearful of than they. Yet they faithfully protected our freedoms and now it is up to us to do the same."
Goddamn, it's such in-yer-fookin'-gob rhetoric, innit? Here's Bush, who in speech after speech makes some variation on the same stupid statement, as he did on January 11: "[I] said that after September the 11th, that oceans no longer protected us. You know, when I was growing up, or other baby boomers here were growing up, we felt safe because we had these vast oceans that could protect us from harm's way. September the 11th changed all that." And then here's Gore, calling complete and utter bullshit on that idiotic line, that the oceans couldn't even protect us from the wind-driven ships of the British, let alone Soviet ICBMs."-they don't call him The Rude Pundit for nothin'. Reader Advisory: It gets even ruder after this excerpt.
"The founders of our country faced dire threats. If they failed in their endeavors, they would have been hung as traitors. The very existence of our country was at risk.
"Yet, in the teeth of those dangers, they insisted on establishing the Bill of Rights.
"Is our Congress today in more danger than were their predecessors when the British army was marching on the Capitol? Is the world more dangerous than when we faced an ideological enemy with tens of thousands of missiles poised to be launched against us and annihilate our country at a moment's notice? Is America in more danger now than when we faced worldwide fascism on the march -- when our fathers fought and won two World Wars simultaneously?
"It is simply an insult to those who came before us and sacrificed so much on our behalf to imply that we have more to be fearful of than they. Yet they faithfully protected our freedoms and now it is up to us to do the same."
Goddamn, it's such in-yer-fookin'-gob rhetoric, innit? Here's Bush, who in speech after speech makes some variation on the same stupid statement, as he did on January 11: "[I] said that after September the 11th, that oceans no longer protected us. You know, when I was growing up, or other baby boomers here were growing up, we felt safe because we had these vast oceans that could protect us from harm's way. September the 11th changed all that." And then here's Gore, calling complete and utter bullshit on that idiotic line, that the oceans couldn't even protect us from the wind-driven ships of the British, let alone Soviet ICBMs."-they don't call him The Rude Pundit for nothin'. Reader Advisory: It gets even ruder after this excerpt.
''Is Josh Feit right?''
"Over at the Slog, Josh suggests that "Democratic Blogs Undermine Democrats' Chances of Regaining Power."
Do we? I suggest not, as the blogs are largely a reactive medium, although the sheer noise level produced from the variety of blogs certainly informs some policy- and strategy-making. For the most part, we see a strategy developing and comment on it, perhaps bitch about it, and suggest (in some cases, insist on) changes. Same with policy, although by and large liberal/Democratic/lefty/whatever blogs seem much more concerned with strategy than policy, what with us being in the minority and unable to make much policy headway.
But given the events of this past weekend, it seems clear that we have the potential to have a hugely negative effect on strategy, and if nothing else, can easily lose our way and expose relatively minor internal tussling in such a way that it becomes a major thing for the right wing to latch onto and drive a narrative of crazy, in-fighting liberals.
What say you? Is Josh right? Do we help or hurt? Is it that simple? "-switzterblog on Washblog.
My two cents: Like Peter Daou says in his piece "THE (Broken) TRIANGLE: Progressive Bloggers in the Wilderness," the problem is that the "traditional media," the elected Democratic leadership and the bloggers are not working together like the rovians do. Now Mr. Feit attended a strategy meeting in Olympia with bloggers and Olympia Democrats. He writes about it and tells us the two best tactics he heard (I agreed with him, by the way). Isn't that what he is complaining about?
Do we? I suggest not, as the blogs are largely a reactive medium, although the sheer noise level produced from the variety of blogs certainly informs some policy- and strategy-making. For the most part, we see a strategy developing and comment on it, perhaps bitch about it, and suggest (in some cases, insist on) changes. Same with policy, although by and large liberal/Democratic/lefty/whatever blogs seem much more concerned with strategy than policy, what with us being in the minority and unable to make much policy headway.
But given the events of this past weekend, it seems clear that we have the potential to have a hugely negative effect on strategy, and if nothing else, can easily lose our way and expose relatively minor internal tussling in such a way that it becomes a major thing for the right wing to latch onto and drive a narrative of crazy, in-fighting liberals.
