Huge Blog List

The Unveiling of States Writes: the Progressives' Peer Directory from the American Street

Donnie Fowler Blogs at MyDD

MyDD :: Dean for Change! Thoughts on Exiting from Donnie Fowler

Why They Win II

In Why Republicans Win, I wrote,

The way out of this is to understand that we need to EDUCATE AND PERSUADE THE GENERAL PUBLIC about the fact that core Progressive ideas and values are good for them. What we are instead doing now is spending a LOT of money on narrow-interest environmental and other kinds of interest organizations that largely talk to the converted. Environmentalists have to combine forces with civil justice advocates, consumer litigation advocates, peace activists, etc. and all together go after the Right AS ONE.

Today, in the Washington Post, there's an example of what I'm talking about. From the article, A Quiet Revolution In Business Lobbying:

"The chamber is at the forefront of a quiet revolution in business lobbying. Corporate groups now raise big money to advance broad issues, largely to help the Republican president enact his fiscal agenda. That's a long step away from what trade associations traditionally did: concentrate on narrow concerns while shunning partisan spats.

[. . .] For the 2004 elections, the chamber dispersed 215 political operatives to 31 states, mailed 3.7 million letters to targeted voters, made 5.6 million phone calls and sent 30 million e-mails to persuade pro-business voters to go to the polls."

Even the narrow interests of the Right understand now -- advance the larger cause, and you get what you want because it gets your side in and THEN you can ask for what you want.

We don't really have lots of wealthy businesses on our side, but we do have a number of well-funded organizations working on environmental, peace, women's and many other "causes." The problem is each of these addresses their narrow interest, and talks mostly to their own audience. What is needed now is a pooling of interests, with each kind of organization joining with others who would classify as "Progressives" to advance a united front, explaining to the broad, general public why Progressive values are superior and will benefit THEM, and why they should therefore elect Progressive candidates. We need to take the country back. THAT is how we will save the environment, and protect a woman's right to choose, and get guns under control in urban areas, and help animal rights, and bring back the right to unionize, and save public schools, and raise the minimum wage, and protect Social Security, and get national health insurance, and all the other things that are so important to all of us. If you are giving money to any of these kinds of organizations you need to understand that your money is largely wasted now, because these organizations are stil largely trying to advance their own narrow interests instead of working together to advance our comon UNDERLYING ideals to the GENERAL PUBLIC in every state. Think about giving money to organizations that work to explain to the general public why they should support Progressive values in general.

Education, Fire BAD!

BoBo says the problem with Deocrats is that they are educated.

Serious Takedown

Juan Cole does a serious takedown of Jonah Goldberg. The overused term bee-atch slap applies.

My favorite line:

If Jonah Goldberg had asserted that he could fly to Mars in his pyjamas and come back in a single day, it would not have been a more fantastic allegation than the one he made about Iraq being a danger to the United States because of the nuclear issue. He made that allegation over and over again to millions of viewers on national television programs, to viewers who trusted his judgment because CNN and others purveyed him to them.

And this raises a question. Why do networks like CNN feel that their own credibility is not damaged when they put liars on the air, and then, after the lies are exposed, put them on again?

I'll quit nagging when people quit being stupid

(I posted the below at Matt Yglesias. I've become sort of a one-note-Johnny on this issue, but Democrats seem to be having trouble figuring out what's going on. One of the house conservatives over there was using Ward Churchill and the Berkeley left to slam the Democrats. I begin with one of the characteristically weenie Democratic responses.):

"But there is in fact a small number of truly anti-Western, anti-democratic, leftists who tend to be rather loud and obnoxious and sometimes drag well-meaning liberals into the gutter with them. "

Instapundit was being deliberately misleading in trying to smear the Democratic Party with these people -- people who all hate the Democratic Party. That's the main point here -- some of us want to correct the record, and some of us want to echo the smear.

On a binary up-and-down single-issue vote, politics does make strange bedfellows. That's where the ANSWER problem came from.

Compare: the Republicans agree with the American Nazi Party on affirmative action. But they've also been very successful in keeping the racists within the party -- in 2000 the right-wing parties got .7% of the vote, and you know that there are more rightwing loonies than that. (Nader got 2.7%. Switch the numbers and Gore wins solidly).

The neo-Confederates, Armageddonists, WW-IV hawks, and anti-tax anarchists are members in good standing of the Republican Party, and they comprise a significant proportion of its support. I doubt seriously that Churchill is even a Democrat at all.

When Instapundit, and Robert Conquest, and Armed Liberal, and John Hinderaker, and Andrew Sullivan make these kinds of accusations, they are disgracing themselves by launching a classically deceptive smear campaign. The way to combat this is NOT to say "Well, you know, they do have a point"

They do not have a point. What they do have is an advantage (since Dubya's re-election), and while they have that advantage they are going to use lies to try to destroy their political opposition entirely (which Grover Norquist has stated as a goal).

The liberal tendency to discuss everything reasonably, and say "yes, but" and "the truth is somewhere in between", etc., etc., does not work when you're confronted with an ideological goon squad. I'm not sure that the Democrats of today will ever be able to learn that lesson. It's a different ball game than it used to be, and people aren't getting the word.

PS:

"Cookie" in the comments reports that Churchill has been blackballed by the AIM and is suspected of having been a undercover agent for years., and also that his tribal membership with the Keetoowah Cherokee has been questioned. I'm not able to judge the facts here, but it's pretty clear that Churchill represents only himself (plus whoever actually chooses to endorse his views.)

Another Wurlitzer scam. Instapundit is a liar.

Dog Question

Last Saturday night, about 3am, our 9-year-old 70 lbs dog Buddy woke us up pacing, shaking and panting. This kept up for 2-3 hours. He had no fever or other apparent problems. In the morning he was fine, happy, energetic and ate normally. Each day since he has seemed fine during the day, but at night he has been getting us up very late, and panting and shaking for a while.

I took him to the vet Monday and they couldn't find anything wrong. He had a blood test which was normal. Today he had an ultrasound check of his adrenal gland for any growth and it was normal.

Tonite about 8:45pm he got off his bed and came over, shaking. This lasted about 15 minutes.

Does anyone have any suggetions?

Update - Thanks for the responses. Please keep leaving suggestions! Buddy slept on the bed last night and didn't wake us up, and wasn't panting or shaking as far as we know.

An interesting Buddy fact -- Buddy was the first picture of a dog ever blogged from a national political convention.



One I've been saving for a "Sunday Buddy Blog" but we'll make it a Saturday Buddy Blog:

Just so the other dog doesn't feel left out, this is Espresso:

Positive Suggestion #1

I have a reputation for negativism, and I've earned it. That's cool with me -- someone has to be the bad guy. But here's a positive suggestion, for a change.

Buy the biggest, tallest, most powerful ratio station in Oklahoma and use it to broadcast Air America (with Ed Schulz and Bartcop replacing some of the regulars.)

Out in the flats one station can cover an enormous area -- when I was a kid in Minnesota I listened to KOMA, an Oklahoma station, all the time. A station like that could cover fifteen or twenty states.

In that part of the country, the ambient political opinion is ultra-conservative. 20-30% of the electorate picks its political opinions out of the air (from free TV and radio), and where conservatives have a lock on the airwaves, that kind of voter ends up as default conservative. In some parts of the Southwest, you can go your whole life without hearing a liberal point of view.

By itself, the new radio station wouldn't win Kansas for the Democrats, but it would change the ball game -- maybe some of those states would even quit being Republican gimmes. The wingnut control of information flow around there approaches Stalinist levels, and this is something that we've got to change. (We wouldn't have to match the right wing station for station -- one single liberal Democratic station would break the monopoly.)

See? Positive thinking is easy.

We will now return to our regularly scheduled programming.

Is there anyone in the Democratic Party, or in the Democrat blogosphere, or among the Democratic sugar daddies, who would be interested in something like that?

No.

Radio is too tacky for Democrats, and so is Oklahoma.

P.S. "Grannyinsanity" writes:

"I inquired about a radio license sometime in the last two years and was promptly denied on the grounds that they just weren't issuing any more then.

That's the thing, you can't do anything without one and Clear Channel tries to gobble them all up. Not for the resale market, just to keep a monopoly on our democracy."

In other words, at least in some parts of the country the government is enabling and enforcing a private, virtually-unregulated near-monopoly of the crucial political communication media. Sounds Stalinist to me.

