Confirming Alberto Gonzalez for Attorney General is racist

Alberto Gonzalez is Hispanic. Many on the right are calculating that Democrats won't oppose him because they don't want to be seen voting against the first Hispanic Attorney General. Many on the left are going along with that charade.

Here's the question: would Gonzalez be held to a higher standard for his part in the Abu Ghraib torture scandal if he were not Hispanic?

If so, than to vote to confirm him, when you think that Abu Ghraib disqualifies him, means that you are confirming him because he is Hispanic!

That is racist.

Lather, Rinse, Repeat

Jeffey Feldman, author of Frameshop, brings up an important point in the whole discussion of framing. No matter how well we come to understand the concept of framing, it won't matter if our frames don't become widely dispersed through the political ecosystem.

The conservatives have engaged in a 30+ year of covert dispersal of their frames through think tanks and right-wing media. Progressives don't have the luxury of time or the resources at hand to match that kind of effort. The conservatives outnumber us in think tanks and media outlets by a factor of ten. We must develop a different method of dispersal.

Fortunately, their is evidence that such a system is already developing. As Feldman points out, the concept of framing and the dialogs that have arisen around it have become widespread in progressive circles despite the lack of a coordinated left-wing dispersal mechanism. Lakoff's work has been promoted by such leading lights as Markos and Dean, but were it not for the personal efforts of thousands of individuals who have "got religion" on this matter, the concept of framing would have gotten no where.

The lesson in this is that progressives can develop their own frame dispersal infrastructure out of their own natural inclinations: openness, sharing, cooperation. These are the hallmarks of the renaissance we are creating. It is in contrast to the conservative model of a more top-down mechanism of development (at the think tanks) and dispersal (through right-wing radio and TV). Ours is the very definition of grassroots.

The key to all of this, in Feldman's view, is branding through repetition. This will not be easy, but it will be necessary.

[...] even as everyone embraces the principle of repetition on the level of the brand, it is often the case that Progressives resist repetition on the level of political debate. Progressives love to be original, to speak against the grain, to be independent. All great things! But framing is not about eliminating those values. Framing is about setting up a set of broad logical concepts that then give rise to a range of creative ways to evoke that frame. Setting the frame is the hard part. Once it's set, we can be very creative within it.

Branding requires us to develop the discipline to repeat our frames until they become commonplace. Once they become commonplace it will be that much easier for people to understand us when we express our points of view. We will no longer be required to go into long winded explanations of what we mean. We will no longer have to bore people with the facts. They will "get it" already.

Bush can get away with his simplistic style of politicking because a foundation for his words has already been built in the minds of the voters. This foundation was created by the right-wing think tanks and right-wing media. Our foundation must be built through the widest possible dispersal of ideas, repeated almost to the point of absurdity.

Only then can the field of political play be leveled.

Imagine

Imagine if the Clinton administration, at the beginning of the fight for the Clinton health plan, had directed the Health and Human Services department to start publishing material on how poor medical conditions were for the millions of uninsured Americans.

Imagine the uproar that would follow from the Republicans.

Imagine the uproar in the establishment press.

Then read this:

Over the objections of many of its own employees, the Social Security Administration is gearing up for a major effort to publicize the financial problems of Social Security and to convince the public that private accounts are needed as part of any solution.

The agency's plans are set forth in internal documents, including a "tactical plan" for communications and marketing of the idea that Social Security faces dire financial problems requiring immediate action.

Social Security officials say the agency is carrying out its mission to educate the public, including more than 47 million beneficiaries, and to support President Bush's agenda [...]

But agency employees have complained to Social Security officials that they are being conscripted into a political battle over the future of the program. They question the accuracy of recent statements by the agency, and they say that money from the Social Security trust fund should not be used for such advocacy.

"Trust fund dollars should not be used to promote a political agenda," said Dana C. Duggins, a vice president of the Social Security Council of the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents more than 50,000 of the agency's 64,000 workers and has opposed private accounts.