What say you? Is Josh right? Do we help or hurt? Is it that simple? "-switzterblog on Washblog.
My two cents: Like Peter Daou says in his piece "THE (Broken) TRIANGLE: Progressive Bloggers in the Wilderness," the problem is that the "traditional media," the elected Democratic leadership and the bloggers are not working together like the rovians do. Now Mr. Feit attended a strategy meeting in Olympia with bloggers and Olympia Democrats. He writes about it and tells us the two best tactics he heard (I agreed with him, by the way). Isn't that what he is complaining about?
Monday, January 16, 2006
''Speaking of Speaking Up...''
"Crooks and Liars has excerpts from last night's 60 Minutes appearance by Congressman Jack Murtha. Clearly his plain-spoken, real world credibility and actual, honest military service is scaring the bejeebers out of the Preznit and his merry band of cronies, because the Swiftboating kicked into high gear this past week in a preemptive character assassination attempt.
CBS has a full transcript and video of the interview up here.
Oh, and the news media? MSNBC is finally getting around to showing some Al Gore speech footage at 2:20 pm ET. By my count, it was a whole 10 second clip. Woooo...I feel so well informed by this incredibly balanced coverage. Especially since they've moved on to a substantial piece on Natalie Holloway now. Enlightening, no?
UPDATE: Crooks and Liars has video highlight excerpts up from the Gore speech.
UPDATE #2: NYTimes has coverage on the Gore speech here. (Via War and Piece.")-from firedoglake..
AfterDowningStreet.org has "Report from Al Gore's Speech."
CBS has a full transcript and video of the interview up here.
Oh, and the news media? MSNBC is finally getting around to showing some Al Gore speech footage at 2:20 pm ET. By my count, it was a whole 10 second clip. Woooo...I feel so well informed by this incredibly balanced coverage. Especially since they've moved on to a substantial piece on Natalie Holloway now. Enlightening, no?
UPDATE: Crooks and Liars has video highlight excerpts up from the Gore speech.
UPDATE #2: NYTimes has coverage on the Gore speech here. (Via War and Piece.")-from firedoglake..
AfterDowningStreet.org has "Report from Al Gore's Speech."
''How a bill doesn't become law''
"Remember high school government class and the textbook explanation of how a bill becomes law?
Congress drafts legislation, which it sends to the president. If the president vetoes it, it fails, unless Congress has enough votes to override the veto. If the president signs the legislation, he issues a press release, hands out commemorative pens and the bill becomes law.
Or maybe not.
As the media often note, President Bush has never used his veto. As it turns out, his administration has instead acted upon advice given to then-President Reagan by a young lawyer named Samuel Alito and simply avoided that pesky "checks and balances" thing that the Founders were so hung up on. They have used something called a "signing statement," and it works like this: When Congress passes a bill the president doesn't like, he goes ahead and signs it. But along with the usual (publicly distributed) press release, he issues his own "constitutional interpretation" of the legislation.
Fair enough; the president takes an oath to uphold the constitution, and if he believes legislation is unconstitutional, he is certainly entitled to say so. In the past, lacking a line-item veto, presidents have used signing statements when a questionable measure has been attached to an otherwise important bill. More recently, such statements have been used as a not-so-subtle signal to federal agencies about how their boss, the president, wants the law to be interpreted and applied. But it took George W. Bush to take signing statements to a whole new level. He has used them to justify his intention to simply ignore provisions he dislikes, turning the statements into functional equivalents of line-item vetoes --albeit with some nifty added political benefits: The tactic deprives Congress of its constitutional right to override, and keeps most voters from ever noticing.
During his first term, Bush issued such statements 108 times. As Philip Cooper, an expert on presidential powers, has written, "This tour de force has been carried out in such a systematic and careful fashion that few in Congress, the media or the scholarly community are aware that anything has happened at all."
We probably still wouldn't have caught on, but the bill triggering the most recent use of this tactic was the high-profile McCain Amendment outlawing torture of detainees and strenuously opposed by the administration. When Bush signed it, he expressed his intent to "construe" the act in a manner consistent with his preferred interpretations of both presidential authority to "protect the American people" and "limits on judicial power." In other words, he served notice that he will obey the law when -- in his sole opinion -- it doesn't get in his way.
