Where does it end?

Conservative commentator Armstrong Williams was paid $250,000 in taxpayer money ("our money" as the Republicans like to say) to shill for the President's No Child Left Behind Bill.

Josh Marshall publishes speculation about whether any other conservative commentators have been similarly compensated.

Ron Brynaert of Loaded mouth extends the question to bloggers. How many of our right-wing brethren are on the government dole?

How many of them would be willing to swear that they haven't accepted any taxpayer money to push Bush administration policy?

Be it resolved...

The Democratic Party of the San Fernando Valley has passed a resolution opposing the phasing out of Social Security and pledging not to support any Democrat who helps the Republicans pass such a plan. Maybe this is an idea we should push for in our local Democratic committees (county or state level)?

Let's start a trend!

News: DP/SFV Passes Resolution to Oppose Phasing Out Social Security

WHEREAS Social Security is the most successful domestic program in American history, having provided a guaranteed retirement safety net for millions of Americans since 1935, and

WHEREAS current Congressional Budget Office projections report the trust fund will remain solvent through 2052, afterwards covering 81% of promised benefits, with no change to the program, while transition costs alone for abandoning Social Security in favor of private accounts are estimated at 2 trillion dollars, and

WHEREAS the so-called "crisis" in Social Security is a manufactured scare tactic intended to bolster President Bush's plans to replace Social Security with an unstable market-based system,

BE IT RESOLVED that the Democratic Party of the San Fernando Valley opposes any effort to phase out and/or replace Social Security, in whole or in part, in favor of a private accounts-based system, and

RESOLVED that the Democratic Party of the San Fernando Valley will not endorse or support financially any Democratic candidate who expresses support, advocates for, or votes for such a plan.

Passed 01/03/2005

(courtesy Josh Marshal)

No crosses at the inaugural

Secret Service anti-Christian?

Christian Defense Coalition to Seek Injunctive Relief if Prohibition on Public Display of Crosses at Inauguration Parade Not Lifted

1/7/2005 12:16:00 PM

---

To: National Desk

Contact: Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition, 202-547-1735 or 540-538-4741 (cell)

WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Christian Defense Coalition will go to federal court and seek injunctive relief if the Secret Service does not publicly lift the prohibition on the public display of crosses at the Presidential Inauguration Parade.

In a letter sent to the Secret Service the group states, "No justification exists for categorical exclusions of crosses from the Inaugural Parade route." And, "...immediately redraft the definition of structures to eliminate a categorical ban on crosses."

The entire letter can be seen at http://www.earnedmedia.org/resp.htp

Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition, states, "By banning the public display of crosses at the Presidential Inauguration Parade, the Secret Service has trampled the First Amendment and crushed religious freedom in the public square. They have also shown a disregard for the religious beliefs and sensibilities of millions of Americans. If the Secret Service does not publicly lift this prohibition, our letter makes it clear we are prepared to go into federal court to resolve this matter. This marks the first time a federal law enforcement agency has banned crosses from a public event and expressed the view that crosses could somehow be used as a weapon."

This fight is so winnable

Bush loses key Democratic ally in SS fight

BunBun to the rescue!

The creativity of some people is inspiration. This comes from a commenter BunBun vonWhiskers on Atrios' blog in response to the latter's post on the Social Security "Crisis".

Commercial:

Shot of a Republican
Subtitle: �1975�
R: �We hate Social Security! It�s Socialism in disguise! We need to get rid of it!�

Shot of same Republican, slightly older
Subtitle: �1985�
R: �We hate Social Security! It�ll be bankrupt in 2000! We can�t afford it! People should be made to fend for themselves!�

Shot of Republican, even older
Subtitle: �1995�
R: �We hate Social Security! Social Security is terrible compared to the stock market! Just look at some recent start ups like Enron!�

Shot of Republican, even older
Subtitle: �Present Day�
R: �We love Social Security, but Social Security is really sick, and we need to give it this special medicine to make it all better.� (Holds up bottle with skull and crossbones on the label, realizes the label is still visible and quickly covers it up with a smiley face sticker. Republican then smiles at the camera)

I don�t have a pithy saying to wrap it all up, but I like it.

Thanks Paul!

Today's NY Times has a column by Paul Krugman in which he introduces the offline world to the online term IOKIYAR (It's Okay If You're A Republican).

I'm getting a small storm of hits from Google searches on this term which lead to this posting.

Welcome everyone!