(Courtesy Kos)

Conceptions of Government

Jimmy is a frequent commenter on this blog and I have had several valuable conversations with him. He is a principled conservative who argues his points rationally without invective. I don't always agree with him, but I respect him.

In the comments to this post, Jimmy made some interesting comments that I think get to the heart of the difference between conservative and liberal conceptions of government. I'd like to reproduce this conversation here and comment on it further.

Jimmy:

When the government runs out of money, who will uphold that guarantee? The answer is all of us. So the current scheme guarantees that we will have to make up the shortfall with additional taxes. Guaranteed.

Me:

Jimmy, you seem to come from the perspective that all taxes are inherently bad. I see taxes as a necessary component of good citizenship. I don't see them as the government stealing money from me. Hell, I don't really consider my tax money to have ever really been mine in the first place.

Paying taxes is patriotic. Once you accept that notion than the idea that we might have to pay some additional taxes to meet the obligations of Social Security just doesn't seem like that big a deal to me. We pay taxes for many other things the government does that people never question (military, cops, firefighters, etc.) I see Social Security as just another element of the social safety net that government provides so I don't object to paying taxes for it.

Jimmy:

While I won't go so far as to say that paying taxes is patriotic, I will allow that it is at least a measure of good citizenship to do so. Taxes are not inherently bad. But, it is also a measure of good citizenship to question how that tax money is spent. It is irresponsible for us to sweep this problem under the rug for others to deal with when the problem truly becomes large instead of the smaller problem we face if we start paying/cutting/whatever incrementally now.

To clarify one further point, what I meant by "when the government runs out of money" was when the social security "trust fund" isn't enough to cover what's being paid out to retirees. So the government isn't broke it's just got to come up with money to pay those benefits. We can wait until then and have our taxes jacked all at once or we can do something about it now.

In closing, the tax money I fork over is most definitely mine. I pay the goverment to do stuff for me and my fellow citizens. For the most part, I'm OK with it (forget the coercion part for now, I'll leave that little libertarian streak in me lie). But it's definitely my money.

Me:

I don't pay tax money in order for the government to do stuff for me. I'm not buying a service from the government. The government is not a business with a product that I, as a consumer, am buying.

The government is me. The government is you. The government is all of us.

I work a certain percentage of my time in order to earn the money necessary to maintain the level of government services I believe to be necessary to "form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty." I am doing my part by my labor to defend those principles.

This is where I suspect the heart of the difference lies.

Jimmy seems to see government as just another provider of services and products in a market based economy. I see the government as the manifestation of the will of the people to do all those things that the founders envisioned in the preamble to the Constitution.

Jimmy seems to see the government as a business that he is forced to do business with by paying taxes for certain services that he doesn't want. I see the government as a community concern to which I contribute a measure of my blood, sweat and tears.

Jimmy seems to resent it when he has to buy something he doesn't like from the government. I consider it part of the shared burden of having to live together in a confined space with limited resources where I will not always get my way but, hopefully, through my efforts, I can better the lives of myself and my loved ones.

If your conception is "Government as Business" then it would be perfectly logical to come to the conclusion that government is coercive. If your conception is "Government as The People" then it would be perfectly logical to the conclusion that government is beneficial.

This is the divide between conservatives and liberals.

Neither conception is inherently right or wrong. Both conceptions have their merits. Both can lead to pathological extremes ("Government as Business" => Fascism. "Government as The People" => Communism). I am convinced that it is when these conceptions "check and balance" each other that our society functions the best for all involved. It is when one conception comes to dominate the political operation of the country that things begin to fall apart.

As I said, Jimmy really does help me think about these things.

Thanks.

Bring me the head of Paul Begala!