This is the grown-up version of kids crossing their fingers behind their backs while making a promise. "My fingers were crossed, so it didn't count!"
In America, no one is above the law. Just as basketball players don't get to decide for themselves whether they've committed a foul, even presidents must obey referees and follow the rules of the game."-from IndyStar.com.
Congress drafts legislation, which it sends to the president. If the president vetoes it, it fails, unless Congress has enough votes to override the veto. If the president signs the legislation, he issues a press release, hands out commemorative pens and the bill becomes law.
Or maybe not.
As the media often note, President Bush has never used his veto. As it turns out, his administration has instead acted upon advice given to then-President Reagan by a young lawyer named Samuel Alito and simply avoided that pesky "checks and balances" thing that the Founders were so hung up on. They have used something called a "signing statement," and it works like this: When Congress passes a bill the president doesn't like, he goes ahead and signs it. But along with the usual (publicly distributed) press release, he issues his own "constitutional interpretation" of the legislation.
Fair enough; the president takes an oath to uphold the constitution, and if he believes legislation is unconstitutional, he is certainly entitled to say so. In the past, lacking a line-item veto, presidents have used signing statements when a questionable measure has been attached to an otherwise important bill. More recently, such statements have been used as a not-so-subtle signal to federal agencies about how their boss, the president, wants the law to be interpreted and applied. But it took George W. Bush to take signing statements to a whole new level. He has used them to justify his intention to simply ignore provisions he dislikes, turning the statements into functional equivalents of line-item vetoes --albeit with some nifty added political benefits: The tactic deprives Congress of its constitutional right to override, and keeps most voters from ever noticing.
During his first term, Bush issued such statements 108 times. As Philip Cooper, an expert on presidential powers, has written, "This tour de force has been carried out in such a systematic and careful fashion that few in Congress, the media or the scholarly community are aware that anything has happened at all."
We probably still wouldn't have caught on, but the bill triggering the most recent use of this tactic was the high-profile McCain Amendment outlawing torture of detainees and strenuously opposed by the administration. When Bush signed it, he expressed his intent to "construe" the act in a manner consistent with his preferred interpretations of both presidential authority to "protect the American people" and "limits on judicial power." In other words, he served notice that he will obey the law when -- in his sole opinion -- it doesn't get in his way.
This is the grown-up version of kids crossing their fingers behind their backs while making a promise. "My fingers were crossed, so it didn't count!"
In America, no one is above the law. Just as basketball players don't get to decide for themselves whether they've committed a foul, even presidents must obey referees and follow the rules of the game."-from IndyStar.com.
QUOTE OF THE DAY/Martin Luther King, Jr., Celebration (UPDATED)
"The problem of racism, the problem of economic exploitation, and the problem of war are all tied together. These are the triple evils that are interrelated."-Martin Luther King, Jr., quoted on MLKSeatttle.org.
They are sponsoring the 23rd annual region-wide Martin Luther King, Jr., Celebration with Workshops, Rally, and March.
Monday, January 16, 2006
Starts at Garfield High School
400 23rd Avenue at E. Jefferson St.
Seattle
9:30 a.m. Workshops
11:00 a.m. Rally
12:00 p.m.March
Second rally to follow at end of march. More information here.
Updated:Crooks and Liars has "I have a Dream," with text and video of MLK's speech.
They are sponsoring the 23rd annual region-wide Martin Luther King, Jr., Celebration with Workshops, Rally, and March.
Monday, January 16, 2006
Starts at Garfield High School
400 23rd Avenue at E. Jefferson St.
Seattle
9:30 a.m. Workshops
11:00 a.m. Rally
12:00 p.m.March
Second rally to follow at end of march. More information here.
Updated:Crooks and Liars has "I have a Dream," with text and video of MLK's speech.
''Gore Speaks on Pres. Bush Today'' (UPDATED)
"The American Constitution Society and the Liberty Coalition hosts a speech by Fmr. Vice Pres. Al Gore at the DAR Hall in Washington. Gore speaks about the limits of executive power, the issue of monitoring domestic communications and the authorization of the use of torture in the war against terrorism."-from C-SPAN. You can WATCH/LISTEN live at 9AM PT here.