The name of the radio station has been corrected from KAAY to KOMA. I listened to both, but KAAY is from Arkansas.

The Judges

Bloggered Again Again Again -- Blogger isn't letting me in to edit posts. I want to update the post below about the $280 billion gift to tobacco companies, adding some background on the two judges responsible. One is David Sentelle. You may recognize the name. He is one of the far-right judges who appointed Ken Starr to go after Clinton. The other is a Stephen Williams, a Federalist Society judge also known for attending "retreats" where they teach about how environmentalism is anti-capitalism, then ordering the EPA not to enforce the Clean Air Act.

Judge Appointments: BIG Payoff!

The Right got a BIG payoff today from their judicial appointments. $280 BILLION!

Court Rejects U.S. Claim on Tobacco Lawsuits,

A federal appeals court ruled Friday that the Justice Department cannot seek $280 billion it alleges the tobacco industry earned through fraud, an enormous victory for American cigarette makers.

[. . .] The government has described the $280 billion as an estimate of money the companies earned illegally through fraudulent activities such as marketing to children and denying doing so.

THIS is what it is all about.

And what are the odds that the Bush administration will refuse to appeal?

The Attack on Liberals

"One who calls himself a liberal is nowadays diversely called by others a traitor, coward, parlor-pink, eclectic, jelly-fish, a selfish or muddy thinker who wants both to have his cake and eat it, rationalist, skeptic, conservative, radical…. But there is unanimity of opinion on one thing, namely, that liberalism is essentially negative, paralytic, and disintegrative. It’s boasted open-mindedness is nothing more than axiological anemia.”

Leslie Page, “Liberalism, Dogmatism and Negativism”, Journal of Social Philosophy, 5 (1940), p. 346; quoted in John Gunnell, The Descent of Political Theory, Chicago, 1993, p. 136

The illiberals have always been around. The above quotation is now 65 years old, and hatred of Roosevelt even before then had been virulent enough to motivate an abortive coup attempt. Most of the big Roosevelt haters are dead by now, but illiberalism is the political philosophy of the dominant wing of the Republican Party. I doubt that anyone would have guessed, even a decade ago, that Social Security would be on the chopping block, but it is. (We seem to be winning that fight, but it's hard to take any comfort in that; we're fighting in our last ditch.)

As part of this attack have come a flurry of accusations that liberals are allied with Islamic terrorism. I'm not going to link, but these accusations have come from Instapundit, Andrew Sullivan, John Hinderaker, Robert Conquest, and the fraudulently named Armed Liberal. None of these are marginal figures or populist talk-radio hosts; they represent the conservative mainstream.

The facts do not support the charge. Before 9/11, American sympathy for Islamic fundamentalism came mostly from the right wing, as I have documented here. Conservatives and Islamic fundamentalism share a bitter hatred of atheism, feminism, gay rights, sexual liberation, and secularism, and many or most Islamic fundamentalists are economically conservative..

Illiberalism has been charged up by Bush's re-election, and they're going to shoot for the moon. The gloves are off. Things that Oliver North and Michael Savage were saying five years ago are going to go mainstream. The hapless, bought media will whimper occasionally, but they aren't capable of fighting.

I really don't think that most Democrats have figured out what's going on yet. I've thought for a long time that the controlling majority of the Republican Party is acting entirely in bad faith, and that we have to treat this as a street fight rather than as a faculty-lounge debate. The so-called rational conservatives and moderate Republicans, if they aren't playing malicious games, are a hopeless, craven rabble which will never do anything. (Yes, John McCain, I mean you.)

Going around the left blogosphere I really feel that people haven't gotten the word yet. All the things people are saying in response to these attacks are nice and reasonable, but when you're accused of treason, a reasonable response is not appropriate. (The egregious Armed Liberal made a joke of this on the Crooked Timber comments, expressing surprise that the CT people were being all huffy, and not rational like him!)

This is looking like another Dukakis moment. When Dukakis was asked a hypothetical question about someone raping his wife, he made the mistake of thinking that he was in a rational forum and gave a detached, correct, policy answer about the death penalty. The problem wasn't that he said the wrong thing about the the death penalty. The problem was that he should have taken it personally. What he should have said was something like "You son of a bitch, don't you drag my wife into this!"

The sons of bitches are calling us traitors, and we need to take it personally. There are no good Republicans or conservatives except the ones who openly denounce this kind of smear. The rest of them are not fit to talk with. Rational discussion about this kind of thing will just make us look like weenies, and the Armed Liberals of the world will laugh at us.


(Written in part in lieu of a comment to this Crooked Timber post, since their comments are down.

I have fixed the bad link to the story of the coup attempt against FDR. It's worth following. This forgotten episode of American history deserves more attention than it gets.)

Simon Rosenberg Drops Out Of DNC Race

Statement from Simon Rosenberg on the Campaign for DNC Chair

"Effective today, I am ending my campaign for chair of the Democratic National Committee. I am grateful for the opportunity I have had to share my vision with Democrats around the country, and I remain encouraged by the depth and thoughtfulness DNC members have brought to this important process of picking our next chair.

Today, I am endorsing Governor Howard Dean to be the next Chairman of the DNC. While we have not always agreed on every issue, I believe his passion for our Party, his remarkable fighting spirit, his direct and powerful way of speaking, and his commitment to bringing regular people back into our Party will allow him to revitalize our Party and help us win again in the 21st century.

I call upon my supporters, and Democrats from all parts of the Party and all parts of the country, to join me in supporting Governor Howard Dean as the next DNC chair.

Though my campaign is ending, my work and my commitment to the Party that I love will continue at NDN. There I will continue to focus on the three priorities for our Party that I spelled out in the campaign - crafting a better agenda for our Party, investing in and building a better infrastructure for our politics, and leading a new national commitment to nurturing the grassroots. If we can do these three things and do them well in the years ahead, we can once again become a vibrant, dynamic and winning Party.

Finally, I want to thank my staff and my supporters across the country. Their faith in me inspired me each day to fight just a little harder in this important and tough race."

It's Dean.

Dear Abby

An e-mail I received:

DEAR ABBY,

My husband has a long record of money problems. He runs up huge credit card bills and at the end of the month, if I try to pay them off, he shouts at me, saying I am stealing his money. He says pay the minimum and let our kids worry about the rest, but already we can hardly keep up with the interest. Also he has been so arrogant and abusive toward our neighbors that most of them no longer speak to us. The few that do are an odd bunch, to whom he has been giving a lot of expensive gifts, running up our bills even more. Also, he has gotten religious in a big way, although I don't quite understand it. One week he hangs out with Catholics and the next with people who say the Pope is the Anti-Christ. And now he has been going to the gym an awful lot and is into wearing uniforms and cowboy outfits, and I hate to think what that means. Finally, the last straw. He's demanding that before anyone can be in the same room with him, they must sign a loyalty oath. It's just so horribly creepy!

Can you help?

Signed, Lost in DC

Dear Lost: Stop whining, Laura. You can divorce the jerk any time you want. The rest of us are stuck with him for four more years!

Was GHWBush "Deep Throat"?

Poynter Online - Forums:

"From ADRIAN HAVILL: In my 1993 biography of Woodward and Bernstein, 'Deep Truth,' I argued that Deep Throat had to be a composite portrayal. No more. Yesterday's unveiling of Woodstein's notes at the University of Texas is an appropriate time to let Poynter's reader know -- based on recent events and my own research at the National Archives in College Park, Maryland -- who I believe DT is and why.

[. . .] Certainly nearly everyone who reads Poynter was mystified when George W. Bush -- a President who arguably hates the press -- gave Bob Woodward seven hours of interviews which became the core of two best-selling and largely laudatory books. He also urged his cabinet to cooperate with Woodward and many did. The explanation: George Herbert Walker Bush, the president's father, is Deep Throat.

[. . .] Did Bush have motivation? You bet. It was Richard Nixon who urged Bush to leave a safe seat in Congress, hinting there would be a position as assistant Secretary of the Treasury waiting for him if he failed. When Bush lost, Nixon reneged and asked him to take the U.N. slot but teasing him by hinting he would be the replacement for Spiro Agnew in 1972. Instead, he was given the thankless task of heading the Republican National Committee. The elder Bush got his revenge in the end, standing up at a cabinet meeting in August of 1974 where he became the first person of note to ask the President to resign. [. . .]"