Is it to much to ask the pundits who are supposed to represent the progressive/liberal perspective to actually be prepared to deal with situations like this (courtesy Atrios):

NOVAK: Howard Dean is running for Democratic National Chairman the same way he ran for President-- as the squeaky clean candidate. Well, he may have been squeaky, but he wasn�t so clean. Zephyr Teachout who was head of internet outreach for the Dean campaign has revealed the campaign hired two political bloggers to say positive things about Dr. Dean at the price of $3,000 a month-- that�s play for pay. Meanwhile, one of the great former DNC chairmen, Bob Strauss, has endorsed one of the candidates, and it is indeed former Congressman Martin Frost, who, like Strauss, is a moderate and a Texan. Will the DNC members be that smart?

BEGALA: I don�t know. First, if in fact people were paid to flak Howard Dean and didn�t disclose it, that�s reprehensible. We talked about that earlier with Armstrong Williams, and the same standard should apply to liberals.

Apart from this being yet another example of how Paul Begala blows as a left-wing pundit, this is also a demonstration of one of the fundamental flaws of TV punditry: the format demands that its participants express an opinion on everything even if they don't have the necessary information to express an informed opinion.

I am reminded of the story of a guy who was invited on a FOX show to discuss some issue that he was an expert on. However, just before he went on the air, some breaking news story happened. The FOX show didn't have any available experts on that topic so the host of the show (I think it was O'Reilly) simply asked this previously booked guest to express their opinion. Obviously, the guest didn't know one thing about the particular topic and, being honest, said as much.

He was never invited back.

"I don't know" is simply not an acceptable answer in the modern establishment media.

Of course, Paul Begala is supposed to be an expert on things like this, so the fact that he got the facts so horribly wrong just demonstrates that he is long past his prime and should be fired.

Oh wait, he already has been.

Chomp!

President emasculated by carnivorous tribble. Secret Service reports it managed to sneak into press conference using forged press pass.

(courtesy Wonkette)

Good polling on Social Security

What I find most interesting about this table (posted over on Crooks and Liars and based on a new Pew Research poll) are the 18-29 numbers. The lowest voter bracket actually has greater confidence in Social Security than does my own (30-49)! That means the 30 year propaganda campaign to convince everyone that Social Security is failing has been losing ground in the last decade or so. I know that, before I educated myself, I never really questioned the suggestion that Social Security wouldn't be there when I retired. It was just one of those things that everyone knew to be true when I was in that 18-29 bracket. Now it appears that the next generation is not as gullible as we were.

Time is on our side.

It's also interesting that Republicans and Democrats are statistically tied in their assessment of the program's health. That's not what you would expect considering years of Republican efforts to paint the program as a ticking time bomb. And not the kind of thing Republican representatives want to see if they are to sign on to Bush's plan.

However, this table gives a slightly different picture.

 

Here the divisions are much more partisan, demonstrating that Republicans preference for private accounts is not based on any great fear that Social Security is failing. It's probably more a philosophical issue. But philosophical issues don't sell as well at the ballot box.

The 65-29 polling in favor of guaranteed benefits vs. the 54-30 polling in favor of private accounts is a good sign for opponents of Bush's "reform". It means that the advocates of private accounts have a much tougher fight than those who can legitimately argue that Bush's plan does not guarantee benefits. Guaranteed retirement benefits should be a cornerstone of our campaign. Even a number of those who favor private accounts would appear to back off if that meant losing their guaranteed benefits.

Cartoonists are the best framers

(David Horsey)

Suggestions for winning the Social Security battle

I highly recommend this TNR piece by Ryan Lizza that shows what the Democrats could learn from the Republican's successful derailing of Clinton's Health Care Plan in the upcoming battle over Bush's Social Security "Reform". Here are the main points (read the article, please):

1. Become masters of parliamentary procedure. Don't let the Republicans slip "reform" through in a reconciliation bill. Conversely, learn how to use parliamentary procedures to tie up the "reform" bill as long as possible. Which leads to...

2. Delay, delay, delay. The longer it takes Bush to get this through congress the harder it will be to get it passed. Like pushing a rock through mud, the rock will get heavier as it picks up more and more dirt. And the closer the 2006 elections come the more Republicans will balk at the idea of taking on this big a task right before they go home and ask the voters to send them back to Washington.

