Laugh!

Good advice

Blowback for supporting Dean?

This report on the heat that one Dean endorser is receiving should be taken as a warning:

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) -- Some Democrats aren't happy with the state party chairman's endorsement of a presidential candidate to lead the Democratic National Committee.

State chairman Jay Parmley yesterday said he supported former Vermont Governor Howard Dean for the post over six other candidates.

Parmley is joined by party chairs from Mississippi, Florida and three other states in supporting Dean's bid to replace Terry McAuliffe.

Durant state Senator Jay Paul Gumm says the endorsement doesn't represent the majority view of Democrats in his legislative district.

Parmley is voting in place of Oklahoma City state Senator Debbe Leftwich, a member of the Democratic National Committee.

Leftwich says she's disappointed in Parmley's choice and doesn't believe Dean is the right person to lead the party at this time.

Parmley said Dean would provide party leadership that would help all 50 states, not just states that traditionally support Democratic candidates.

As I said in my previous post on this topic, Dean has the largest core following in the party today, but that core is simply not large enough to put him over the top. He will need a lot of the fence-sitters to ultimately win. The last thing we need to do right now is give those fence-sitters a reason to join the Anybody-But-Dean forces.

In that sense, I would probably have preferred that Parmley and others not have endorsed Dean this early. It may make for good headline copy, but it can also be an encouragement to others to redouble their efforts to find an alternative to Dean. This is what happened with the Gore endorsement. We don't want a repeat of that.

So, while I still stand by my warning to the ABD people, I would also warn the Dean supporters to stay cool in their efforts to win this race. Don't let your enthusiasm be your weakness.

Democratic opinion on Dean

The following report from Political Wire on a WSJ poll on Howard Dean brings to mind something I've talked about before:

A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll finds Howard Dean is fighting "a tarnished image in bid for Democratic chairmanship. Just 27% of party backers view the Vermont ex-governor positively, down from 48% a year ago. But he's less of a lightning rod for Republicans than during his presidential bid; 37% view him negatively, down from 58% in January 2004."

After the "Dean Scream" moment in Iowa, a lot of Democrats who were considering supporting Dean ran for the hills. Yet I have met more than a few Independents and Republicans since that time who have told me that it was that moment that first turned them on to Dean. The irony here is that many Dems ran from Dean on the assumption that The Scream would make him political dynamite. They never understood that Dean's passionate nature is just what makes him such a compelling figure for those outside the Democratic establishment.

The moral: often the people least capable of seeing the solution to a problem are the people who are closest to the problem.

Fair Warning

I was reading this AP update on the DNC race and Dean's early head start in same when I was struck by a thought.

Dean's six opponents for DNC chair, capable party activists with many friends inside the party, don't have Dean's high profile and the organizational track record that revolutionized party politics in the presidential campaign.

They'll be competing to see which one can be the anti-Dean.

Many party veterans are nervous that the outspoken Dean will lead the party too far to the left and are eager to rally around an alternative candidate.

"The question about Dean is: While he will have a third of the vote easily, can he get to 50 percent?" said Donnie Fowler, one of Dean's opponents. Then Fowler referred to Dean's presidential campaign.

"Dean had the oranges," Fowler said, "but he couldn't make orange juice."

Fowler is right that Dean's core is not enough to get him over the hill by itself. But a 30% core is not something to be taken lightly by the party insiders. I don't have the numbers to back this, but I don't think even Clinton had that level of devotion within the party even as he was starting to lock up the party nomination in 1992. Nor, I suspect, did George W. Bush.

The point I think these insiders need to understand is that a repeat of the Anybody-But-Dean effort of the 2004 primary race could be the worst possible course of action for those insiders. Why? Because a core group that large and that dedicated will not take kindly any effort to sabotage Dean's campaign. If the process is played out fairly and Dean loses then he loses. But if his loss is seen to be the result of yet another gang-bang on Howard then the party can pretty much kiss off much of the energy and money of those Dean inspired activists.