Learn What Happens When You Order Your Next Pizza

Go watch ACLU - Pizza.

(From TalkLeft)

New Enron Tapes

There is a new batch of Enron tapes out. Transcripts are here. I haven't looked at them yet - more later.

Bush loves Lieberman, torture lover

As Bush walked the Senate reception line, he greeted most senators with a smile or handshake. But when he got to Joe Lieberman, Bush puckered his lips and gave him a big KISS!

Why was Bush so grateful? We note that earlier in the day, Lieberman had (as he usually does) deserted his party and voted for the pro-torture Gonzales' confirmation.

Lieberman - DINO (Democrat In Name Only)

Surprise (Not)

Go read The Left Coaster: Everyday Iraqi Actually A Right-Wing Supported Associate of Allawi and Chalabi.

If you remember the run-up to the first Iraq war, and the story about Iraqis dumping babies out of incubators, and the story behind that story, you won't be surprised. But if you watch Fox News you'll ... think an average Iraqi woman was introduced last night.

Important To Understand This Lie

Among all the other lies in Bush's speech I see one that has not been widely explained. This is the lie that people would build up money in the private account that they can keep and pass on to heirs.

Bush said, "...you can build a nest egg for your own future," and "...you'll be able to pass along the money that accumulates in your personal account, if you wish, to your children or grandchildren."

So you have this account (if the stock market hasn't gone down), and you're supposed to live off of it until you die. Question for you: How much should you take out each month? Remember, if you take out too much you will run out of money and have nothing to live on.

The way a situation like this is usually handled is you use the money to buy an annuity -- a guaranteed monthly amount paid to you each month until you die. The amount is figured by calculating the average life expectancy of someone your age. It works because half of the people die early, leaving enough money to continue paying the other half of the people who die late. If you buy an annuity and die a month later, your money goes to cover the person who lives to be 112.

And, of course, the company you buy the annuity from keeps a healthy commission. (They gots to pay their CEO his $200 million each year.)

So this "pass along the money" idea is just another lie -- words that sound nice and are used to trick you into thinking this is a good deal. It is a lie because you have to give the money to an annuity company or risk having nothing left to live on. And it's worse than you think. The lifespan calculations that decide the annuity payments are calculated by professionals who do this and only this and know what they are doing. The Bush plan leaves everyone on their own to figure out for themselves how much to take out each month. This means that it is possible for every person to miscalculate and run out of money.

I Just Couldn't

Sorry. I just could not bring myself to watch the speech. And I just can't write about it. I read the speech in advance. Lies. I went to a DFA Meetup, and heard a minute of it on the way. UGH!

But I did read Senator Reid's speech, and it was masterful! Excellent!

Reminder

There is a lot of great stuff in the left and right columns here. On the left is a blogroll that links to many, many great bloggers. It is always fun to explore the blogs on this list. I suggest trying to make your way down by looking at five new blogs each day.

On the right there are, of course, some ads. Today there are two from the United Nations that I think everyone here would want to click on to learn more. The United Nations is under attack from the right and needs your support! (I don't make money if you click on them but I do make some money every time someone clicks one of the items in the Google ads.)

Down the right side a ways are current headlines from BuzzFlash, Media Matters, Smirking Chimp and "Privatize This" from the DCCC. It's always a good idea to check these.

And, finally, clicking on the little picture of an envelope at the end of each post lets you send the post to a friend.

Join A There Is No Crisis Conference Call

Even if you are not having or attending a house party tonite (click here to find one near you) you can join the conference call. See this post: Social Security: There Is No Crisis - Join Our Conference Call with Atrios:

"We're having a post-State of the Union conference call at 11pm for bloggers and house party leaders. On the call will be Duncan Black and representatives from the Campaign for America's Future and the Center for American Progress.

Email me at sotu.speech@gmail.com if you'd like to be on the Conference Call at 11pm Eastern. Also, leave questions and comments on this thread about the SOTU.

We will be liveblogging the SOTU and the call.

Also, to ward off too much Bush exposure, here's a nice drinking game: www.drinkinggame.us

And this is a reminder to all Presidents and non-Presidents alike that they shouldn't drink and drive."

Dean Remix

If you want to get revved up about Howard Dean as head of the Democratic Party, go listen to this. It will bring it all back.

Update - Go listen to it anyway. It's great.

The Power of Words

I have a new post at American Street, The Power of Words.

Just Making Shit Up

The new Think Progress weblog has a post about the Washington Times just making shit up about liberals who are "silent" about the Iraqi election.

"For instance, Lakely suggests that Iraq’s election stunned “left-wing filmmaker” Michael Moore into silence. “The last posting from Mr. Moore on his Web site is dated Jan. 10,” Lakely notes, “and concerns ‘Fahrenheit 9/11? being named best dramatic movie in the People’s Choice Awards.” Somehow Lakely fails to mention that Moore’s site has posted twenty-six updates about Iraq and election fallout since Sunday."

My question is, why would anyone read a newspaper run by the Moonies and shown again and again to lie early and often? In fact, the same could be said about most of the Right's "noise machine." Limbaugh, Fox, etc. At what point does credibility start to matter?

Social Security Myths v. Reality

eRiposte has been busy putting together info on Social Security Myths v. Reality. One of the most useful sections is the list of Social Security Front Groups.

Cupertino Parents Blast Fox for Disinformation

Daily Kos :: Cupertino Parents Blast Fox for Disinformation.

Go read.

I'm still being gloomy

(Below is a comment I made on Brad DeLong's site, considerably revised).

I guess I'll go back to pointing out, as I haven't for awhile, that we've been in let's-pretend never-never land for several years now. An effective majority of Americans have renounced analytic thought.

As a leftist I used to be the anti-economist in most groups, arguing against market-worship, but now conservative cornucopians (Lomborg's own self-description) are the ones rejecting economic analysis. Case in point, Luskin's most recent Krugman-bash).

Ultimately, when the contradictions become impossible to ignore, things have to get really ugly. I think that the Bush core constituency's uncritical "Will to Believe", and their absolute personal trust in one man, are totalitarian without any exaggeration. We're now in the grace period when totalitarian methods aren't yet necessary (probably toward the end of it), but there has to be a day of reckoning sometime. And a lot of the Armageddon neo-Confederate WW-IV free-market absolutists are looking forward to the day when they can bash heads.

Marxists tell me that this is all a masterful, rationally-planned scheme, but my feeling is that a minority within the monied class has been swept up by anger and ideological madness, and that most of the rich aren't thinking except in terms of short-term advantage. Scaife, Moon, the Koch brothers, and Murdoch aren't the richest Americans, but they're by far the most influential politically because they dish out the money. Two of the five of them, are probably mentally ill, and the other three are nasty pieces of work, but Americans are not bothered by that.

I have to wonder about the seemingly-rational people who are playing along for the money, and even more so about the relatively-intelligent unpaid conservatives and moderates, seem to be entirely oblivious to what's actually happening. They are the people responsible for reelecting Bush, and when they figure out what they did, there won't be much that they can do.

Networks Refuse Ads Opposing "Tort Reform" / Bush Gets Free Hour

4 Networks Reject Ad Opposing Bush on Lawsuits.

Tomorrow night the same networks will give President Bush a free hour and a half to push his right-wing agenda, including "tort reform," which is nothing more than a huge government bailout of insurance companies, drug companies, and other corporations that have harmed people for profit. Asbestos companies, for example. Selling Vioxx while knowing that it can cause heart attacks and strokes.

HOST A HOUSE PARTY To Help Save Social Security

(Earlier post moved to top of page)

Help save Social Security! Join up and SIGN UP TO HOLD A HOUSE PARTY WEDNESDAY the night of the State of the Union address!

There will be a conference call when the speech ends, which will include question and answer time, so your guests will learn about how to help fight back about Bush's drive to phase out Social Security.

This website is being developed as I write, so sign up now, but check back at the site regularly.

Update - FLYERS for handing out at your party or otherwise.

Iraq Vote

If the turnout reports are accurate (i.e. not propaganda) this is a great day for Iraq and for all of us. Congratulations to the Iraqis!

On the other hand, I'm a bit concerned by the early turnout reports. Somehow the American mainstream media's crowing about massive turnout reminds me of the story of the JFK "Oswald did it" assassination headline running an hour before the assassination.