Update: Howard-Empowered People has this excerpt as well as a link to the full text on RAW STORY. The AP has this story: "Gore Assails Domestic Wiretapping Program."
Update II: CNN has Gore: "Resist Bush's 'excessive power grab'." Tidbit:
"Former Vice President Al Gore called on Congress and the public to resist what he called "a gross and excessive power grab" by the Bush administration amid the war on terrorism, declaring that "our Constitution is at risk."
Gore said the use of the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans without court approval shows that President Bush "has been breaking the law repeatedly and persistently."
"A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government," he said."
Update: Howard-Empowered People has this excerpt as well as a link to the full text on RAW STORY. The AP has this story: "Gore Assails Domestic Wiretapping Program."
Update II: CNN has Gore: "Resist Bush's 'excessive power grab'." Tidbit:
"Former Vice President Al Gore called on Congress and the public to resist what he called "a gross and excessive power grab" by the Bush administration amid the war on terrorism, declaring that "our Constitution is at risk."
Gore said the use of the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans without court approval shows that President Bush "has been breaking the law repeatedly and persistently."
"A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government," he said."
Sunday, January 15, 2006
''Interview with Darcy Burner''
In setting the stage for her interview with Darcy, Noemie Maxwell tells us:
"I happen to be a bit touchy on the subject of marketing and public opinion polling. In many ways, it seems to me that politics is becoming increasingly irrelevant to real people and daily concerns and that an increasingly ascendant marketing culture contributes to this. Supporting candidates because they are perceived to be electable seems discouragingly circular to me. I want to vote for candidates on their merits. Darcy graciously agreed to meet with me to discuss my concerns. Based on our conversation, I am willing to concede that, used with the proper intention and care, marketing tools can help make politics more relevant to our lives, not less."
Read the interview, on WashBlog.
"I happen to be a bit touchy on the subject of marketing and public opinion polling. In many ways, it seems to me that politics is becoming increasingly irrelevant to real people and daily concerns and that an increasingly ascendant marketing culture contributes to this. Supporting candidates because they are perceived to be electable seems discouragingly circular to me. I want to vote for candidates on their merits. Darcy graciously agreed to meet with me to discuss my concerns. Based on our conversation, I am willing to concede that, used with the proper intention and care, marketing tools can help make politics more relevant to our lives, not less."
Read the interview, on WashBlog.
"A Power Outage on Capitol Hill"
"We are in danger of scrapping our checks and balances—not just for a few years (as was done during the Civil War), but for good.---What if we faced a constitutional crisis and hardly anyone noticed? As he quietly mastered the tiresome cat-and-mouse game inside the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, Judge Samuel Alito gave few hints of where he stood on a matter that goes to the heart of what it means to live in a republic. With a few exceptions, the media coverage didn't help. It's so much easier to talk about Joe Biden's big mouth or a right-wing Princeton alumni group or Mrs. Alito's tears than to figure out how the country should prevent a president of the United States from castrating the United States Congress.
I wasn't expecting Alito to say whether he thought that President Bush broke the law when he admitted authorizing warrantless wiretaps on American citizens, which is a clear violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Alito is right not to comment on a specific case that, with any luck, will soon go rocketing toward the Supreme Court. I can even understand why he failed to offer an opinion on why Bush didn't simply seek to amend FISA (which Congress would have eagerly done after 9/11) if he believed his tools for catching terrorists were insufficient.
Even so, the nominee's "no person is above the law" platitudes did not suffice. Alito endorsed a famous 1952 concurring opinion from Justice Robert H. Jackson that the president's power is at its "lowest ebb" when he operates without congressional authority (the case involved whether President Truman could seize steel mills during the Korean War). But we never heard whether the brainy New Jersey jurist believes (like Bush) that the Constitution entitles the president to break the law in wartime.
Remember, this is not about whether it's right or wrong to wiretap bad guys, though the White House hopes to frame it that way for political purposes. Any rational person wants the president to be able to hunt for Qaeda suspects wherever they lurk. The "momentous" issue (Alito's words) is whether this president, or any other, has the right to tell Congress to shove it. And even if one concedes that wartime offers the president extra powers to limit liberty, what happens if the terrorist threat looks permanent? We may be scrapping our checks and balances not just for a few years (as during the Civil War), but for good.
Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Russ Feingold ably raised some of these questions last week; Al Gore is about to weigh in, too. But the Democratic Party as a whole cannot stay focused on the issue. Some activists keep jumping ahead to the remedy for the president's power grab, which they say is impeachment. But that's a pipe dream and a distraction from the task at hand, which is figuring out how to reassert Congress's institutional role. This must by necessity involve Republicans, who control Congress. Unfortunately, most have so far shown little concern about being defenestrated by their president.
But "Snoopgate" is already creating new fissures on the right. The NSA story is an acid test of whether one is a traditional Barry Goldwater conservative, who believes in limited government, or a modern Richard Nixon conservative, who believes in authority. Alito is in the latter category. His judicial opinions suggest a deference to executive power, and he once pioneered presidential "signing statements" that are meant to help judges come down on the president's side. Just recently, Bush attached such a statement to John McCain's bill banning torture in which the president reserved the right to ignore the law if he wants to.
Alito embodies the inherent contradiction of the conservative movement. The nominee is an "originalist," which means, as he said last week, that "we should look to the meaning that someone would have taken from the text of the Constitution at the time of its adoption." But at that time, the 18th century, the Founders could not have been clearer about the role of Congress in wartime. As James Madison put it, "In no part of the Constitution is more wisdom to be found than in the clause which confides the question of war and peace to the legislative and not to the executive branch."
Congress, for its part, is in no shape to assert its constitutional prerogatives. Gabby senators came across poorly in the Alito hearings. And the House side looks like someone just lifted a rock on a colony of slithering worms. The race to succeed Rep. Tom DeLay as majority leader, for instance, is currently between "Tobacco John" Boehner, who once passed out checks from the tobacco industry on the House floor, and "Tobacco Roy" Blunt, who inserted an amendment to favor cigarette makers in, of all things, the homeland-security bill. Fortunately, Sen. Arlen Specter will hold hearings in early February on presidential power. Watch them, please, even if you're tired of this cast of Judiciary Committee characters. Our whole system is on the line."-Jonathan Alter in Newsweek.
I think I am detecting signs of life in this organ of the "traditional media."
I wasn't expecting Alito to say whether he thought that President Bush broke the law when he admitted authorizing warrantless wiretaps on American citizens, which is a clear violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Alito is right not to comment on a specific case that, with any luck, will soon go rocketing toward the Supreme Court. I can even understand why he failed to offer an opinion on why Bush didn't simply seek to amend FISA (which Congress would have eagerly done after 9/11) if he believed his tools for catching terrorists were insufficient.
Even so, the nominee's "no person is above the law" platitudes did not suffice. Alito endorsed a famous 1952 concurring opinion from Justice Robert H. Jackson that the president's power is at its "lowest ebb" when he operates without congressional authority (the case involved whether President Truman could seize steel mills during the Korean War). But we never heard whether the brainy New Jersey jurist believes (like Bush) that the Constitution entitles the president to break the law in wartime.
Remember, this is not about whether it's right or wrong to wiretap bad guys, though the White House hopes to frame it that way for political purposes. Any rational person wants the president to be able to hunt for Qaeda suspects wherever they lurk. The "momentous" issue (Alito's words) is whether this president, or any other, has the right to tell Congress to shove it. And even if one concedes that wartime offers the president extra powers to limit liberty, what happens if the terrorist threat looks permanent? We may be scrapping our checks and balances not just for a few years (as during the Civil War), but for good.
Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Russ Feingold ably raised some of these questions last week; Al Gore is about to weigh in, too. But the Democratic Party as a whole cannot stay focused on the issue. Some activists keep jumping ahead to the remedy for the president's power grab, which they say is impeachment. But that's a pipe dream and a distraction from the task at hand, which is figuring out how to reassert Congress's institutional role. This must by necessity involve Republicans, who control Congress. Unfortunately, most have so far shown little concern about being defenestrated by their president.