New to the blogroll

Cursor

Rockridge Forums

Pushing our frame works

At Wednesday's DFA meetup I introduced attendees to my proposed framing of the Social Security debate:

Republicans want the debate to be about how to fix Social Security.

We want the debate to be about whether it needs fixing.

At worse, Social Security has a cough, not a cancer.

You don't heal a cough with chemotherapy.

Now, this framing starts off with the point that Republicans want the crisis to be an assumption, not something they have to prove. But Atrios and AMERICAblog make the observation that the Republicans apparently weren't prepared for Democrats to argue that there isn't a crisis. This from The Boston Globe:

Like numerous Republicans, Senator John Sununu of New Hampshire said in an interview that he has been surprised by the Democratic strategy of charging that Bush is manufacturing a crisis in Social Security as a ploy to garner support for private accounts. "I didn't expect a wing of the Democratic Party to respond by saying, 'This really isn't a problem.' It is very hard to sustain that argument," Sununu said.

Sununu is trying to scare Democrats off of making this argument. He is trying to re-establish the frame that Social Security is in crisis by suggesting that arguing otherwise is just not possible. He is doing so because he realizes, in his heart, that this is a strategy that might work.

Atrios makes the additional point that Bush may have made a mistake by leading with a public pronouncement that Social Security was in crisis. This gave the Democrats the perfect opening to question that basic assumption (and they are taking advantage of that opening). Atrios suggests that Bush should have lead with "the joys of investment" and leave the crisis talk as an assumption in the dialog. Bush didn't take advantage of the frame the conservatives have been manufacturing for the last 30 years. He tried to add to it instead, and by doing so, he opened the door to questioning the frame itself.

We need to keep telling the Democrats in congress that we have their back if they choose to go forward with the "what crisis?" strategy. They will get hammered for it. They will get called "delusional", "in denial", "blind". We have to keep reminding them that the way they see it is the way that it really is and that no amount of smoke from the Republicans and the media will change that.

This battle is so winnable.

Back scratch fever

Phoenix Woman points us to this interesting editorial from the Houston Chronicle that suggests that Tom DeLay is becoming politically radioactive.

Monday's stunning reversal by U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land, and the Republicans in Congress on the so-called DeLay Rule caught all by surprise, including those of us in the midst of the effort to hold politicians accountable for these types of actions.

But it shouldn't have. There are three reasons why DeLay caved on the provision, which was enacted by the House Republican conference back in mid-November and was designed to protect him if he gets indicted for his role in the on-going investigation into corporate fund-raising in Texas politics: constituent anger; a measurable rebellion among House members that emboldened House Democrats; and the growing sense that DeLay is becoming politically radioactive.

I would disagree with one point of this assessment. The Chronicle suggests that it was the defection of some Republicans that emboldened Democrats. It is just as arguable that it was the potential for a united Democratic attack on the ethics of the House Republicans that emboldened the Republican defectors. Each side helped each other out in this fight.

Now that's bi-partisanship for you!

Hanging on the thread of a principled Republican

We should celebrate that things have gone our way in the Washington governor's race. But we shouldn't forget that one of the primary reasons it did is because Washington is home of one of those increasingly rare breeds: a principled Republican.

The party's Stalinist side has been coming out since then. Anyone who fails to toe the party line on the election outcome -- which is, that Gregoire is an "illegitimate" governor and that there exists "massive" evidence of fraud -- is nastily and vociferously attacked. This includes even Sam Reed, the Republican Secretary of State, who chose to follow his legal and constitutional duty and certify Gregoire as the governor-elect:

Now Reed believes the anger toward him is driven by a feeling he hasn't been Republican enough. For example, some think he should have backed the party's call for county auditors to reopen their tallies in hopes of getting more Rossi votes counted.

"There are people who think I should be using the position of secretary of state simply to weigh the scales on the side of my own party. I just don't accept that, and it would not be proper," he said.

"There are some people who have been dismayed that I wasn't a Katherine Harris who took the position, 'I'm a Republican, and by God that comes first.' "

We are luck to have Reed on the side of Democracy. If he had been in the Ken Blackwell/Katherine Harris strain of Republicanism this race could have very easily stayed in Rossi's column.

But we shouldn't rely on that kind of luck. We need to (1) elect Democratic Secretaries of State and (2) reform election systems so that partisan election officials cannot corrupt them.