"In the heart of the so-called Sunni triangle, a total of just 300 ballots were cast in the town of Al-Ramadi, many of them by police officers and soldiers."

I love some of the headlines, like Bush critics admit turnout triumph, and High turnout a win for White House.

Dean Supporters

Dear Dean Supporters -

Threatening to destroy the Democratic Party if your guy doesn't win is probably not a super strategy for convincing DNC members that your guy is a dedicated and committed supporter of the party. Think about that.

Update - The day after their executive committee voted to back Fowler, State Democrats back Dean for DNC post. This represents a lot of votes on the DNC. Comes close to clinching it.

Stabbed-in-the-back

I've been waiting for the stabbed-in-the-back talk to start getting serious. I had expected it to begin about January 21, so it's a little late -- I guess the operatives took a well-earned break right after the inauguration. Here's Instapundit:

When Ted Kennedy can make an absurd and borderline-traitorous speech on the war, when Michael Moore shares a VIP box with the last Democratic President but one, when Barbara Boxer endorses a Democratic consultant/blogger whose view of American casualties in Iraq is "screw 'em," well, this is the authentic face of the Left. Or what remains of it.

There was a time when the Left opposed fascism and supported democracy, when it wasn't a seething-yet-shrinking mass of self-hatred and idiocy. That day is long past, and the moral and intellectual decay of the Left is far gone. Link

Here's John Hinderaker:

John H. Hinderaker, founder of Time Magazine's "Blog of the Year," and clearly a reasonable, rational person, was just on WABC-AM with Larry Kudlow. After calling the Iraq elections a "bombshell" (interesting word choice) for the Middle East, he went on to say that it was "pretty clear" that in our country, "the Left had lined up behind the terrorists." Link

These are not marginal figures, but two of the most respected conservatives on the net. Basically, they've taken over the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler's message and cleaned up his language a bit.

I really don't think that Democrats are prepared for what's coming. This isn't going to be business as usual, especially when they start getting public opinion ready for war against Iran.

National Conference for Media Reform

Carolyn Kay of Make Them Accountable just notified me of the 2005 National Conference for Media Reform to be held from May 13 to May 15, 2005, in St. Louis, Missouri. Al Franken, Robert McChesney, Amy Goodman, and a lot of other good people will be there.( More information here. Early registration ends March 31.)

It looks good, but it's just the usual suspects - I don't see any signs of money people. My estimate is that it will cost about $500,000,000 to redress the media balance in this country, making sure that every American has free-media access to the liberal point of view, the way every American is already automatically exposed to the wingnut point of view. Many people just accept the ambient opinion, and in today's world the majority of them end up Republicans.

I don't think any more that this can be done by voluntarism. So if any of my readers is able to unload ten million bucks or more, now is the time for them to do it.

Defined benefits and defined contributions

Guest-poster Camilo Wilson lives in Monterey, California. He has had a long, long career in computers and software, including writing the popular VolksWriter word processor and publishing Correct Grammar and the American Heritage Dictionary. He is the founder of his very privately held cogix.com. He studied political philosophy in Berkeley in the 60's and incorporated that world view into a self-designated fiscally responsible liberal in 1980. He likes living in the forest.

Currently, Social Security pays a predictable amount until the end your days, just like a "defined benefit plan". The privatization proposals take 2/3 of employee contributions and invest them in a classical "defined contribution plan".

This terminology is important, as many people who care about retirement understand the difference perfectly well. A defined benefit spells out what you're going to get, and it is the government/employer's problem how it will meet its obligations, not yours. A defined contribution plan relieves that burden from the government/employee and transfers it squarely onto you, who now must make wise investment choices to make the money last until the end of your days.

The need to invest aggressively guarantees that people will make poor choices, and makes them specially vulnerable to greedy promoters. With the privatization option, you're giving up a rock solid, predictable pension for the rest of your life in return for a small amount of money you can gamble put to work today.

There Is No Crisis

There Is No Crisis is liveblogging the Senate Democratic Policy Committee hearing on Social Security.

Who are the "Rational Conservatives"?

(As most STF readers know by now, since the election I've been alternating between fairly reasonable posts, and gloom and doom. This one is gloom and doom. I originally posted it, in somewhat different form, on the Crooked Timber comments, where some classic illiberals were defiantly holding the fort .)

Since the election I believe more than I ever did that all significant political debates in the US are now just matters of affiliation. Bush is in the driver’s seat, and people can affiliate for him or against him.

The otherwise-rational conservatives who remain on Bush’s team remain there on the basis of a personal anti-liberal existential commitment that they made after some life-changing experience, perhaps after rehabbing from drugs while blaming liberalism for all their problems. (The pro-conservative aspect of that kind of rehab is always weaker than the anti-liberal one).

For them to cease to be illiberals now would require a second existential crisis, and most people don’t want to have too many of those in one lifetime.

It’s not just Iraq. There still are many who, flying in the face of 24 years of political reality, call themselves fiscal conservatives and for that reason absolutely refuse ever to vote for a Democrat. Their politics is like their body type, changable only with major surgery.

The starve-the-beast Armageddonist neo-Confederate World War Four advocates are influencing policy now, and we aren’t -- and neither are the hapless rational conservatives who continue to support Bush. We’re just watching, and so are they (whether they know it or not.)

People are pleased that Bush’s attempt to destroy social security seems to be failing, but that’s sort of as though Boston, all alone, were making a stout defense against the forces of Robert E Lee. Bush has the Democrats fighting in their last ditch.

And no, I don’t think that I am the irrational one here. The Bush loyalists are a bunch of very sick puppies. Arguing with them is pointless.

Update: Corrected from New York City to Boston per Lizardbreath.

Arnold No Moderate

Just look at what he is doing!

California regulators suspend wireless customer protections:

"California utility regulators on Thursday suspended an 8-month-old crackdown on abusive practices in the wireless telephone industry, rebuffing the protests of consumer activists and the state's top law enforcement officials.

[. . .] the PUC's makeup has changed with the terms of two commissioners expiring. [. . .] ...first week on the job after being appointed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger last month. Schwarzenegger has appointed high-tech entrepreneur Steve Poizner to fill the PUC's remaining board seat.

[. . .] "I fear what we are going to start to hear is that what's good for business is necessarily good for consumers, and we know that's just not so," said Robert Finkelstein, executive director for The Utility Reform Network.

[. . .] The decision also provoked objections from consumer groups, state Attorney General Bill Lockyer and all 58 district attorneys in California.

The district attorneys say widespread consumer complaints about the wireless phone industry are diverting their attention from other law enforcement issues. "

You get the picture. Consumers of California, vuck ovv! Big corporations rule!

Iraqifying Social Security

Our Rule

Remember the Seeing the Forest rule: when you see a Republican accusing others of something, it means they are probably doing that thing. So we have a Republican reporter, (the same one mentioned in an earlier post) saying,

"the press corps, which, of course, deserves to be gone around because they're not telling the truth about Social Security reform. They continue to work off of the talking points provided them from the opposition."

Got that? He's accusing "the press corps" of using Liberal talking points. So a little research uncovers ... wanna guess? Oh yes! Talon News "reporter" lifts from GOP documents.

Simon Rosenberg For DNC Chair

I am a reform Democrat. My endorsement for the DNC Chair race goes to Simon Rosenberg first, second to Howard Dean, third to Donnie Fowler. I'd be very happy if any of these three win, and the Party will benefit greatly. (I also have some comments on Dean at the end of this post.)

My endorsement of Simon is based on his plan, "Renewing the DNC: Simon's Plan". Regardless of your own choice for a DNC Chair, please read his plan. Information about Simon is available online at SimonForChair.org. Info on Dean for Chair is available at DeanForChair.org. Info on Fowler is available at ChangeTheParty.org.

I'll let Simon's plan speak for itself. From his plan, (and regular readers will understand that this is close to my heart):

"A New Commitment to Persuasion, Advocacy, and Mobilization

One of the greatest tasks in the next four years will be to move all the parties into the 21st century communications era. My background as a successful television writer and producer, veteran of the Clinton War Room, manager of the 31 state Clinton communications operations in 1992, technologist, often-quoted spokesperson, and seasoned message-crafter makes me uniquely qualified among the candidates for Chair to take on this challenge. I come from the successful Clinton school that built our politics around a powerful, optimistic vision for our nation, and believe that we must make modern advocacy a more important core competency of our parties in the years ahead.

