Saturday, November 20, 2004

The Paris Hilton Tax

An excellent frame.

Run with it!

Friday, November 19, 2004

A Humble Request

Please stop using the term "InternetS"!

Yes, at first it was cute to make fun of Bush for this little flub. But the repeated use of it by many in the liberal blogosphere is just adding legitimacy to the term. "Strategery" and "Misunderestimate" have already been legitimized. Let's not aid Bush even further in his quest to polute our political grammar.

Thanks in advance.

Dean uses the power

Once again Dean shows that he understands the power of the grassroots. He hasn't yet made it official whether he will try for the DNC chair. But his organization, Dean for America, is laying the groundwork for such an effort. This morning, the DfA blog contained a post (link) that describes the procedures that grassroots organizers can use to put themselves on local Democratic committees. This is important because it is those committees who select the members of statewide delegations who ultimately cast the votes for who will become the head of the DNC.

If Dean should decide to go for it, having some of his own people in on the ground floor will make the effort more likely to succeed. Not only will it help him get the position, it will also help him by giving him the power to use that position for real change in the party.

And, even if Dean ultimately decides not to run, having more grassroots organizers in at the ground floor of the party organization can't be anything but a good thing.

Right now, DFA is compiling a scheduling database of local Democratic meetings around the country to help you get involved over the next few months. You can help by calling your state, county, and local committee chairs and adding your next meeting to the DFA database at http://www.democracyforamerica.com/localdems.

Incredibly enough�no one has ever compiled all of the local Democratic meetings across the country in one place. There is no equivalent of Meetup.com or DFA's Project Commons for the Democratic Party. No wonder many people find it hard to find their local meetings times! Over the next few months, DFA is taking the lead on growing our Party and ensuring that the grassroots have a big voice in determining the Party's future.

At the December Meetup, DFA groups around the country will lay out specific plans to get involved in their local parties. What are your plans to take an active role in determining the future of the Democratic Party?

It is pretty amazing that no one has ever compiled a database like this before. Republicans have been doing this kind of basic organizing of their national groups for years.

A good idea whose time HAD come

I support this effort whole-heartedly and I like the fact that John Kerry is going to the grassroots to ask us to be "co-sponsors" on this legislation.

But still there is this nagging question: why didn't Kerry do this months ago when (1) it might have had a better chance of passing and (2) Republican opposition to it could be used as a campaign issue.

Oh well...

Gonzalez: Qualified where it matters most

Any doubts that may have lingered about Alberto R. Gonzales' chances of being confirmed as President Bush's next attorney general were put to rest this morning, when Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, told the New York Times that Democrats will not oppose the move. Critics had raised questions about the legal advice Gonzales had given the White House regarding the use of Guant�namo Bay, and his suggestions that the facility was outside the reach of U.S. courts and the rule of law. That's a finding more and more judges find plainly flawed. Gonzales was also at the center of the White House's post-9/11 legal strategy that the Geneva Conventions were "obsolete" and "quaint.

But it appears none of that will matter much, because Gonzales has two big things going for him: a strong Republican majority in the Senate, and even more important inside Washington, likability. Said Leahy, "I like him."

He may be an advocate for torture, but at least he is a nice advocate for torture.

<Big Al Gore Sigh>

The fog is lofting from my eyes

Madman from Liberal Street Fighter describes his problem with the Lakoff frame of "Nurturant Parent" to describe progressives:

[...] I am deeply uncomfortable with identifying the left with the �nurturant parent� description. I think it works against us. In the right�s worldview, nurturing is the job of the mother, and they successfully use their twisted stereotypes of women to attack the left.

I also am uncomfortable with the "Nurturant" label for pretty much the same reason.. I've talked previously about how "Loving Parent" might be a better frame, but I'm not sold on that either because it still seems to squishy a response to the frame of "Strict Father" morality.