Let me be clear on this. This is not a threat to take our ball and go home. This is not a threat to break with the party and form a third party around Howard Dean and DFA (the Democratic party hasn't fallen so far that that is a practical alternative). It is simply a warning to those insiders who think they can undermine the Dean movement once again that doing so will likely extract a severe price.

The simple fact is that the party needs Dean and his people much more than Dean or his people need the party. If Dean is shut out again that will not stop him or us any more than the 2004 primary losses stopped him or us. We will still work just as hard to take this country back. We will still use Democratic candidates to affect change. We just won't do it with the resources of the party itself.

If Dean and the people he represents are unfairly shut out, then, by 2008, DFA could hold more political power in this country than the DNC. If that happens, and the Democratic party still hasn't learned its lesson, then what happens next may be inevitable.

Bring me the head ... er ... whatever ... of Spongebob Squarepants!

I think we should follow the example of James Wolcott and Mel Brooks. Sometimes the best way to confront evil is with derision.

Blood on our hands

Newsday has a report from the journalist who took the photos of those kids whose parents were killed last night.

Last night I was hesitant to post this picture online. Today I say screw it. This is the face of war folks and I don't feel like protecting anyone from it.

I couldn't help thinking about what must have been going through the minds of the soldiers as they watched this girl scream. They will be scarred by this incident for the rest of their lives. Every time they hear a kid cry they will have flashbacks to this night. 40 years from now they will wake up screaming in the night with images of their own grandkids covered in blood.

This is the American legacy.

The horror of war

(Warning: disturbing pictures)

The horror of war affects young and old.

The horror of war kills parents.

The horror of war leaves orphans screaming in the night, covered in their mother's blood.

The horror of war leaves scars on soldiers who have to kill innocents because to do otherwise might open themselves up to the risk of death.

That is the horror of war.

Takes one to know one

Bill O'Reilly calls Howard Dean an S.O.B. (courtesy News Hounds)

O�REILLY: �Again, I think you guys are missin� the big picture here. Let me put it another way, Mary Anne. Howard Dean has alienated many people.� O�Reilly gestures towards himself and after a pause, continues: �Me, alright! Because he�s an obnoxious SOB. With all due respect, he is. He�s obnoxious. Now if he gets the DNC Chair, Dean doesn�t like me. Now, I�m willin� to listen to him. He�s welcome on the program but I don�t like him. Alright! And I�m skeptical of him and that�s not good, Mary Anne, because I�m a guy with an open mind. I�m not anti-Democrat, as you know, but, if he gets it, I guuuh - ya� know - Howard Dean! That can�t help! There�s a lot - there�s not a lot of guys like me. But there are enough, there are enough people, who are not gonna like this, that think a new, more neutral guy would help the party.�

Later he said: �One thing I like about Dean is that he is crusty and he is straightforward. What I don�t like about him is he is narrow-minded and vindictive.�

Sounds like an endorsement to me!

There is no crisis

The fight for Social Security now has a central location.

Respect

The Rude Pundit, in his typically rough style, lays it out for the Democrats who continue to provide cover for the Bushies (in this case, on the Rice confirmation):

Of course, since every Democrat on the committee opened his or her remarks with some variation on "Of course, you're going to be confirmed," much like in the Alberto Gonzales "hearing," the uselessness of the questioning was just this side of pathetic. With confirmation-denial off the table, why in the world would Rice bother fully answering a question? It's like a cop telling a dope dealer, "You're gonna walk out of here today, but tell us who your supplier is."

Democrats will never get respect until they earn respect. Boxer and Kerry earned it by voting no. The rest are still this administration's bitches.

You know things are bad...

...when the criminal underworld gives up on the dollar. (courtesy Mecury Rising)

Freedom

Freedom is not a child that needs protecting by big daddy Bush against the evils of the world.

Freedom is not weak as conceived by Bush.

Freedom is strong as conceived by us.

Freedom is the force that will lead us out of the dark valley of fear into the light of hope.

Freedom doesn't need us to protect it. We need Freedom to protect us.

(Inspired by this post over at Frameshop)

Losing to soon?

Mark Schmitt (The Decembrist) has some interesting thoughts on what's really going on with the Social Security fight.