3. Beat Bush on other matters and beating him on this will be even easier. There is an argument among Democrats now about whether they should "keep their powder dry". The theory behind this argument is that the Democrats have limited ability to defeat Bush's initiatives, so they should only fight hard on the most important of issues (such as Supreme Court nominees). Lizza points out that the Republicans understood that "defeat breeds defeat":

Many Democrats today argue that their route back to power depends on transforming themselves into a party of reform. Some of these Democrats are scared that mere opposition--and denying Bush's claim that Social Security faces a "crisis"--hampers their efforts. But Republicans faced the same challenge in the early '90s and found that the two goals were not mutually exclusive. They didn't just kill health care reform, they used its corpse as a platform to redefine themselves as a reform movement that swept away the Democratic majority.

4. The fight over Social Security is part of a broader fight over control of the country's destiny. Whoever wins this fight could define the political direction of this country for the next decade, at least. The Republicans understand this already, witness the comment in the leaked Social Security planning memo where it talked about this fight being the best opportunity for Republicans to supplant FDR's place in the political heavens. Democrats have to understand that this battle is bigger than just Social Security.

Politicians like to talk about how they want to do something significant, be there for the really important battles.

Well, here it is folks. Times' a-waisting!

Cool

I just stole a neat bit of code from Matthew Yglesias that turns the sidebar menus into dropdowns. Just click on them to see what I mean.

Go to his page to get the details.

(I've also turned off the blogger comments since no one was using them anyway)

Blogroll Update

Several new additions today:

ballotpaper log
David Corn
DC's Inside Scoop
The Editors' Blog
First Draft
Frameshop
Majikthise
New Frames
The Poor Man
Whiskey Bar

Religious Illiteracy

After reading this commentary in the LA Times about the monumental religious illiteracy of Americans, you have to wonder if maybe the complete exclusion of any mention of religion from the schools has gone to far (more below):

How did this happen? How did one of the most religious countries in the world become a nation of religious illiterates? Religious congregations are surely at fault. Churches and synagogues that once inculcated the "fourth R" are now telling the faithful stories "ripped from the headlines" rather than teaching them the Ten Commandments or parsing the Sermon on the Mount (which was delivered, as only one in three Americans can tell you, by Jesus). But most of the fault lies in our elementary and secondary schools.

In a majority opinion in a 1963 church-state case (Abington vs. Schempp), Supreme Court Justice Tom Clark wrote, "It might well be said that one's education is not complete without a study of comparative religion � and its relationship to the advance of civilization." If so, the education of nearly every public school student in the nation is woefully inadequate.

Because of misunderstandings about the 1st Amendment, religious studies are seldom taught in public schools. When they are, instruction typically begins only in high school and with teachers not trained in the subtle distinction between teaching religion (unconstitutional) and teaching about religion (essential).

Though state educational standards no longer ignore religion as they did a decade or so ago, coverage of religion in history and social science textbooks is spotty at best. According to Charles Haynes, senior scholar at the First Amendment Center in Arlington, Va., "It is as if we got freedom of religion in 1791 and then we were free from religion after that."

Mr. Stephen Prothero, the author of this piece, makes clear that it is important to distinguish between teaching religion and teaching about religion. There is nothing in court decisions on this matter that restricts the teaching of comparative religion, but the issue is such a controversial one that many schools simply don't bother at all. If they were to teach it, they might upset the extremists on the left who don't want any mention of religion at all in school. But they might also upset the extremists on the right who don't want their kids being taught anything about those heathen Muslims/Hindus/Buddhists. Easier to just take the path of least resistance and ban any discussion of religion outright (of course, even that creates problems).