At the core of the new politics of advocacy are changes in media and technology. We are leaving a 50 year-long run of the broadcast era of political communications, where the model was a single message centrally managed and broadcast out to many. The new era we are entering requires a much more distributed, real time, personal, and intimate type of communications. The vital investment by Terry McAuliffe in the DNC Datamart has given all of us the opportunity to build a new politics for a new era of communication that will require us putting people once again at the very center of our Party.

To facilitate our adoption of new techniques and learning, I will create a New Politics Institute at the DNC. The NPI will be charged with bringing in some of the top technologists, social networkers, netroots and community activists and media executives to help us together imagine and implement a new 21st century politics built up from people and databases using the very latest technology.

In the years ahead, succeeding at the new politics and countering the conservative machine also will require the party?s willingness to partner with think tanks, policy shops, commentator/bloggers, interested academics, and governments that Democrats control. Having worked at a think tank, and as a veteran of the successful Clinton policy years, I can bring concrete expertise in forging these vital national and state links. For more details on how I plan to utilize the ?blogosphere,? please visit my web site at www.simonforchair.org."

Naturally a lot of readers will wonder why I endorse Simon over Dean when I was an enthusiastic support of Dean for President? My reason is that the DNC Chair is primarily a "behind-the-scenes" nuts-and-bolts position. I agree with Dean that reform of the party is badly needed, but I believe this will actually be better accomplished by electing Simon Rosenberg. If you read Simon's plan you will see the level of detail that is behind his run for DNC Chair. This guy has thought it through.

I also believe that Howard Dean would be a GREAT candidate for President in 2008. But becoming DNC Chair means pledging not to run for President in 2008. I have heard many Dean supporters say that after everyone sees how well Dean does as DNC Chair, they'll ask him to run anyway. I don't see where the idea of taking a pledge not to run in 2008 means running in 2008, and I trust that he means it! And this brings in the issue of party unity. Dean represents a wing of the party. I support that wing. But I remember how the Dean people felt when we thought the DNC was opposing Dean. I can imagine how this could be usable as a wedge to divide all the other parts of the Democratic Party coalition during the next election. And, finally, what becomes of Dean's organization Democracy for America should he become DNC Chair? This is one of the most vital, valuable movement organizations I have seen, and I think it is very important that it retains its independent-of-the-party role. This would be hard to do with its leader serving as DNC Chair.

So if you are a voting DNC member, please consider Simon Rosenberg to be Party Chair.

(Other Seeing the Forest writers might have other preferences.)

What do YOU think? Leave a comment.

Update - this MyDD diary.

Press Conferences From Now On

Earlier today I linked to a story about how government employees will soon be paid according to the level of service they are performing in the effort to consolidate the power of The Party. I have previously posted links to stories about people being fired for opposing Bush, or doctors refusing to see them as patients anymore, or getting tickets for having bumper stickers opposiing Bush... All ovre the blogosphere we are reading stories about reporters being intimidatred for using "private accounts" language even though the President used the same wording as recently as last week.

Now we have a glimpse of what to expect from the press in the future. Chris at MyDD has a post about a MEMBER OF THE PRESS prefacing a question to the President with the following,

"[H]ow are you going to work with people [Democratic leaders] who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?"

Watch your backs.

Fraud In Ohio

The Sideshow has a story about possible fraud in the Ohio recounts.

Troll Policy

Many Progressive bloggers have been noticing a recent increase in "trolls" -- right-wingers showing up and disrupting the comments. The recent trolls also seem more sophisticated. Whatever the reason for the increase, I'm not going to let them disrupt Seeing the Forest.

If you want to have a discussion in the comments here, that is encouraged. In fact I have even invited commenters with opposing viewpoints to be guest posters here.

If you (are a right-winger and) insult other people in a comment, your comment will be deleted and you will be banned, which means you will be unable to post comments here from then on. (Left wingers are free to insult right-wingers at will in the comments.) If you insult me or another Seeing the Forest writer, or say anything even remotely unpleasant about the blog, your comment will be deleted and you will be banned. If I even catch a whiff that you are a professional, or that you are a skilled volunteer familiar with the current right-wing talking-points and tactics, constructive comments or not, you will be banned and won't get your bonus.

Democrats Fired, Not Hired

Now that the Party has merged withthe State, new employent policies will be in effect. From the story,

"A raise or promotion -- moving up in a pay range or rising to the next one -- will depend on receiving a satisfactory performance rating from" ... the Party.

Ted Turner compares Fox to Nazis

MediaLife reports that Ted Turner, founder of CNN, compared Fox News to the Nazis during his address to the National Association for Television Programming Executives conference in Las Vegas yesterday. He conceded that Fox News has passed CNN in terms of viewers, but also pointed out that Adolph Hitler got the most votes when he was elected to run Germany before World War II. Ted called Fox News the “ Bill O’Reilly network” and said it is “a propaganda tool for the Bush administration, and while that may be legal, it’s bad for our democracy.” Fox said it is sour grapes on Ted’s part because FNC has surpassed Turner network CNN in the ratings. However, Turner is not the only TV notable to compare Fox to the Nazis this week.” “Gilmore Girls” executive producer Amy Sherman-Palladino called Fox network show “American Idol” “like the Nazis marching through Poland. You just got to let them go. Get out of the way. We’re kind of France going, ‘You know, just don’t burn down Paris, that’s all we’re asking.’”

During my own experience with Ted in launching an environmental program on TBS and socializing at CNN parties when my wife was VP at CNN, Ted told a story about the time he and Rupert Murdoch, Chairman of Fox, once went skiing on Ted’s ranch. “There we were on our skies, stopped on a cliff overlooking the valley. Just one little shove from me, and ….” May have something to do with Ted's oft- stated reason for selling Turner Broadcasting System to Time-Warner...he was afraid Murdoch would get it in a hostile takeover.

Comment Of The Month!

praktike wins the coveted Seeing the Forest "Comment Of The Month" award. Regular reads of Seeing the Forest will know what a rare and true honor this is. See praktike's comment in context, following Matthew Yglesias: Personal Or Private post.

The National Mood of Intimidation

High School Journalist Faces Firing:

"When high school journalist Ann Long sent a recent edition of her school's newspaper to the printer, she hoped her profile of three gay students would generate some discussion in the hallways.

But she didn't expect to be punished for writing the article."

The national mood of intimidation is getting worse. If you write pro-Bush stuff, you get government money. If you oppose Bush and the Right, you get fired, arrested, refused service, beat up, canceled, taken off airplanes, etc. It doesn't have to happen every time for the "message" to be clear.

Bush Sends Holocaust Denier to Ukraine Inauguration

Mary beat me to it. I was going to kink to this story, and then I saw that Mary at Left Coaster beat me to it, so I'll link to her instead. (It's a blog thing.)

A delegation sent by President Bush to Ukraine's presidential inauguration last weekend included a Ukrainian-American activist who has accused Jews of manipulating the Holocaust for their gain and blamed them for Soviet-era atrocities in Ukraine.

Republicans...

Bush Said Social Security Would Be Bankrupt In 1988!

Chris at MyDD has a great story up, Social Security Will Be Bankrupt in 1988. In 1978 Bush, running for Congress, said Social Security would be bankrupt in ten years. As Chris puts it,

Back then, he was completely wrong. Now, he is just lying.

No on Gonzales

I'm writing this to add my voice to Daily Kos :: No on Gonzales:

"With this nomination, we have arrived at a crossroads as a nation. Now is the time for all citizens of conscience to stand up and take responsibility for what the world saw, and, truly, much that we have not seen, at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. We oppose the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General of the United States, and we urge the Senate to reject him."

Go to the original post to see which bloggers have signed up so far.

Why Republicans Win

A typical generic blog post written by a Progressive in the last several months would read something like this: "Everyone can sum up the Republican core beliefs in a sentence or two, while Progressives need to search for a candidate who can articulate core Progressive values." Some bloggers might also refer to George Lakoff's "framing" work as a solution to the problem. Not being able to explain your product concept in a sentence is a classic marketing problem, and what these posts show is a budding awareness that Republicans have been outmarketing Democrats. Think about this - if you are in a "red state" area you are told a hundred different ways every day why business is good and government is bad and why unregulated free markets work better than democracy. But you are never told the other side of the story.