A cough, not a cancer

Liberal Oasis has some positive reports on the Social Security front. Summary: we're winning the early battles in this war.

The biggest worry that liberals had was that accommodationist Dems would give Bush bipartisan cover and marginalize the arguments of Social Security�s defenders.

But, yesterday the LA Times reported that the two main accommodationist organizations, the familiar DLC and the upstart Third Way, both plan to oppose Bush�s proposals.

That would not be happening at this early a juncture if there wasn�t so much pressure from the liberal grassroots and the Dem leadership to hang together.

Big credit goes to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, who has been relentlessly framing the issue as �not a crisis,� and to George Lakoff, who literally schooled the Beltway Dems on how to frame.

Not to mention the pressure from Talking Points Memo's "Fainthearted Faction" posts, and Eschaton's "Social Security Wall of Shame".

I might suggest that Reid's message would be even stronger if he didn't us the "not a crisis" phrase. That's a violation of the "Don't Think of An Elephant" rule (outright denial only adds support to the opposition's contention by invoking their frame). Democrats shouldn't say "SS is not in a crisis". They should instead say "SS is healthy and successful".

Republicans want the debate to be about how to fix Social Security.

We want the debate to be about whether it needs fixing.

Even if, in the end, we have to concede to minor problems with Social Security (it has a cough, not a cancer) we will have won because no one would recommend chemotherapy for a cough!

This battle is so winnable!

Dean 'mo

Continuing on the Dean theme, MyDD has the report this morning that Rep. John Murtha, an early Democratic supporter of Bush's invasion of Iraq, has endorsed Dean!

That a liberal hawk can endorse Dean could go a long way toward burying the misapprehension that Dean is an anti-war candidate.

Howard Dean does the footwork

I have heard that Howard Dean is using the personal approach in his nominal run for the DNC chair. He is personally calling each and every member of the DNC to talk with them about where the party should go. Here's a report from one DNC member who received one of those calls (reported on Salon's Table Talk):

I had a call from Howard Dean this morning. Not too surprising since I am one of the folks who will vote for the new DNC chair this coming February. Still, I couldn't help feeling both honored and elated. Instead of the dull, helpless feeling of the long mourning that began last November 2, I felt a spark of new energy. But, hey, that's Howard. I've never known anyone better at communicating "Let's get going, there is so much to do!"

Howard jumped started the conversation by talking about how important Democrats Abroad have become and our potential for swinging elections. But he didn't stop with flattery. Almost the first thing out of his mouth was the statement that Democrats Abroad need to be treated like every other state delegation and, in particular, that we will be included in a proposal for the DNC to fund the salaries of state party executive directors. (I recalled as I heard him speak how often I had heard complaints at state chairs meetings about the DNC's ignoring the needs of all but the battleground states and noted how important this step would be, particularly for smaller Red state committees that fight their uphill battles with limited resources. It is hard to imagine a better first step toward genuine fifty-state, "We all live in purple states" politics.)

After we chatted a bit about the current state of Democrats Abroad and the challenges we face, I asked if we could talk about some broader, philosophical issues.

First, I described why I had been so enthusiastic about his campaign for President. I recalled how excited I was at the DNC meeting where I first saw him introduce himself using Paul Wellstone's memorable words, "I represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." I noted, however, that what closed the deal for me was the end of the South Carolina debate, when I first heard him say, "You have the power." I talked about how energizing it was to work for a campaign that asked for my initiative?not just "Stay on message"?and made me feel that I was truly part of something historic?real democracy. Before I had time to ask my question, "Is he still committed to these values? " Howard leaped in with, "That is exactly what I want to do with the DNC. We have to empower people."

Next, I turned the phone over to my wife and partner (former DNC member and currently Regional Vice Chair, Asia-Pacific for Democrats Abroad). Ruth talked about the need for the Democratic Party to have a coherent policy presence and suggested the formation of a Democratic "shadow cabinet" along British parliamentary lines. Howard replied that this is exactly what he has been thinking and went on to explain that by focusing on fewer issues shared by all Democrats we can simplify our message and make it more comprehensible to the voters.

Ruth then handed the phone back to me. I said that I had been thinking about bestoftheblogs' Jerry Bowles' comment that what the Dean campaign had proved was that the blogosphere?the on-line activists are still no more than 13% of the voters and asking myself how to reach other voters. It seems to me, I said, that we have to convince ordinary people of three key points.