Madman points out that the problem with all these frames may be the whole "Family" frame itself. Lakoff warns against adopting a negation of the opposition's frame because doing so just re-affirms that frame (e.g., who wants to be considered against Tax Relief?) However, the same problem is manifest when you only adopt a variation on the opposition's frame.

Lakoff, by pushing the "Nurturant Parent" frame, is still pushing the idea that political activity should be based on "The Family". The problem is that the Republicans have a more fully fleshed model for "The Family" than have the Democrats. So, when Lakoff talks about the "Nurturant Parent", he is giving moral weight to the "Strict Father" model.

Madman suggests an alternative political frame based on the "Politics as Partnership" frame. It's a good frame if for no other reason then it leaves the whole "Family" frame on the floor.

A picture says a thousand words

(link)

How do you pull off a bandaid?

My Republican friend Jimmy is back with another though provoking comment to this post on the Bush idea to remove the write-off for state and local taxes:

I dont know if this is a good idea or not, however, the system we have right now for tax exemption for state and local taxes is unfair. Those of us in Texas have no income tax (hooray!). It also means that we have no state tax to exempt on our federal income tax return (boo!). Except we still pay plenty of taxes to the state through our little buddy the sales tax (big boo!). We can't deduct sales tax so we are paying state taxes that are not deductible like your income tax is in Oregon (where you don't have a sales tax--yay!--or at least you didn't when I lived there 20 years ago).

Note: minor exception, somebody figured out that we were being screwed by this and made our sales tax deductible this year and next. That's nice, I'm waiting for my check for the past fifteen years I've been paying sales tax.

My response to him:

I agree that the disparity in being able to write-off state income tax but not sales tax is unfair. But I'm sure you appreciate the idea that changing the system by eliminating the state income tax write-off would be politically untenable because it WOULD amount to a tax increase.

Oregon doesn't have a sales tax. I know some people would like to switch from an income tax to a sales tax, but I personally prefer the income tax. It's just so much simpler to figure out the financial impact it has on you. Which, ironically, might be why people hate it more than sales taxes. The cost of a sales tax is harder to appreciate in the long run because you don't receive a form at the end of the year telling you, to the cent, just exactly how much money you had to hand over to the government.

I think the irony here really is delicious. While a sales tax may make you grumble every time you go to the checkout stand, that's kind of a low-level background annoyance in your life that you eventually get used to. After a while, most of us just stop grumbling and don't give it much thought. It's just a part of life.

But an income tax (or a property tax) hits us in a bigger way because we get the aforementioned piece of paper at the end of the year reminding us just how much of our sweat we had to turn over to the government. So, even if a sales tax actually ends up costing us more money, the income tax has more of a psychological impact because it appears to hit us all at once.

As I said to Jimmy, I happen to prefer the one-time hit because I want to know exactly how much I am bleeding (If you have to pull off the bandaid it is better to do it quickly). And, as is clear from this example, that piece of paper makes it easier to turn around and ask for some relief from the federal government in the form of the tax write-off.

Meetups are our churches!

Over on MyDD.com, several commentators have continued the discussion of the important role meetups played in the early Dean efforts and how they can continue to play that role in the future. One poster, camilow, came up with a great description of this: "Meetups are our churches":

As Jakob Nielsen pointed out, it was a great failure not to use the net for organizing. I went to several meetups and enjoyed the electric atmosphere.

The Bushies enjoyed the ground organization of their churches.  Democrats need their own church.  Meetup meetings, combining local and national themes, are the way to give our Movement the physical presence it so badly needs.  Properly done, they would have tipped the election our way.

 

It occurs to me, when thinking about the strength of the local Oregon organization, that we may have benefited from a lack of national attention in the early phases of the campaign. This forced us to identify our own strengths and put together the local campaign that was needed to turn Oregon into one of the shining jewels of both the Dean and Kerry campaigns.