The Republicans win because the modern Right has developed around the core idea of persuading people to support their ideology, which then leads to support for their issues and candidates. In other words: marketing. The Right developed this persuasion capability in reaction to the dominance of the existing "liberal establishment." Because of this, most of their organizations are designed as advocacy and communications organizations, with the mission of reaching the general public and explaining what right-wing ideas are and why they are better for people. Today's Progressives, on the other hand, think there already is a public consensus supporting their ideals and values, so they have not developed a culture that is oriented around persuading people, and their organizations are not designed at their core to persuade the public to support them.

For example, everyone used to think that it is moral to help the poor or protect the environment, so there are organizations that are designed to do that. Then along comes the right, funding organizations designed to convince people it is wrong to do these things. The result today is that on one side you have organizations trying to help the poor, protect the environment, etc. On the other you have organizations telling people what those organizations are doing is wrong. But now you have no one explaining to people that it is GOOD to help the poor and protect the environment so over time support for helping the poor obviously will erode and eventually the organizations that help the poor will be in trouble and have little public support.

So you can see how things got to be the way they are. Democrats understand themselves as a political party, not as a movement. The party grew out of a time when people already understood why they were Democrats or not, so there was no need for organizations that talked to the general public about why it is good to be a Democrat. Instead the party naturally focused on elections. And it is still that way. Democrats look for the "right candidates" to appeal to voters. The candidate is expected to "voice" the issues, and develop messaging that works, and is expected to do it after putting together a campaign team, which happens during and after the primaries. The Democrats use the election cycle as a time to come up with specific "issues" and "messages" and educate the voters. Then the campaign is supposed to reach the voters and educate them about the candidate and the issues... This is the old way of understanding politics. The problem is that times have changed -- they have been changed by the rise of "movement conservatism."

On the Right, they developed their movement in response to the existing liberal consensus, which means that their movement developed based on the idea of changing people's minds away from those liberal ideas and values. So the result is that today the Right is structured around persuasion, while the Democrats are not. And their organizations have spent decades studying how best to persuade people.

For Republicans, functions like message and issue development are handled by the multitude of "conservative movement" organizations, not the Republican Party or its candidates. A Republican candidates' job is to voice the messages of the Right but not to develop the messages, like a Democratic candidate is expected to do. The job of Republican campaigns is to take advantage of the issues that their constituency has already been exposed to, not to define the issues from scratch like Democrat candidates have to do. And the Party's job is to harvest the voters at election time.

Organizations like the Heritage Foundation comprise the persuasion machine of the Right. Republican candidates get their talking points from these organizations. They get their issues - tort reform, Social Security privatization, NCLB Act, etc. - from these organizations. The organizations spend years educating the public about the particulars -- "lawsuit abuse", woman gets a million for spilling hot coffee in a moving car, environmentalism costs jobs, Social Security is going broke, etc. They do the core research to learn how to reach the public, what words to use, etc. A focus group might show that some voters will change their minds if they think Democrats are "rich elites who drink lattes" and a week later every single columnist, talking head, talk show host, etc. is saying that Democrats are rich elitists who drink lattes. It is not about their candidates -- I mean, look who they run! Compare Bush the person or the candidate to Gore or Kerry, and then try to tell me it is about the candidates!

The Party is not the SOUL (ideology) of the Right. It is the other way around: the Right and their organizations are the soul of the Party. And what is the Right, in this context, at this time? Understanding this points us to a path out of this.

The Right as I use it is the "conservative movement" -- a few hundred well-funded ($300 million per year that is NOT counted as "election spending") and centrally coordinated (Grover Norquist, Philanthropy Roundtable, etc.) advocacy organizations, all preaching right-wing "free-market" ideology. They preach the ideology. They persuade people. THEY define the issues and educate the public. Not the Party, not the candidates, not the campaigns.

The way out of this is to understand that we need to EDUCATE AND PERSUADE THE GENERAL PUBLIC about the fact that core Progressive ideas and values are good for them. What we are instead doing now is spending a LOT of money on narrow-interest environmental and other kinds of interest organizations that largely talk to the converted. Environmentalists have to combine forces with civil justice advocates, consumer litigation advocates, peace activists, etc. and all together go after the Right AS ONE.

We need to change what our existing organizations see as their core mission. They need to understand that the public consensus they thought they have is not there anymore. They need to understand that to survive a good part of their effort has to be toward persuading the public that the core progressive values of democracy and community are good, and benefit them, and only then can they also do the work that before now they thought was their core mission, be it environmentalism, helping the poor, or whatever else they do.

And, more important, we all need to understand that new organizations have to be started, with their entire mission being to educate and persuade the general public that core progressive values of democracy and community, and all the things that means, are better for them than right-wing ideology.

See Don't Blame the Democrats.

Matt Wrote A Great Post

Matt's History Is Never Past is a great post:

"The post-Civil War thinkers, pragmatists, believed that truth - objective truth - is a real notion, but that objective truth cannot be owned by any one person. It can only be owned by a social group, if at all. Diversity of perspectives, and real critical debate and discussion, led to the scientific method and the modern notion of science and academia. Right-wingers believe either that there is no such thing as truth, only interpretative variations that are a proxy for power, or that truth is held by atomized individuals or groups.

[. . .] Liberals are those who see the endpoint of a media system as a broad culture of tolerance, discussion, and argument leading to a socially higher truth. Reactionaries either want to limit participation to a small group of social liberals or conservatives, or the more extreme version of the them seek to remove the concept of truthfulness from discourse altogether."

http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/1/24/25546/0124

http://www.nathannewman.org/laborblog/archive/002098.shtml

http://www.bornagaindemocrats.com/blog/wordpress/index.php?p=7

http://amconmag.com/2005_01_31/print/articleprint1.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43112-2005Jan27.html

http://slate.msn.com/id/2112701/

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/01/index.html#005345


http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20050120&fname=usconservatives&sid=1&pn=1

http://www.bartcop.com/

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/archive.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/01/25/reserves/index.html

toxic

http://spewingforth.blogspot.com/

Approaching the Post-Democratic Era

"We had planned for the new Not In Our Name statement of conscience to run on Friday, January 21, in the New York Times. We had a contract and a confirmation number. This ad was to be our answer to the inauguration, and it was timed to appear in the middle of the inauguration news coverage.

The ad did not run. The advertising department were themselves deeply surprised by this, and have not been able to explain what happened. In fact, we were told that to their knowledge this had never happened before.

At the same time, the Times lead editorial said that this should be a time of legitimacy and acceptance for the President -- and that this was especially something that the opposition has to come to terms with.

It is unacceptable that we do not yet know why something that "has never happened before" happened -- a full page paid ad, accepted and slotted in, did not run. This is especially so when the content of the ad, the need to resist the course that this administration has set, is so important to the people of this country and the world. There needs to be an investigation of what went wrong and why. If it was just an honest mistake, we expect that the Times itself would want to know why in order to prevent it from occurring again."

No-one is forcing the Times to run ads they don't care for. It's their paper.

They have no business ignoring their contractual obligations.

Perhaps Mr. Okrent would be interested in hearing what you think about this.

Yeah, well, perhaps you should tell him anyway.

CONTACT
. E-mail:public@nytimes.com>
. Phone: (212) 556-7652
. Address:

Public Editor
The New York Times
229 West 43rd St.
New York, NY 10036-3959

Story

Cut-and-pasted from Sisyphus Shrugged

Accountable

One of the wingnut trolls assigned to Seeing the Forest asked in a comment below why don't Democratic leaders just go ahead and do something themselves about criminal acts by the Bush administration, if they really think it's so bad?

Democratic leaders do not have any power to investigate anything. They can not call hearings, they can not issue subpoenas, they can not ask the FBI. They can't even petition the courts -- that's what the whole thing about Bush's judicial appointments has been about.

The Right currently controls every single investigative and legal agent of our government, from top to bottom.

And, as a result of this, can any of the readers here think of even ONE member of the Bush administration - at any level - who has been held accountable for even one transgression of any kind, whatsoever? One who has even been fired? Even demoted? Even scolded?

I think this might be something to use against Republicans in Congress for the next election. Pick the ten worst examples of Bush corruption, and start going after heads of Congressional committees in their own districts for refusing to do anything about it! Letters-to-the-editor would be a good start, leading to radio and TV spots, leaflets, etc. Put the pressure on. Point out the corruption, but give it a target - the members of Congress who are not doing the job of holding people accountable for their acts.