1.Vengeance is NOT security,

2.Profit is NOT prosperity, and

3.What Thomas Jefferson called, "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind" is NOT a weakness.?It's strength.

Howard then mentioned that, should he be elected DNC chair, one of his first acts would be to hold a meeting of representatives from all fifty states to hammer out what our Democratic Party's core message should be. When he said that he hoped I'd be able to attend, I was, of course, deeply flattered.

Reflecting on this call, I see a skillful politician at work. But I also see more, a leader who is willing not only to reach out directly and solicit my vote but is also both willing and able to listen and to participate openly and frankly in a conversation with real give and take. I felt energized and empowered in a way that I haven?ft for months. This is the kind of leadership we need. Howard has my vote.

Color me impressed. If this is the kind of talk Dean is having with other DNC members than I think the position is his for the taking. I especially like his idea of the national party funding the salaries of the executive directors. It would be the clearest signal yet to non-swing state leaders that their work is valued by the national party. Money and attention are the two simplest ways to make people feel important. Dean's phone calls and his idea of a national conference would take care of the latter.

More funny

An Army of None. God what I would pay to see this acted out in real life.

(Check out Udargo.com. Great shit.)

Wise Man DeLay?

Tom DeLay truly is a vile individual.

Tragedy in Asia

FOX covers the tsunami

Blog Framing

George Lakoff's think tank, the Rockridge Institute, has a blog. They call it a forum, but it is a blog none-the-less.

You can get anything you want

Some advice to Democratic Senators.

If at least one of your colleagues decides to stand up on Jan. 6th and sign on to Rep. Conyers objection to the Ohio electors than you should demonstrate party unity by all standing with that Senator.

You know, if one Senator, just one Senator does it they may think they're really sick and they won't listen to them.

And if two Senators, two Senators do it, in harmony, they may think they're both faggots and they won't listen to either of them.

And if three Senators do it, three, can you imagine, three Senators walking in signin on to Conyer's objection. They may think it's an organization.

And can you, can you imagine forty Senators, I say forty Senators walking in an signin on to Conyer's objection. Friend's, they may think it's a movement!

(Apologies to Arlo Guthrie)

Always leave them guessing

Some good media advice from Liberal Oasis to the Senate Dems (emphasis mine):

Momentum against the Alberto Gonzales nomination for Attorney General is building.

In fact, yesterday�s AP headline was "Gonzales Torture Memo Controversy Builds".

Today, the W. Post reports on the harsh criticism Gonzales is getting from several high-ranking retired military officers.

And the Christian Science Monitor�s editorial board is calling for tough questioning of Gonzales during his confirmation hearings this week.

All that would be heartening, if Senate Dems hadn�t sucked the oxygen out of the Gonzales story back in November by essentially predicting his confirmation.

Sen. Pat Leahy told reporters that Bush �did not� select �a polarizing figure�, that Gonzales �has a far better chance of confirmation with substantial votes from both sides of the aisle than a more divisive figure would have�.

Sen. Chuck Schumer also chimed in, �There's certainly a feeling that he will be confirmed�.

By doing that, Dems have tipped their hand. The GOP and (more importantly) the media know Dems won�t go to the mat to stop Gonzales.

And if the media knows that, they have less reason to raise the profile of any skirmishes.

From the media�s perspective, it not as newsworthy if there�s no chance of the nomination being killed.

Democrats are rusty when it comes to the strategic game of politics. Part of thinking strategically includes not dismissing certain options prematurely. When asked about this back in November the Democrats should have simply said that they will be reviewing their options. If pressed simply say that it would be irresponsible to rule anything out prematurely.

We need more poker players and fewer chess players.

Practice Practice Practice

Commenter Sorwell, in response to my previous post, asks an important question:

How do you get an increasingly limp media to cover *the reasons* something happened rather than merely present what did happen as something inexplicable an untied to any reasons?

How do you get to Carnegie Hall?

The answer is to talk about it. Talk about it some more. And then talk about it even more. Talk about it every day. Bring it up over and over and over again. Hit back on every bit of false reporting. Hit back on every bit of GOP spin. Leave nothing unanswered.

It will take a lot of work and a lot of time, but you can begin to change the dialog.

Just to be clear on this, when I say "a lot of time" I mean years. Conservatives are reaping the benefit of a program they started back in the 60s! That's the kind of time scale we have to think in.

The scoop

The NY Times and the Post discuss what happened with the DeLay rule.

Love the picture with the Times story.