With the report this morning that House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Thomas has declared Bush's plan a "dead horse" and increasing evidence of Democratic unity in opposition of Bush, the question has to be asked: has Bush(Rove) made a colossal political blunder by engaging in this fight? Or, is it possible that there was some other ulterior motive? Is it possible that they never intended to win this particular fight but were, instead, trying to engage a broader political debate?

What Thomas was saying is exactly the point I've been trying to make: that the Bush/DeLay goal is not primarily to privatize Social Security, although they would be happy to do that if they can. Rather, the goal is to create a political dynamic over the next one to two years in which the Republicans appear the party of opportunity, ownership, dynamism, and forward thinking, while the Democrats appear to be the defenders of old, boring, inadequate safety net programs. As Gingrich said, going for the biggest privatization of Social Security has the biggest political payoff, but only if it doesn't actually become law. (If it were to become law, the global financial markets would write off our debt and we would go begging to the IMF, not an event that is likely to redound to the benefit of the party in power.)

I'm unconvinced. While I give a great deal of credence to the nefariousness of the typical Bush(Rove) scheme. Even this kind of maneuvering seems to clever for this crew. After all, if they expected to lose the Social Security fight, that meant they were exposing themselves to a tremendous political embarrassment. But Mark makes an additional point that mitigates my doubts:

The problem for the White House is not that they will lose the legislation. They were prepared for that. The problem is that they can't even get to the starting point of credibility on their legislation, even befor they offer it. If they can't get to the debate they want, they will lose control of the agenda, and it will disintegrate into a bunch of nutty and hugely embarassing ideas like Thomas's plan to "gender-adjust" Social Security to reduce benefits for women because they live longer. (Putting all this together, Social Security is, according to Republicans, unfair to African-Americans because they die young and too generous to widows because they live too long.) If you can remember not to panic about any of this actually becoming law, it will be highly entertaining.

This sorry game is over. The challenge for Democrats is now to drag it out, to inflict maximum pain, to drag this out at least as long as the Clinton health care debacle was drawn out.

It may be that, while Bush(Rove) never expected to win the privatization fight, they never expected the opposition to their efforts to coalesce this quickly. They may have expected the battle to drag out indeterminately over the next 6-9 months, resulting in a compromise proposal which would be what they really wanted in the first place and which would allow them to brag about "Saving Social Security" in the 2006 campaign. What they didn't expect is that their own side would abandon the fight before it was even joined.

Mark is right that the advantage is to the Democrats right now, if they have the political acumen to play it right (a big IF of course).

Don't cheer yet

I would caution against reading to much into the following:

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas (R-Calif.) predicted yesterday that partisan warfare over Social Security will quickly render President Bush's plan "a dead horse" and called on Congress to undertake a broader review of the problems of an aging nation.

Thomas, one of Capitol Hill's most powerful figures on tax policy, is the highest-ranking House Republican official to cast doubt on the president's plan for creating individual investment accounts. He said that as an alternative, he will consider changes such as replacing the payroll tax as Social Security's financing mechanism and adding a savings plan for long-term or chronic care as "an augmentation to Social Security payments."

"What I'm trying to get people to do is get out of the narrow moving around of the pieces inside the Social Security box," Thomas said at a forum on Bush's second term sponsored by the National Journal. "If we miss this opportunity . . . I think we will have missed an opportunity that may not present itself for another 20 years."

The good news is that Thomas has provided us with the perfect sound bite. But if you read deeper into Thomas' comment it appears that he is gunning for an even more fundamental restructuring of government financing than even Bush is proposing.

The push back on Social Security has to come as a real surprise to Bush(Rove). But we shouldn't get cocky. Bush(Rove) is an expert at shifting gears radically and then claiming credit for the final results. Think Homeland Security Department. Think 9/11 commission. Think Intelligence Reform. All of these efforts were initially opposed by Bush(Rove). But when it became apparent that they would pass regardless of his opposition, he did a complete about face, became their biggest cheerleaders, and then boasted of his own initiative in bringing them about.

Similarly, whatever form of Social Security "reform" that passes, you can bet that Bush(Rove) will claim that it is exactly what he wanted all along.