This is in contrast to what happened in Iowa and New Hampshire (for Dean) and Ohio and Florida (for Kerry). The national campaigns focused a lot of attention on those "important states" from the beginning, sending in their own outside organizers to set up the campaigns in those states. The result may have been "local" organizations that weren't local but were instead just reflections of the national campaigns. Many in the Democratic leadership appear clueless about how to run local campaigns in those states. They win only in those areas in which they actually live. But when they come to the "red states" they are the outsiders. And outsiders don't know how to best use the local tools available to them.

This may be an important clue for future Democratic success: the national leadership needs to surrender some of their control over the local campaigns and trust that the local people are the best ones to figure out how to organize themselves. We need leaders in the red states, not professional campaign consultants working from a blue state playbook.

Meetups are the key to the whole approach. They are the closest thing we have to the Republican's network of evangelical churches. They are the best vehicle the Democrats have to grow new leaders. But in order for them to grow to their full potential they have to be allowed to do so. The national leadership can provide guidance and resources. But it is the local leadership that ultimately has to lead.

Thursday, November 18, 2004

Hmmmm....

Alert posted at the top of THE DAOU REPORT::

JOHN KERRY TO REACH OUT TO HIS GRASSROOTS AND NETROOTS SUPPORTER BASE - EMAIL HITTING INBOXES AS SOON AS FRIDAY - FORWARD-LOOKING, STRONGLY WORDED STATEMENT - MORE TO COME... [POSTED @ 6:03 PM EST 11.18.04]

A message to our friends on the right

FOX News is the MSM

Glory Days

Chris Bowers gets wistful:

Personally, beyond the fundraising insanity and strange ossification that began in the Dean campaign near the end of September 2003, the best experiences I had in this election cycle came from Dean Meetups from May to September of 2003. This is also the time period when Dean went from being more or less an asterisk to become the frontrunner.

...

These were the great days, the creative days, the formative days. All of these activities, very few of which were connected to fundraising, brought us all personally into the campaign. We all felt like we were making a difference, and certainly not just when a bat went up on the website. Fundraising was just one of many activities we were involved in. Best of all, because these events were organized around social Meetups, they all involved meeting new people and making new friends. We were not just involved in the campaign, we were forming a new, local progressive activist organization. It was the height of excitement.

Ah yes, I remember those good ole days of the early meetups. The excitement was incredible as our numbers appeared to double from month to month (40 in one meetup in March, 100 in April, 3 meetups of 40+ each in May, 5 meetups in June, and so on until by September we had reached 9(!!) meetups in the Portland area alone). But, I also noticed the drop off in excitement level as the campaign headed into the Fall. I hadn't thought about it before, but I think this started right around the time the headlines about Dean became more and more about how much money he was raising and less and less about the grassroots organizing effort. Our local efforts were not dominated by the money campaign, but the money increasingly became the theme of the whole campaign.

I think Chris is on to something here. Both Dean and Kerry started to stumble when they became disconnected from the grassroots. Dean was carried forward to Iowa by the rock-star momentum of his campaign. Kerry was carried to election day by the institutional strength of the Democratic party (happy to take the money we gave them, but not really all that interested in what we had to say about the campaign itself).

The question becomes this: Can the kind of grassroots enthusiasm that elevated Dean to national prominence ever be sustained over the long term?

I would use Oregon as proof that it can be done. Despite the drop off in enthusiasm I noted above, we still maintained a strong local organization that generally initiated its own grassroots efforts separate from both the Dean and Kerry campaigns. I would argue, in fact, that the continued work of the local Deanizens went a long way towards Kerry's 5 point boost in Oregon over Gore's 2000 performance.

Perhaps the lesson from the Oregon campaign is that grassroots campaigns can only be sustained from the grassroots (an answer so obvious that that is why we lose sight of it).

The national campaign can provide materials and guidance. But the energy that is needed to carry the campaign across the finish line can only come from the bottom up. This can happen only if those on the bottom feel like they have the power to control their destiny. The national campaign can concern itself with message and money. But it is the local people who have to carry the weight of organization and outreach. Barring the kind of top-down control structure Karl Rove has instituted in the Republican party, a model that is distinctly antithetical to the Democratic spirit, the only sustainable organizational structure that will work for the Democrats is the bottom-up approach we developed through the meetup structure.