The result is a populace so monumentally ignorant of basic facts about religion that they can be easily hoodwinked into buying certain religious idiocy. And by that I don't mean religion itself but simple things like the fact that Allah is the Arabic name for God and is the same God spoken of in the Hebrew and Christian bibles. Lord knows (hah!) that I only know this because I learned it on my own. If my religious education were entirely dependent on just the schools and church I would probably be in a sorrowful state.

The solution to this problem will not be an easy one. But a first step would be an acknowledgement by those who fight against any mention of religion in school that such a course might be self-defeating. Religion is a fundamental aspect of human history and human nature. To deny its existence is a recipe for disaster.

Stealng from Table Talk

This bit of brilliance comes from poster Susie Dow:

From Krugman: "Advocates of privatization almost always pretend that all we have to do is borrow a bit of money up front, and then the system will become self-sustaining."

---

"Iraq has the capacity to pay for itself."--Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas

"The reconstruction of Iraq will largely pay for itself."--Deputy Secretary of Defence Paul Wolfowitz

"The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid." --Mitchell Daniels Jr.

"Any military presence, should it be necessary, will be temporary and intended to promote security and elimination of weapons of mass destruction; the delivery of humanitarian aid; and the conditions for the reconstruction of Iraq."--GW Bush

It made me laugh

"The Democrats' mistake was in thinking that a disastrous war and national bankruptcy would be of concern to the electorate.

The Republicans correctly saw that the chief concern of the electorate was to keep gay couples from having an abortion."

(from TableTalk)

Good Framing Alert: Retirement Tax

This comes via Josh Marshall:

Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota: "The scheme adjusts benefit levels based on consumer price indexing rather than wage indexing. This would leave beneficiaries with a smaller annual cost of living adjustment, or COLA, at a time when Medicare premiums are skyrocketing at nearly 17 percent per year. These changes and the resulting benefit cuts would apply to everyone, even people who chose not to set up a private account. Such a plan essentially results in a steep 'retirement tax' on all seniors. Such a plan is not 'reform' and it will not 'strengthen' Social Security."

"Retirement Tax"

Learn it.

Repeat it.

Use it.

The backbone cabinet

I've talked before about the idea of a shadow cabinet. A shadow cabinet would be a group of individuals selected to be the shadows of their respective cabinet members in the Bush administration. These individuals would be selected to follow their cabinet member closely and be the "go to" person in the media and other functions. They would also, of course, be leading candidates for actually filling that cabinet position if and when a Democratic administration comes to power.

The Backbone Campaign has put up a Backbone Cabinet page where people can vote on who they think should fill the various shadow cabinet positions. Check it out.

Quick Thought

Could Joe Trippi be Simon Rosenberg's Al Gore?

Many people believe Gore's endorsement of Howard Dean was the beginning of the end of the Dean campaign. Not so much because his endorsement was the kiss of death but more because it (1) forced the Anybody-But-Dean forces to close ranks behind John Kerry and (2) the ham-handed way the endorsement was handled irked a lot of people unnecessarily.

Similarly, Trippi's endorsement of Rosenberg could sour a lot of reform Democrats on Rosenberg's candidacy precisely at the moment he most needed to be rising up. Why? Because the endorsement was similarly ham-handed (bad timing, implicit dissing of Dean by Trippi's silence about his former boss, etc.)

Just a quick thought.

Cracks in the foundation

Bush(Rove) is starting off his 2nd term by repeating a pattern I noticed in his first: flooding the field with a slew of policy proposals. First he talked about Social Security "Reform". Then he talked about Tort "Reform". Now he is talking about Immigration "Reform". I think this is a deliberate strategy on Bush(Rove)'s part. The idea is to put out so many radical proposals that the opposition can't focus on any one proposal for defeat. They instead divide their firepower and pretty much everything Bush wants gets through the gate.

Of course, this time he may find that he won't get as much support from his supposed allies. There is already a lot of talk about Republicans balking at Bush(Rove)'s SS package. Add to that the following rant from Kim du Toit:

Note to GWB: I think, Mr. President, you're going to find that people, and their elected representatives, consider tax relief for citizens to be a totally different proposition from giving amnesty to Mexican illegal aliens (who, it should be noted, don't generally pay taxes).