Bob Kerrey says no to stopping Dean

I think this qualifies as a non-endorsement endorsement.

WASHINGTON - A band of Democratic governors seemingly out to stop Howard Dean recently tried to draft Bob Kerrey into running for the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee.

But the former Nebraska senator and governor said Tuesday that he has all but rejected their entreaties to join the contest.

It isn't wise, he said, to try to thwart the fiery former Vermont governor and presidential candidate. Dean is among a handful of Democrats campaigning for the post, which will be decided in a vote next month.

"It does feel like a 'stop Howard' effort," Kerrey said of the outreach by governors he declined to name. "I don't think that's a good idea - stopping anybody."

Good for the Post

The Washington Post has come out this morning against the confirmation of Alberto Gonzalez. Says The Post, "Senators who vote to ratify Mr. Gonzales's nomination will bear the responsibility of ratifying such views as legitimate."

This is in line with my post below about the re-election of Bush. By voting for Bush, the American people have validated his actions in his first term. By voting for Gonzalez, Democratic Senators will validate his opinions with regard to torture.

Flippancy, thy name is Bush

With regard to that interview with Bush, I actually find the answer to this question to be far more egregious than his "accountability moment" comment.

The Post: Why do you think [Osama] bin Laden has not been caught?

THE PRESIDENT: Because he's hiding.

3000 Americans died on 9/11.

Over 1300 soldiers have died in Iraq.

Over 10,000 soldiers have come home permanently scarred by the experience, and that's just counting those with physical injuries.

And this asshole has the temerity to turn a serious question like this into a joke?

Something useful from Free Republic

Amazingly enough, the freepers aren't entire useless. The following comes from a post at Free Republic (I got it courtesy of Burnt Orange Report). If you are using Firefox as your browser and have a broadband connection, following these instructions can speed up your page loads considerably. Since I don't want to give the freepers any more traffic than they deserve, I reproduce these instructions here.

Here's something for broadband people that will really speed Firefox up:

1.Type "about:config" into the address bar and hit return. Scroll down and look for the following entries:

network.http.pipelining
network.http.proxy.pipelining
network.http.pipelining.maxrequests

Normally the browser will make one request to a web page at a time. When you enable pipelining it will make several at once, which really speeds up page loading.

2. Alter the entries as follows:

Set "network.http.pipelining" to "true"

Set "network.http.proxy.pipelining" to "true"

Set "network.http.pipelining.maxrequests" to some number like 30. This means it will make 30 requests at once.

3. Lastly right-click anywhere and select New-> Integer. Name it "nglayout.initialpaint.delay" and set its value to "0". This value is the amount of time the browser waits before it acts on information it recieves.

If you're using a broadband connection you'll load pages MUCH faster now!

Note: do not use this if you don't have broadband!

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

I once made a post before the election in which I said that, if Bush is re-elected, the responsibility for his actions will pass from him onto the shoulders of the American electorate. Since Bush wasn't really elected in the first place, it could be argued that all of his fuckups during his first term were entirely his responsibility. But, if the American people returned him to the White House, then they would be assuming their share of responsibility for his policies.

Well, it now appears that Bush believes this as well:

President Bush said the public's decision to reelect him was a ratification of his approach toward Iraq and that there was no reason to hold any administration officials accountable for mistakes or misjudgments in prewar planning or managing the violent aftermath.

"We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post. "The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me."

Now I've seen several in the blogosphere this morning excoriating Bush for this comment, and rightfully so. But we must not let our outrage obscure the fact that he is, in part, correct.

With his re-election, the sins of Bush are now the sins of America. The election does not validate his actions, in the sense that it makes them right. But it does validate them in the sense that they make them the official policy of America as a whole.

We are living in Bush's America.

Lord help us.

Befuddled

It's hard to judge this kind of thing just from a transcript, but Holden of First Draft brings us some extracts from Bush's recent interview with the Washington Post that appear to demonstrate that Bush's mental state is approaching that of Ronald Reagan in his 2nd term. Befuddled would be a kind description.