Some of the local Deaners have been talking about the idea of bottling up whatever it was we had here and exporting it to other parts of the country. We will be holding brainstorming sessions in the coming weeks to figure out just how to do that.

It should be fun.

Republicans want to raise your taxes!!!

Atrios notes that if the Democrats take Matthew Yglesias' advice to come out with a revenue neutral tax reform plan before Bush then they will inevitably be accused of raising taxes:

[...] The thing about "revenue neutral" changes to the tax code is that they necessarily raise some taxes and lower others. [...]

The problem with the Democrats having a plan is that it too will inevitably raise taxes on some people, and so coming out with a plan pre-emptively will allow Republicans to screech "Democrats want to raise your taxes!!!!"

I agree. But this brings up an interesting point: if a revenue neutral tax reform plan inevitably results in the raising of taxes on someone then why aren't the Democrats screeching "Republicans want to raise your taxes!!!!"?

Given the proposal to eliminate the state and local tax deductions, I'm sure it would be easy to find a large group of American families who would see their tax burden go up under such a plan. The Democrats should find a representative sample of these people, perhaps one family from each state (just to show how universally bad this idea is), and hold a press conference on the steps of Capital Hill in order to show America the face of the people who will be hurt by Bush's "tax reform" plan.

Democrats need to learn how to attack. Here is an ideal opportunity.

Know your enemy

Paul Waldman:

Year after year, Democrats are amazed that the public thinks they're a bunch of wimps and Republicans are strong and manly. Perhaps if we come out in favor of missile defense, they think, people will change their minds. Perhaps if we vote for this war we all know is going to be a disaster, they'll see how much we care about Americans' security. Perhaps if we go hunting, they'll see we're real men.

Well here's an idea: perhaps the American people wouldn't think you were a bunch of wimps if you weren't such a bunch of wimps.

The amazing thing is that the Democrats are perfectly capable of playing hardball. They are quite capable of using rough tactics to undermine their opponents. Just ask Howard Dean.

Now if only they would turn their abilities on their real enemies.

It's long past time for the Democratic establishment to stop complaining when other Democrats call them wimps. Don't waste our time trying to argue that you aren't wimps. Prove that you aren't. Don't treat us as if we were the enemy. We aren't. Your real enemy is standing behind you, twisting that knife ever deeper in your back.

Outrage!

Texas DA Ronnie Earle is a partisan hack who wants nothing more than to use his power to destroy Tom DeLay. Here's the proof:

''The only people I antagonize more than Republicans are Democrats,'' Mr. Earle said later. He said the record showed he had prosecuted 12 Democratic officials and 4 Republican officials, although for much of his time in office, he acknowledged, Republicans were on the outs. ''We prosecute abuses of power,'' he said, ''and you have to have power to abuse it.''

Umm... Never mind.

Fooling the censors

Steve Gilliard is right that the nascent Bush plan to eliminate deductions for state and local taxes is even more outrageous than the plan to eliminate business tax deductions for employer-provided health insurance.

Everyone is freaking out over the plan to elminate the deduction for health care, but that isn't the real kicker. It is the elimination of the state and local tax deduction which will blow the plan up. That's far more important than health insurance and in an immediate way. In New York, that deduction saves thousands a year, directly. Now, that's not a big deal in Texas, but if they want the GOP not to die in the Northeast, well, they might want to reconsider that.

When the news of this reaches New York's papers, the screaming will be as if someone jammed a poker up someone's ass. Unpopular wouldn't be the word. The old age lobby will scream about the health insurance plans, because that would affect pensions as well, that could easily die in committee. But the state and local tax plan will make people go nuts. Because that will be seen in people's wallets immediately. Mind-bogglingly stupid isn't the word for this.