The Times:

Some Republicans who originally opposed the rules change enthusiastically greeted the decision not to go through with it.

"It allows the Republicans to focus on the issues, the agenda that is before us and not to have Tom DeLay be the issue," Representative Zach Wamp, Republican of Tennessee, said. "I feel like we have just taken a shower."

What a cool name!

Aides to Mr. DeLay said the Republican decision to drop the rule changes had been intended to defuse the Democratic attack.

Translation: the Democrats said jump and the Republicans jumped. Ha!

"It is never a good idea when you are involved in a road race or any other athletic contest to tie your shoelaces together," Representative J. D. Hayworth, Republican of Arizona, said.

Even the Republicans knew this was a bad idea and are pissed at DeLay for embarrassing them like this. Don't listen to all the nice-nice talk about how the Republicans "admire" DeLay for "taking a bullet for the team". That's just making lemonade-out-of-lemons talk.

The Post:

House Republican leaders last night abandoned a proposal to loosen rules governing members' ethical conduct, as they yielded to pressure from rank-and-file lawmakers concerned that the party was sending the wrong message.

This story gives more credit for the reversal to the Republican dissenters than to the Democrats. But would those dissenters have been able to dissent were it not for the Democrats making a lot of noise about it? I doubt it.

DeLay told the caucus last night that he is confident he will not face indictment, said a DeLay spokesman, Jonathan Grella. Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-Ariz.) said during a break in the meeting that the "indictment rule" was restored in part because of complaints that members had heard back home.

Fainthearted Republicans, strong Democratic opposition and complaints from constituents. Sometimes Democracy works..

Aides said DeLay made the decision quite a while ago that he would propose changing the rule on indictments back to the previous version, saying that he could see Democrats would continue using the change as a basis for personal attacks. The aides said DeLay did not want to put Republicans through it, and wanted to deny Democrats the opening.

In other words, they knew that the Democratic complaints might actually draw blood and they didn't want to "take a bullet" for DeLay.

Brendan Daly, a spokesman for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), said: "Even for Republicans, this proposed change was unconscionable. The issue simply became too hot for them to handle, so they had to drop it."

Democrats should not let Republicans get away with making it sound like they did the honorable thing. This is a good start. The Republicans were forced out on a limb of hypocrisy and the Democrats were coming at them with a big grin and a chainsaw. Fortunately for them, their constituents and some of their more thoughtful colleagues got them to come down before it was too late.

Of course, CBS now has a story that says that an indictment of DeLay is unlikely.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, appears to have dodged a bullet.

The powerful GOP chieftain is unlikely to be indicted by a state grand jury probing alleged campaign finance violations in Texas, according to an official involved in the investigation.

"No, no, I really don�t think DeLay will be indicted," the official told CBSNews.com. "And to be quite honest, [DeLay�s] lawyers know that."

It's real easy to "take a bullet for the team" when you can "dodge the bullet" at the same time. Does this mean that this was the reason the Republicans backed down? It probably contributed to DeLay backing down, but the above articles show that Republicans are giving credit to Democratic pressure.

Hooray for us!

I was reading a few of the comments to AMERICAblog's post about the GOP caving on the DeLay rule and was surprised to find at least a few people suggesting that it was a bad thing that the Democrats managed to get the Republicans to back down. Why? Because now the Democrats won't be able to pound the Republicans over the head with their ethical hypocrisy.

People, people, people. The Democrat's won on this issue. We should be crowing about this. Be happy dammit! We stared DeLay in the eye and he blinked! Who cares if there were other outcomes that might have been even more damaging to the Republicans. Democrats and blogger activists were on the side of the angels in this fight and they won! We should take this as a positive sign for the future! We can use this as an example to future quavering Dems that actually acting like an opposition party can bring about positive results!

Attack them at their strong point

Some people may be wondering why Bush has chosen Social Security to be his #1 target at the beginning of his second term.

Well, first of all, you have to understand the conservative program to undermine the entire social welfare state. It started with the deliberate bankrupting of the federal treasury. It will be completed only when the crown jewels of the social welfare state are torn down. The "we can't afford this anymore so lets stop it" phase was inevitable. The question was where to begin?

They could have gone after it piecemeal, biting off pieces at a time around the edges, like a shark circling a crowd of swimmers. But that kind of piece by piece action takes a lot of time and a lot of work. It would also be counter-productive since there would inevitably come a time when the swimmers would pool their resources to defend themselves against the shark ("Smile you son-of-a-bitch!")