I Never Seem To Learn

I never seem to learn. Why do I bother to even look at stuff like this anymore? Written by Howard Fineman should be a clue... The results of the Right's "conventional wisdom" machine - targeted straight at people like Fineman - at work before my eyes.

But the 477 DNC members who choose the party chair haven't settled on a leader of the 2005 version of the Anybody But Dean movement. For now, the front-running alternative is former congressman Martin Frost of Texas, a pro-labor moderate with a lifetime of traditional organizing who survived 13 terms in Dallas before the GOP redistricted him into oblivion. He's followed by Simon Rosenberg, a young Washington-based fund-raiser and strategist who claims to be as digitized and Net-friendly as Dean?and yet more popular than Dean among the bloggers, who are emerging as new grass-roots powers in the party. Pro-lifer Tim Roemer is also running.

Front-running alternative-to-Dean Martin Frost? Front-running?

The rest of the piece is just barely-readable mush (if you know anything about the subject he is covering). I suspect what is going on here is that the guy gets paid well, but has to come up with something every week. So he sends them stuff like this. Also, he has to write things that fit inside of his editors' understanding of what is going on in the world - their own views cooked by the "conventional wisdom" machine - so he has to write in divisive contradictory trivialities. Like this:

"As for Dean, he is playing it cool and trying to soothe fears within the citadel he may soon occupy. He has vowed not to run for president in '08 if elected chair? -- a kind of backhanded bribe that may induce many DNC members to vote for him."

The DNC delegates dislike Dean so much that they will put him in charge of the party just to keep him from running for President. What?

No wonder it was linked by Drudge.

Something More Serious

This morning I blogged about the silly wingnut "SpongeBob Squarepants is gay story." Well, it turns out it might be more serious than it looks at first glance. I added an update to that post that reads as follows,

David Neiwert points out why this is not just wingnuttery, it's more dangerous. It's an attack on the "leftist" Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). SPLC is an organization that keeps an eye on the violent right -- the Tim McVeigh types. Seeing the mainstream right now attacking the SPLC as "leftist" is very, very worrisome.

I wanted to bring this more attention than just an update.

What Doc Says

Facing evil:

I know pictures like this serve as propaganda for the enemy, which has no remorse about routinely doing worse than what these American soldiers will regret terribly for the rest of their lives.

We can debate strategy for the duration. Meanwhile, we have this, and countless other tragedies like it. Blame who you will; it won't make this little girl one bit happier. It won't bring back her parents, who lost their lives for... what?

I don't have an answer. If you do, tell it to that girl.

I cry every time I see the picture. And this one.

What happened:

Nighttime Anguish
An Iraqi girl screams after her parents were killed by U.S. troops during a dusk patrol in the northern city of Tall Afar. Witnesses said the soldiers, from the 1st Battalion, 25th Infantry Division (Stryker Brigade), fired on the family's car after it failed to heed warnings to stop and come toward the troops. One of the five children riding in the back seat was injured. The military said it was investigating.

School Policy - No Dems

Gingrich Speech at CU Opposed:

Newt Gingrich's scheduled speech at Catholic University next week is prompting criticism from students who contend that the appearance would violate the school's policy barring speakers who have espoused positions contrary to Vatican teachings.

Frank Lankey Jr., 20, political director for the College Democrats, said that Gingrich's support for the death penalty and his extramarital affair in the 1990s contradict church teachings and should prohibit him from appearing.

Last fall, organizers of an Italian film festival considered inviting actor-director Stanley Tucci to their event, but Catholic University officials objected because of his support for abortion rights organizations.

[. . .] Victor Nakas, the university's spokesman, denied that Gingrich's appearance violates the speaker policy, though he declined to explain the substance of the regulations.

In other words, clearly the school's policy is that Republicans and their cronies may speak, and others may not!

(By the way, besides adultery and support for the death penalty there's also Gingrich's greed, lying, support for war, contempt for the poor, lust, gluttony, pride, sloth, and wrath. Have I missed any? Oh yeah, envy.)

(Found at Crooks and Liars.)

No Williams

So where did the Armstrong Williams case go? One more instance of blatant criminality by Republicans... Maybe it's that we all know it won't be investigated - who would investigate? Who would be held accountable? And anyway, Bush has said that the "accountability moment" is so last year. Even bloggers dropped it - taking the so obvious bait when the Right falsely accused two bloggers of taking payments from the Dean campaign. "LOOK OVER THERE!" Off they went...

I came across a column on the subject, by John Young. He thinks the reason might be:

"This is what I've come to believe: It's all about business. The White House is an enterprise of which members of a slim voting majority see themselves as stockholders. Those on the outs are stockholders of a group that didn't win the contract.

To the stockholders whose firm again won the bid, what the management group does to achieve its business plan is of less importance than what it delivers--say, tax cuts and a stock market that purrs."

Maybe, but something he wrote just before that got me thinking:

"...in pondering the lack of a sufficient uproar over the administration's having paid black commentator Armstrong Williams $240,000 to tout the No Child Left Behind Act on the air. It's one of several examples of a stealthy use of tax dollars to manipulate opinion.

What explained the lack of public outrage? I asked."

I think a good part of the answer is right there: "Stealthy use of tax dollars to manipulate public opinion." And not just tax dollars - although that is a big deal, and a big, big crime (that we know no one will answer for). There's also the $300-million-a-year stealthy persuasion campaign of the Right's network of think tanks that I frequently write about here. Combine that with the effect of Fox News, almost all of AM radio's all-day-every-day right-wing persuasion campaign, the $100 million per year put into the Washington Times, and let's not forget the corporate money involved.

After a while this kind of money just has to have an effect.

"What explained the lack of public outrage?" he asked? I think maybe the well-funded manipulation of public opinion is ... wait for it ... manipulating public opinion.

Study How They Did It

I just posted a comment over at Kos: "Study How They Did It":

We all need to study how the Right has built such an influential "infrastructure" and how they use it to manipulate the press and public discussion. They craft "framed messages" and repeat them over and over (and over) until they become "conventional wisdom."
For example, Social Security is NOT going broke. But it is "conventional wisdom" that it is because they have repeated this message over and over. Another one is "children trapped in failing public schools."

They have been working to change minds for 30 years. But they have also created a model for how we can fight back. It is up to the people on our side who have money to start funding a counter-infrastructure of organizations designed to bring basic UNDERLYING ideas to the public. DEMOCRACY and COMMUNITY are fundamental concepts that have been undermined. Popel believe in one-dollar-one-vote solutions to problems now. They talk about "market solutions to public probles." Well that's not democracy, folks.

Read Brock's book The Republican Noise Machines. Spend some time at Media Transparency and read everything there! Check out Commonweal Institute's page of links to articles about how the Right has built and uses this movement. Read EVERYTHING by George Lakoff. And start giving money to organizations like Media Matters, Media Transparency, Center for American Progress, Commonweal Institute so they can start working to turn this around.

Serious, Serious Nuttery

At Heritage Foundation's ConservativeLog: The big deal about SpongeBob they are defending wingnut attacks on SpongeBob, saying that the mainstream media "continually tries to paint religious conservatives as nuts."

"Bottom line: Religious conservatives are not calling SpongeBob gay. They are attacking a video (remake of the song "We Are Family" that features cartoon characters) that liberals are trying to shove into schools to promote "tolerance" and "diversity."

The post includes links to another blog. You have to read both posts to get just how absolutely nutso the right-wing cult is getting. From the other post,

"The song itself is about multiculturalism and diversity. But some things on the WAFF webpage go further, including a Tolerance Pledge which says, "I pledge to have respect for people whose abilities, beliefs, culture, race, sexual identity or other characteristics are different from my own."

Oh, it goes even "further" than multiculturalism and diversity! It actually dares talk about respect! Well, then!

Update - Thanks to Angry Bear, I learned the definition or C.R.A.C.K.P.O.T.:

"Many, if not most, Christians understand the true message of Jesus. But there is a frightening number of so-called Christians who can be best described as creepy, rigid, arrogant, cruel, know-it-all, pompous, obnoxious and treacherous — better known by the acronym C.R.A.C.K.P.O.T."

Update - David Neiwert points out why this is not just wingnuttery, it's more dangerous. It's an attack on the "leftist" Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). SPLC is an organization that keeps an eye on the violent right -- the Tim McVeigh types. Seeing the mainstream right now attacking the SPLC as "leftist" is very, very worrisome.