And if you think that I'm exaggerating, just wait until your much-vaunted "political capital" evaporates faster than a raindrop on a hot sidewalk, on this issue. French-kissing Sarah Brady at the U.N. would be an equivalent activity, in the "political stupidity" spectrum.

We need to end illegal immigration, not encourage it.

We shouldn't rely, of course, on Bush(Rove)'s backers falling apart. They have a habit of rallying around the man when push comes to shove. If it looks for a minute like Bush(Rove) might actually fail, I fully expect the naysayers to strangle their qualms and support him. Bush(Rove) has come to expect this as well because it has happened so many times in the past.

Times change

Howard Dean has picked up the support of both Kevin Drum and Ezra Klein, two bloggers who were not sold at all on Dean during the primaries.

At the same time, Joe Trippi, Dean's erstwhile Campaign Manager has endorsed Simon Rosenberg.

Kevin and Ezra both seem to support Dean for the same reason I do: he has the best chance of really shaking up the party and lord knows the party needs shaking up.

Trippi, on the other hand, is a more interesting case. Here's his statement endorsing Rosenberg:

If our party is to win in the 21st century, we have to have a strategist who knows how to practice 21st century politics. That means expanding participation, embracing technology, and building an apparatus that can counter the Republican machine. Simon Rosenberg was among the first in politics to acknowledge the power of the movement we built with Dean for America and he wasn�t afraid to speak up about how we were fundamentally changing politics. He knows that in the age of the Internet, our politics must be interactive and participatory to engage citizens. He knows the Internet is not just an ATM for candidates and parties, but a tool for bringing in millions of Americans who want to be a part of the political process. For Simon, building a new progressive politics for our time is not just lip service, it is a passion backed up by his record. I�m backing Simon for chair because I know I can work with him to help build a modern, winning Democratic party.

I have a few thoughts on this. First, Joe is entitled to his own opinion. His past association with Dean does not require him to support him from now until one or the other dies. I would hope that Joe's position does not lead to bitter feelings at the precise moment when Democrats need to unite. Just remember that unity does not require unanimity.

On the other hand, I think Joe owes more of an explanation for his not endorsing Dean. His statement doesn't even mention his former boss. Saying nothing isn't smart, especially when everyone is going to ask about this. Silence will lead to a lot of unnecessary speculation and bad feelings. For example, a lot of people could think that Joe is simply suffering a case of sour grapes since Howard fired him. I don't think that is the reason, but by not saying anything about it, Joe leaves himself open to that accusation.

Now, as to why Joe has endorsed Rosenberg, his statement suggests that Joe and Simon are kindred spirits when it comes to new technology. Rosenberg "gets" the internet better than any other candidate for the DNC chair (even Dean, who rarely uses the internet himself). Rosenberg has been making a strong push for online support in the last few weeks. He's even come out with a proposal to strongly integrate blogs into the organizational apparatus of the party. All this is good, but it strikes me as borderline pandering for online support.

I am all in favor of greater use of the internet by the Democrats. But it is not a panacea. It will take a lot of work on several different levels to bring about a Democratic renaissance. My gut feeling is that Dean understands that better than Rosenberg. Dean has suffered the painful experience of losing a national campaign and so he has a better idea of what is insufficient to win.

The next DNC chair has to "get" the internet. But he also has to "get" the grassroots. He has to "get" the labor unions. He has to "get" the Democratic party leadership. He has to "get" the establishment media. He has to "get" framing. He has to get "get" a whole host of other issues.

And, finally, I think he needs to be something of a superstar. He needs to immediately get the media's attention when the party wants to push something. Dean has the visibility right now. In fact I would say he is probably the most  recognizable Dem after Clinton, Clinton and Kerry (and Kerry's star is fading fast). He will certainly get more attention than either Reid or Pelosi. Do any of the other candidates have that kind of immediate draw?