The other strategy, taken from Karl Rove's playbook, is to defeat an opponent by going after their strong point first. We saw this very well during the 2004 campaign, when the Republicans brought down John Kerry by attacking his previously unimpeachable war record. It may seem like a risky strategy, but it works a lot more often than most realize. It just takes a certain ballzyness to do it (and Rove's got just the balls for the job). And when it works it can shatter the opposition into a thousand scattered pieces that can then be easily mopped up.

When it comes to the social welfare state, there is no bigger target than Social Security. If the Republicans succeed in taking it down than no element of that system will be safe. Social Security is the Superman in the Democratic Justice League. Take him down and whose going to stop the villains? Aquaman?

Stop the body counts!

Points to consider:

• In Vietnam, the defenders of that conflict fell to using the statistics on enemy dead to imply that they were making progress.
  
• In Iraq, the critics of that conflict have fallen to using the statistics on American dead to imply that we are failing.

Body counts are a losing strategy either way. Quantitative numbers, unless they are really huge (I mean Indian Ocean Tsunami huge), just do not give any sense of success or failure. They will either fall on deaf ears or simply re-enforce pre-conceived notions.

So what is the winning strategy?

I'm frankly stumped.

No endorsements (yet)

Let me be clear about this: My previous post about Simon Rosenberg was not an endorsement. My point was only to say that Rosenberg had qualities to merit his taking on that role above and beyond him being "the acceptable alternative to Howard Dean". In other words, if Dean weren't running, Rosenberg would still be a good choice for the post (certainly better than any of the non-reform alternatives).

The Common Ills, some of whose members apparently mistook my previous post for an endorsement, makes an interesting point about Rosenberg's statement: it came awfully late. If he is going to be the leader of the party he has to demonstrate an ability to respond quickly. Of course, Howard Dean has not responded to Beinart's original article at all (at least not that I am aware of). So does that indicate that Dean is even less responsive?

The Common Ills has other problems with Rosenberg which I can't respond to since I don't know him near as well as I do Dean. For instance, I've never heard before that Rosenberg supported the Iraq war. If true then I will have to factor that into my assessment of him.

To be truthful, I'm not outright endorsing anyone for the post, though I find that the prospect of a Dean chairmanship excites me the most. In that sense, he is my preferred candidate. But I find Rosenberg and Fowler to be intriguing alternatives (just not as exciting).

Evidence of Testicular Results

Tomorrow the House Republicans were prepared to pass changes that would have gutted the ethics rules that guide the House (many rules which were instituted as part of the Contract With America). Now comes word from the AP that they have suddenly back-tracked. Furthermore, they have apparently decided to do a "never-mind" on the DeLay rule (the change that was made in November that would have allowed DeLay to keep his leadership position if he were indicted).

Did the House Republicans suddenly realize that ethics mattered?

Yeah, right.

More likely they got word of the Democrats plans to put the Republicans on the hotseat by forcing a floor vote on the DeLay rule. Apparently Joe Hefley, the Republican outgoing chair of the ethics committee signed on to the plan, probably as a last "fuck you" to the leadership that removed him from his position. I bet you there were at least a few other Republicans who were also going to support the vote, enough for it to pass. If that had happened the Republican leadership would have really been embarrassed.

Who says that acting like an opposition party can't produce results?

(Josh Marshall has more)

Blogroll additions

The Al Franken Show

DemSpeak

Majority Report

My Moral Values

Progressive Vote Blog

uggabugga

World O'Crap

Fast Food Foreign Policy

I couldn't just live with Simon Rosenberg as an alternative DNC chair to Howard Dean, I think he would be worthy of that position on his own merits. Posts like the following, his response to Peter Beinart's call to purge the Democrats of the insufficiently muscular, demonstrates that Simon gets it:

As Peter Beinart wrote, 1947 was indeed a crucible for progressive politics in the United States, and Democrats would do well to recall its lessons. But it was not just anti-communism that gave mid-century liberalism its strength and enduring validity.

In 1947, George Kennan, writing under the pseudonym "X," also offered a competing vision of the proper American response to the gathering Soviet threat. Anti-communism, he said, was not sufficient. To fully meet the Soviet challenge, Kennan believed the United States had first to look inward at its own deepest values. Americans had to know not merely what we opposed, but, more importantly, what we stood for:

This is an interesting line of thought, especially considering the lesson of 2004. Much more was needed than a "we aren't Bush" message for the Democrats to win. We failed to provide.