Fox News Meltdown

See the Fox News Meltdown.

Alert Your Member

Chris at MyDD writes Attention All Democratic Congressional Chiefs of Staff.

Please read this, locate your member of Congress' office address, and mail a printed copy of Chris' post.

Why Did NY Times Attack ACLU?

OK, I haven't read past the first sentence in this story, and I have to back up and say, "Wait a minute!" The story A.C.L.U. Will Consider Disciplining 2 Officials begins,

"The American Civil Liberties Union, which since its inception has fought to protect free speech rights, is scheduled to begin a debate today over whether to discipline - or potentially move to oust - two board members for speaking to reporters."

I am familiar with the First Amendment, which is the source of our "free speech rights" that the ACLU fights to protect. The First Amendment reads,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Now, there is a very big difference between the government, which the amendment prohibits from abridging the freedom of speech of its citizens, and anything any private organization does. The ACLU is not the government. In fact, the ACLU has fought to protect the rights of private organizations to do as they please.

This is not just a mistake -- a misunderstanding of the distinction between a government and a private organization -- this is an attack. The construction of this sentence declares that the ACLU is acting hypocritically by pretending to be an organization that protects rights while violating those very same rights of its Board members. The sentence might as well read, "ACLU says one thing but does another." And, of course, such hypocrisy undermines the credibility of the organization in the mind of the reader.

It is a serious matter when a newspaper like the New York Times so forcefully attacks the credibility of an organization like the ACLU. The editors at the Times must have been aware of this when they approved this story. Yet the attack rests on a misuse of the term "freedom of speech" that any informed person would catch, along with a reversal of the positions that the ACLU has taken! Why did the Times do this? It is like I am reading the Moonie right-wing Washington Times!

I guess I'll go read some blogs instead.

Air America recoups, expands

Media Life reports that nine months after it looked like Air America radio network would fold almost as soon as it started, it is expanding to three more large markets to reach 45 total. Programming will begin today on affiliates of the heavily Republican-oriented Clear Channel Network in Washington, D.C., Detroit and Cincinnati – an irony many listeners will understand. After Air America launched last spring, two affiliates accused it of failing to pay bills, and it soon went off the air in Chicago and Los Angeles, leaving it in only a handful of small markets. After two of its founders were forced out and some of the staff went without salary, the network stabilized over the summer and began adding markets. Advertising has picked up boosting revenues. Additionally, Media Life says that $19 million of private funding has been secured, and that the network is in talks to get back on the air in LA, one of the most critical and largest media markets in the nation.

I'm Still Sick

Sorry, still sick. No blogging.

Got some cough syrup with codeine in it, though.

Social Security

Social Security

Blog Action on Social Security

A new site is going up tonite called ThereIsNoCrisis.com.

ThereIsNoCrisis.com is intended as a fact repository and an initiator of action on this issue. It will help you with letters to editors, FAQs, links to articles, and, of course, a blog. The site will be promoted through a press and media campaign, including radio ads (which you can hear on the site). Chris at MyDD adds, "The site will also feature, among other things, rapid response, fact-checking, Google-bombing, links to allied organizations, printable resources, fainthearted faction updates, and new ads when they are ready."

From the site:

America promises that those who work hard and play by the rules deserve a secure retirement. For 70 years, Social Security has made sure we kept that promise. Social Security is in a healthier financial situation now than it has been for most of its history. Even the most pessemistic of economists agree it will remain solvent for decades. There is no crisis.

The Bush administration is using strategic lies to scare people into supporting a phase-out of Social Security. They are telling the public that there is a "crisis" and that Social Security is going "bankrupt." This is a lie. This is a strategic lie designed to lead the public down a path toward accepting their phase-out plan.

But the truth is: There Is No Crisis. And the truth can be more powerful than lies, if the public can hear the truth.

Blogs reach opinion leaders. Their reach goes far beyond just their daily readership because blogs link to each other, and are read by the press and political leaders. When enough bloggers pick up a subject you soon see what they are writing reflected in the press. You can already see the press reacting to blogger complaints about their coverage of the "crisis."

Bloggers - grab the blog ad below and put it on your site. Tell your readers about this new site, and ask them to tell others.



I'm asking my readers to send an e-mail to your list, asking people to visit ThereIsNoCrisis.com

Update - More here.

Flu Blogging

I didn't get a flu shot, and now I have the flu. Fever, bad cough, aching, fatigue, etc. Ugh.

Take The MyDD DNC Poll

There is a poll over at MyDD asking who you support for head of the Democratic Party.

This is for real, because Washington Democrats have started paying more attention to the "netroots" lately. (That's you.) If you care about this race for DNC Chair, go take the poll, it's in the right-hand column.

Throw Cursor a Buck

Cursor and Media Transparency are trying to raise a bit of cash to cover expenses.

Letter to Editor

Editors,

Why do you run a comic strip that tells your readers not to read or trust newspapers? How does that fit into your business model?

Prepare for the Onslaught

Recently I've been posting less for various reasons -- a family event, long-postponed non-political writing, and the need for R&R and time to think things over.

Another reason, though, is pessimism. To an extent I've been reluctant to say what I think because what I think is so depressing. Nonetheless, it has to be said.

In a recent New Yorker piece, Seymour Hersh has reported that the Bush administration plans to begin air attacks and covert actions against Iran this year, with the goal of toppling the Islamic regime. Bush himself has made it clear that he believes that the voters have given him a blank check, and that his critics (left, right, and center) are now irrelevant. I think that we can count on these attacks as a done deal. (The "Salvador option" we recently heard about might also still happen, though it might very well have just been a smokescreen. Even the Social Security reform he's been talking about might just have been intended to distract us from his big international plans.)

These new attacks are presumably just the second stage in the multi-nation plan Wolfowitz spoke about right before the war. In other words, we can plan to be at war for five to twenty years.

The Army and Guard are already being pushed to the limit. Thus, there will have to be a draft. But in order for there to be a draft, anti-war groups and spokesmen will have to be marginalized and crushed. So those of us who are anti-war should prepare to be called traitors and cowards with an intensity that we haven't seen so far. Ann Coulter is soon going to go completely mainstream.

As long as the wars are going reasonably well, they will be almost impossible to oppose. A lot of so-called moderates decided last November 2 to take another chance on Bush, and if they change their minds now it won't make a damn bit of difference. A big chunk of the Democratic Party will try to curry favor by supporting the new wars, too, but that won't do anyone any good either. The Democratic hawks won't be able to bring the whole party with them -- and anyway, why would the voters want to switch hawks in midstream? Bush is going to be in the driver's seat for some time.

As soon as the Iran phase starts, all of our criticisms of what happened before will be forgotten (if they haven't been already.) This is what Suskind's source meant when he talked about "creating reality". By using the power of the Commander in Chief to completely change the ball game, Bush is going to make a big chunk of recent political discussion permanently inoperative.

I always hated the complacency of the people who smirkingly bragged about being "reality-based". They missed the point of what had been said. Democrats figure out what past reality was like, and assume that future reality will be pretty much the same. Republicans figure out how future reality will be different from past reality, and then ask themselves what they can do to change and exploit this new reality. And they win that way.

I don't think that anyone in the Democratic Party (or the left blogosphere) is at all prepared for what's coming next. What I see now is people doing and saying the things that they should have been doing and saying in 2000.

As for me, I'm getting ready to hear myself being called a traitor by more and more, louder and louder voices during the next several years.

And wondering how the Patriot Act will change things. And wondering whether I'll be able to stay here. And wondering whether this is really my country at all any more.

Revised 8:30 AM PST Jan 18

P.S. Nobody seems as worried about this as I am. I've raised the issue at Yglesias and Drum's sites -- not everyone is as complacent as Matt and Kevin are, but I haven't noticed a feeling of urgency anywhere except at the The Talking Dog. The specifics of Hersh's piece aren't the most important thing -- they just confirm some conclusions that I think were already pretty reasonable without his piece.

Nobody really seems to be asking themself what the Bush people are getting ready to slam us with, now that their power is secure for another four years. In a way I can't blame anyone, because my conclusions don't lead to a plan of action or to any optimistic scenario. But in the face of the Bush onslaught which I expect, the slight tweaks of business-as-usual that Democrats are talking about seem really futile.