Howard Dean is a renaissance man for a renaissance party. That's why I'm supporting him.

Dean for DNC

Howard Dean has made it official, so I guess it is time for me to make it official.

I endorse Howard Dean for Chairman of the Democratic Party.

When this topic first came up in the days after the November election I expressed some skepticism about it. Not because I was against the Doctor being the Chair. I was skeptical because I had my suspicions that some members of the party might be dangling the chairmanship in front of Dean's eyes in order to take him out of the running for 2008. My fear was that Dean would be given the chair and then isolated, in effect promoted into obscurity.

What began to turn my thinking around was that Dean himself expressed some of these same concerns. In the times I have heard him talk about he has repeatedly brought up the point that he didn't want the job unless he had a real chance of winning it and he had a real chance of making a difference if he did win it.

My support turned even more when I heard how Dean was going about the job of "campaigning" for the job. He first asked his supporters if they thought it was a good idea. This demonstrated that he still cared about what we felt. He then started wooing party leaders to make sure they understood that the real person was not as scary as the media image. This demonstrated his desire to work with the existing party leadership as well as shake it up. Then he started making one-on-one calls to ALL of the DNC members to hear them out and see if he could work with them. That demonstrated that he is a hard worker.

One concern I have had was Dean's organizational skills. His campaign for president made several crucial mistakes. But many of those mistakes could be blamed on a combination of neophyte bumbling and a simple inability to keep control of a runaway horse. His past organizational efforts had always been highly praised and his subsequent work with Democracy for America has already produced significant results. So, while Simon Rosenberg may have greater organizational credentials within the party, Dean is no slacker when it comes to getting things done.

Finally, there is the simple fact that none of the other candidates bring anywhere near the level of excitement to the candidacy as does Howard Dean. The simple truth is that the Democratic party will be electrified by Dean's leadership (whether it wants it or not) and that alone is almost argument enough to elect the guy. The party needs a shock to the system and the Doctor is just the one to apply it.

I would be seriously upset with a Roehmer. I could live with a Fowler or a Rosenberg.

But Dean IS the man.

A cough, not a cancer, redux

In response to this post over on MyDD I want to repeat some points from previous posts. These points bear repeating because they must be buried into our hearts repeated with conviction.

When you get a cough does that mean you are dying?

When you get a flat does that mean your car is totaled?

Social Security's problems are more akin to a cough or a flat tire than they are to cancer or a cracked manifold.

If you went to a doctor with a cough and he recommended chemotherapy, you'd consider him a quack.

If you went to an auto dealer with a flat and they recommended replacing the engine, you'd consider them to be crooks.

Social Security is the most successful government program ever instituted and is as healthy today as it has ever been. Those who say differently are quacks and crooks.

Live! Nude! Justices!

Political Wire:

"Library officials in two southern Mississippi counties have banned Jon Stewart's best-selling America (The Book)," the AP reports. The officials objected to a spread that featured the "faces of the nine Supreme Court justices superimposed over naked bodies."

Believe me, having been a pubescent boy and having seen the nude Supreme Court Justices spread in Jon Stewart's book, I can say without equivocation that that page could only turn kids off from sex. They would never seek it out. But, now that these librarians are banning it, you can be sure they will at least want to find out what the fuss is about.

I'm sure Jon Stewart would appreciate more such bannings.

(To tell you the truth, I'm kind of surprised it took this long for this to become a controversy.)

Are you now or have you ever...

Oliver Willis has taken up a challenge I posted on his blog that he try and track down and get unequivocal responses from various right-wing pundits that they are NOT on the Bush administration's payroll.

Of course, they will try to weasel out of a direct answer to the question (e.g., as one commenter suggests, they can say that they weren't paid by Bush if the administration paid them THROUGH a PR firm). But if we catch them being weasely that just means we can focus even greater heat on them.

Time to 'fess up guys and gals!