But "Snoopgate" is already creating new fissures on the right. The NSA story is an acid test of whether one is a traditional Barry Goldwater conservative, who believes in limited government, or a modern Richard Nixon conservative, who believes in authority. Alito is in the latter category. His judicial opinions suggest a deference to executive power, and he once pioneered presidential "signing statements" that are meant to help judges come down on the president's side. Just recently, Bush attached such a statement to John McCain's bill banning torture in which the president reserved the right to ignore the law if he wants to.
Alito embodies the inherent contradiction of the conservative movement. The nominee is an "originalist," which means, as he said last week, that "we should look to the meaning that someone would have taken from the text of the Constitution at the time of its adoption." But at that time, the 18th century, the Founders could not have been clearer about the role of Congress in wartime. As James Madison put it, "In no part of the Constitution is more wisdom to be found than in the clause which confides the question of war and peace to the legislative and not to the executive branch."
Congress, for its part, is in no shape to assert its constitutional prerogatives. Gabby senators came across poorly in the Alito hearings. And the House side looks like someone just lifted a rock on a colony of slithering worms. The race to succeed Rep. Tom DeLay as majority leader, for instance, is currently between "Tobacco John" Boehner, who once passed out checks from the tobacco industry on the House floor, and "Tobacco Roy" Blunt, who inserted an amendment to favor cigarette makers in, of all things, the homeland-security bill. Fortunately, Sen. Arlen Specter will hold hearings in early February on presidential power. Watch them, please, even if you're tired of this cast of Judiciary Committee characters. Our whole system is on the line."-Jonathan Alter in Newsweek.
I think I am detecting signs of life in this organ of the "traditional media."
''Say the Word, Again''
"SPECTER: Well, the remedy could be a variety of things. A president --
and I'm not suggesting remotely that there's any basis, but you're
asking, really, theory, what's the remedy? Impeachment is a remedy.
After impeachment, you could have a criminal prosecution, but the
principal remedy, George, under our society is to pay a political price."-from the post by Kos, "Specter: If Bush broke law, impeachment is a remedy."
Thanks to Annie Robbins, again, for the tip.
Meanwhile the Democratic Senator from California says, "I do not see a likelihood of a filibuster. This might be a man I disagree with, but it doesn't mean he shouldn't be on the court." Why the hell not, Dianne? The filibuster, I mean. Firedoglake is really pissed at the Senate Dems for their handling of the Alito nominations. Crooks and Liars has video of Spector on ABC.
and I'm not suggesting remotely that there's any basis, but you're
asking, really, theory, what's the remedy? Impeachment is a remedy.
After impeachment, you could have a criminal prosecution, but the
principal remedy, George, under our society is to pay a political price."-from the post by Kos, "Specter: If Bush broke law, impeachment is a remedy."
Thanks to Annie Robbins, again, for the tip.
Meanwhile the Democratic Senator from California says, "I do not see a likelihood of a filibuster. This might be a man I disagree with, but it doesn't mean he shouldn't be on the court." Why the hell not, Dianne? The filibuster, I mean. Firedoglake is really pissed at the Senate Dems for their handling of the Alito nominations. Crooks and Liars has video of Spector on ABC.
''Zogby Poll: Americans Support Impeaching Bush for Wiretapping''
"Support for Clinton Impeachment Was Much Lower---In August and September of 1998, 16 major polls asked about impeaching
President Clinton.
Only 36% supported hearings to consider impeachment, and only 26%
supported actual impeachment and removal. Even so, the impeachment
debate dominated the news for months, and the Republican Congress
impeached Clinton despite overwhelming public opposition.
Passion for Impeachment is Major Unreported Story
The strong support for impeachment found in this poll is especially
surprising because the views of impeachment supporters are entirely
absent from the broadcast and print media, and can only be found on the
Internet and in street protests. The lack of coverage of impeachment
support is due in part to the fact that not a single Democrat in
Congress has called for impeachment, despite considerable grassroots
activism by groups like Democrats.com." -from Democrats.com. Thanks to Annie Robbins for the tip.
President Clinton.
Only 36% supported hearings to consider impeachment, and only 26%
supported actual impeachment and removal. Even so, the impeachment
debate dominated the news for months, and the Republican Congress
impeached Clinton despite overwhelming public opposition.