Beinart's original article is really just another example of defining Democrats negatively. We aren't for the terrorists. We aren't for Michael Moore. We aren't for MoveOn. But, as Rosenberg points out, America in general and the Democratic party in particular would not have succeeded in the 50s and 60s if we had not offered a positive alternative to the communist program. Similarly, America in the 21st century will not succeeded against rising militant extremism if all we have to offer is a negative message (we will bomb the shit out of you if you don't listen to us).

Leading the world, as George W. Bush so eloquently put it, is hard work. But it is worthwhile work so long as we have more to offer the world than bombs. Indeed, bombs should be the least of the items on our menu. Innovation and inspiration should be our speciality. Both have been sacrificed for Bush's version of fast-food foreign policy.

It's time for America to live up to its potential as a five-star nation.

The "Yes" Option

The Moose has some useful advice to Democrats: don't be the party of "no".

Whither the Democrats? Given this challenge, the Moose has long held, that the Democrats must transform themselves into an insurgent party. That means that they cannot merely be the party of "no", but also offer an alternative vision while fervently opposing the Republicans scheme to undermine the social safety net. Yes, Democrats must unambiguously reject the Bushies' fanciful and fiscally irresponsible plan to privatize social security - no pay, no play. But the party must also convey that some type of reform is necessary to guarantee the solvency of the program and to offer younger voters an attractive savings option. Democrats must have a "yes" option. 

I agree completely. Now the issue comes down to exactly what the "yes" option will be.

I'm going to be a contrarian and say that the Democrat's problem is not a lack of ideas but rather a surplus of them. My experience over the last year or so is that there are a lot of good ideas out there about where the Democrats should go(*). The problem is that we can't settle on just one of them as our #1 issue. That will be our first task, but it won't be our only one.

For, once Democrats decide on a "yes" option, everyone must get behind it, even if it wasn't your choice.

Democrats need to bury the ghost of Will Rodgers. Rodgers has been frequently quoted as saying, "I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat." A lot of Democrats get a chuckle out of this, but it is an attitude that we need to bury if we are to succeed. Part of that success will require coming to a consensus on the "yes" option and then getting behind it 100%.

This will be hard for a lot of Democrats to do because we have grown used to the idea of pushing our own political hot points at the expense of everyone else's. Ironically, when it comes to political issues, it is the Democrats who are the party of "what's in it for me?" We must move beyond our selfish tendency to view our own particular issue as the #1 issue for everyone. We must learn to act strategically instead of tactically. This will require many of us to make the painful choice of sacrificing our #1 issue in order to advance the Democrat's #1 issue.

We will never have a viable "yes" option unless it as an option we can all say "yes" to.

 

(* What distinguishes the good ideas from the bad ones is that the bad ones tend to be reactive to Republicans while the good ones are proactive for Democrats.)

Trolling the marks

The Carpetbagger makes an overlooked point about James Dobson's threat to take out six Democratic Senators:

Let me get this straight. A right-wing evangelical leader is suggesting that he'll get other right-wing evangelicals to vote against Democratic candidates in 2006 unless they side with the Republicans? Maybe I'm confused, but aren't right-wing evangelicals going to vote against them anyway?

This sounds far more like a publicity stunt for Dobson to raise some money and less like a meaningful campaign development.

This is not to say that Dobson couldn't bring down these Senators. But the Carpetbagger is right that this kind of rhetoric from the hotheads of the religious right is as much about raising money from followers than anything else. Oregonians had a lot of experience with this from our years of dealing with Lon Mabon and the Oregon Citizens Alliance.

The thing to remember about people like Dobson is that, first and foremost, they are direct descendents of the carnival tent revivalists who made their livings off the well meaning donations off the rubes.

New additions to the blogroll

Burnt Orange Report

DogFight04

Will Pitt's FYI

Stepping back

You know, I'm as cynical as the next man about Bush's leadership capabilities. But I really think people should think twice before assuming that anything the guy does must have a negative side to it.

For instance, I think Bush has actually done a good thing by calling on his father and Clinton to work together to raise private money to help out in SE Asia.

You can always look for cynical motives in anyone's actions and no doubt Bush deserves a lot of skeptical reaction. But we shouldn't become knee-jerk in our reactions to everything he does.

That way lies the way of bitter cranks.