This is an idea that will immediately impact nearly all tax payers in a clear and substantial way. It's one of the biggest political blunders I could imagine the Republicans making. Which is why I don't think they are really serious about it. These people may be insane, but they aren't stupid. They have to know that any suggestion to eliminate state and local tax deductions will be met with fierce opposition, and not just from Democrats. So why would they even float this idea?

Why, to draw the fire away from the plan to eliminate the deduction for employer-provided health insurance of course.

It's an old trick that writers in the TV industry learned a long time ago: If you want to get something risqu� past the censors, mask it behind something really offensive. The theory being that the censors will stomp on the really bad thing but leave alone the thing that you wanted all along.

The Republicans can propose both of these measures, give ground on the state and local tax proposal, get what they wanted all along and then publicly pat themselves on the back for being bi-partisan in their approach to tax reform.

Tuesday, November 16, 2004

A good question

If over 1000 insurgents have been killed in Iraq, then where are the bodies?

Monday, November 15, 2004

Stop Howard Dean!

When considering who should be the DNC chair maybe we should consider the motives of those who are vying for the spot:

Gov. Tom Vilsack: "Keep Iowa first" and "stop Howard Dean".

Gov. Jeane Shaheen: "Lay the groundwork for Kerry '08" and "stop Howard Dean"

Gov. Roy Barnes: "Lay the groundwork for Edwards '08" and "stop Howard Dean"

Harold Ickes: "Lay the groundwork for Hillary '08" and "stop Howard Dean"

Howard Dean: "Lay the groundwork for Democrats '06, '08, '10, '12, '14, '16, '18, '20, ..."

Of the leading candidates, only Howard Dean appears to want the job for the purpose of advancing the prospects of the party. The rest are vying for the job in order to protect their own turf (Vilsack), help out political patrons (Shaheen, Barnes, Ickes) and also stop that "disaster" Howard Dean (all the above).

Now  consider this: If Dean becomes DNC chair he would most likely have to give up any dream of "Dean '08". So, Dean is not only the the Democratic party candidate, he is also the ultimate "stop Howard Dean" candidate.

Sounds like a win-win to me!

Dean vs. Anybody-But-Dean

I still caution people not to get dragged into a "let's you and him fight" trap laid by those who would love nothing more than for the Democrats to fight more amongst themselves than against the real enemy, but this post by Kos suggests that there is a real battle-line being drawn in the fight over the DNC chair position.

I always, always laugh when I hear one of these insiders talk about the "disaster" that a Dean chairmanship would wreak on the party.

I mean, disaster compared to what? Being shut out from all levers of government? From the White House, Supreme Court, House, Senate, majority of governorships and majority of state legislatures?

How about the disaster of three straight losing election cycles? That's not a freakin' disaster?

Dean means reform. Simon Rosenberg means reform. There are probably other dark horse candidates out there who would mean reform.

And that's what we need. Reform, not status quo. The status quo is untenable. I'm tired of losing, and that's the only thing the current gang has delivered.

The battle seems to be shaping up to a fight between Dean and Vilsack, but really they are just stand-ins for a bigger battle: grassroots reform driven by a real desire to win against entrenched power with a real desire to protect what little power it still has.

Fortunately for the Dean forces, the forces on the other side appear to be adopting the same strategy they had during the 2004 election. Then it was Anybody-But-Bush. Here it is Anybody-But-Dean. The question is whether a campaign that is primarily driven by a desire to halt progress is more powerful than a campaign that is all about progress.

Kos points out that the Dean forces have a lot of powerful arguments to make on their side. And, ironically, those arguments are also primarily negative: why should we continue to support a power structure that has consistently failed us for the last 10 years?

Kos also points out that the Anybody-But-Dean forces are adopting the same strategy of the Bushies: demonize the opposition by distorting their position to the extreme. Dean is not the candidate of leftists. He is the candidate of Democrats who want Democrats to act like winners.

And all this before we even get any definitive word that Dean is interested in the job.