Passion for Impeachment is Major Unreported Story
The strong support for impeachment found in this poll is especially
surprising because the views of impeachment supporters are entirely
absent from the broadcast and print media, and can only be found on the
Internet and in street protests. The lack of coverage of impeachment
support is due in part to the fact that not a single Democrat in
Congress has called for impeachment, despite considerable grassroots
activism by groups like Democrats.com." -from Democrats.com. Thanks to Annie Robbins for the tip.
Saturday, January 14, 2006
''Supreme test for the Democrats''
"The nomination of Samuel Alito is the Supreme test for the Democrats. They have the power to stop this nomination, but if they fail to do so they should expect minority party status for a long time to come.
The Supreme Court will once again have "four horses of the apocalypse" -- four partisan justices who favor executive power, corporate power, expansive law enforcement authority, co-mingling of religion and government, and minimal individual rights. Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito will provide the foundation for right wing extremism for decades to come.
In his testimony Alito has certainly given the Democrats enough ammunition to filibuster his nomination. He has, not very artfully, evaded and dodged questions about critical issues – not only Roe v. Wade, but President Bush's eavesdropping on telephone conversations where one participant is in the United States and on his statements saying he may not follow the new ban on torture when he signed the bill into law. His testimony combined with his writings as a judge and as a Reagan administration functionary provide ample ammunition to stop this nomination.
Democrats should not fall for the canard that if they stop Alito they are likely to get a worse nominee. Exactly the opposite will happen. If Alito is stopped it will draw a line that makes it clear what is unacceptable in Supreme Court nominees. Remember the history of successful nominees being blocked. When two of President Nixon's nominees were stopped it resulted in Justice Harry Blackmun who wrote the decision in Roe v. Wade. When Judge Bork was blocked it resulted in the selection of Justice Anthony Kennedy, a moderate-conservative. And, the right wing showed that by stopping Harriet Miers they got the nominee they wanted in Samuel Alito.
If the nomination of Alito is blocked there may only be time for one more nomination to be considered before the 2006 Congressional election. President Bush will realize that if he wants to get a conservative nominee through he will need to pick someone no less conservative that Justice O'Connor. The president will realize that if he misplays this next nominee there is a good chance he will have to deal with a more Democratic Senate when he puts forward his next choice.
The Democrats need to learn from their past failure to block Supreme Court nominees. Remember, Justice Antonin Scalia, the leader of the partisan conservative wing of the court was approved by a unanimous Senate controlled by the Democrats. And, Justice Clarence Thomas was approved by a Democratic Senate despite a lack luster record in the law and strong allegations of sexual harassment. These two nominations are the reason why the vote count was stopped in 2000 and President Bush was selected as president in a closely divided 5-4 decision.
Too often in recent years the Democrats have played their role of "loyal opposition" with too much loyalty and not enough opposition. Their approval of broad language for the use of force resolution has resulted in Condoleezza Rice testifying that no further Congressional mandate is needed to attack Syria or other countries. And, the approval of the Patriot Act, with near unanimous Democratic support, has broadened the powers of the president, police and prosecutors. The Democrats disdain Bush's 'imperial presidency' but they have helped created the new King George by ceding power to him and not taking responsibility themselves.
It is time for the Democrats to stand up and use their power. Stopping Alito is an opportunity to show that they believe in three equal branches of government that provide a check and balance on the actions of the others. Americans support the framework of the Constitution. It is a chance to show they represent the people against the powerful and want a court that reflects that reality.
And, the Democrats should continue their filibuster of the Patriot Act. The version under consideration, written by a conference committee controlled by conservative Republicans, is worse than the previous version. The old version was bad enough allowing for secret searches of private homes, and searches of our medical and business records as well as discovery of what books we are reading. But the new version contains provisions that will turn Red State Americans red with anger. The Democrats should highlight provisions that make it a crime to hold an "unauthorized sign" at the Democratic or Republican Convention, or at an event where the President or Vice President is speaking, or at an event where the Secret Service decides that unauthorized signs are illegal. What do these provisions have to do with preventing terrorism? How will veterans, who risked their lives to defend our freedoms, feel about such an affront to Freedom of Speech?
Of course these are challenges but it is out of challenges where we find our opportunities. And, the Alito nomination and the revised Patriot Act are excellent opportunities for Democrats to rise to the challenge and defend the noble purpose and moral vision of America. They are a chance for Democrats to show voters they stand for something."-from the article on Raw Story by Kevin Zeese, a candidate for Senate in Maryland and director of Democracy Rising.
The Supreme Court will once again have "four horses of the apocalypse" -- four partisan justices who favor executive power, corporate power, expansive law enforcement authority, co-mingling of religion and government, and minimal individual rights. Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito will provide the foundation for right wing extremism for decades to come.
In his testimony Alito has certainly given the Democrats enough ammunition to filibuster his nomination. He has, not very artfully, evaded and dodged questions about critical issues – not only Roe v. Wade, but President Bush's eavesdropping on telephone conversations where one participant is in the United States and on his statements saying he may not follow the new ban on torture when he signed the bill into law. His testimony combined with his writings as a judge and as a Reagan administration functionary provide ample ammunition to stop this nomination.
Democrats should not fall for the canard that if they stop Alito they are likely to get a worse nominee. Exactly the opposite will happen. If Alito is stopped it will draw a line that makes it clear what is unacceptable in Supreme Court nominees. Remember the history of successful nominees being blocked. When two of President Nixon's nominees were stopped it resulted in Justice Harry Blackmun who wrote the decision in Roe v. Wade. When Judge Bork was blocked it resulted in the selection of Justice Anthony Kennedy, a moderate-conservative. And, the right wing showed that by stopping Harriet Miers they got the nominee they wanted in Samuel Alito.
If the nomination of Alito is blocked there may only be time for one more nomination to be considered before the 2006 Congressional election. President Bush will realize that if he wants to get a conservative nominee through he will need to pick someone no less conservative that Justice O'Connor. The president will realize that if he misplays this next nominee there is a good chance he will have to deal with a more Democratic Senate when he puts forward his next choice.
The Democrats need to learn from their past failure to block Supreme Court nominees. Remember, Justice Antonin Scalia, the leader of the partisan conservative wing of the court was approved by a unanimous Senate controlled by the Democrats. And, Justice Clarence Thomas was approved by a Democratic Senate despite a lack luster record in the law and strong allegations of sexual harassment. These two nominations are the reason why the vote count was stopped in 2000 and President Bush was selected as president in a closely divided 5-4 decision.
Too often in recent years the Democrats have played their role of "loyal opposition" with too much loyalty and not enough opposition. Their approval of broad language for the use of force resolution has resulted in Condoleezza Rice testifying that no further Congressional mandate is needed to attack Syria or other countries. And, the approval of the Patriot Act, with near unanimous Democratic support, has broadened the powers of the president, police and prosecutors. The Democrats disdain Bush's 'imperial presidency' but they have helped created the new King George by ceding power to him and not taking responsibility themselves.
It is time for the Democrats to stand up and use their power. Stopping Alito is an opportunity to show that they believe in three equal branches of government that provide a check and balance on the actions of the others. Americans support the framework of the Constitution. It is a chance to show they represent the people against the powerful and want a court that reflects that reality.
And, the Democrats should continue their filibuster of the Patriot Act. The version under consideration, written by a conference committee controlled by conservative Republicans, is worse than the previous version. The old version was bad enough allowing for secret searches of private homes, and searches of our medical and business records as well as discovery of what books we are reading. But the new version contains provisions that will turn Red State Americans red with anger. The Democrats should highlight provisions that make it a crime to hold an "unauthorized sign" at the Democratic or Republican Convention, or at an event where the President or Vice President is speaking, or at an event where the Secret Service decides that unauthorized signs are illegal. What do these provisions have to do with preventing terrorism? How will veterans, who risked their lives to defend our freedoms, feel about such an affront to Freedom of Speech?
Of course these are challenges but it is out of challenges where we find our opportunities. And, the Alito nomination and the revised Patriot Act are excellent opportunities for Democrats to rise to the challenge and defend the noble purpose and moral vision of America. They are a chance for Democrats to show voters they stand for something."-from the article on Raw Story by Kevin Zeese, a candidate for Senate in Maryland and director of Democracy Rising.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)