« Fighting a Very Expensive House of Cards | Main | White House Unveils New Escort Service »
Kid Gloves For Sale, Contact: Howard Kurtz
What exactly is Howie Kurtz's job at the Washington Post? Media critic? Because if it's "media critic", as his employers would suggest, someone needs to send him a job description. Immediately.
This morning's contribution to his non-stop praising of reporters has reached new heights in the land of Hacktacularia. "I love all reporters no matter what immoral, unethical, or downright dishonest things they do" seems to be Howie's motto. Here's a small sampling of the uncritical critique of Krauthammer and Kristol giving advice to the White House on policy:
Columnist Charles Krauthammer heaped praise on President Bush's inaugural address. But, he says, he had nothing to do with shaping the speech.
Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol also lauded the speech. He says he did not consult on the speech itself but discussed with two White House officials "themes for the second term and included in that, themes for the inaugural."
Both conservatives are unapologetic about having privately offered advice to top White House aides, saying that is perfectly proper for commentators.
All parents should love their children with the same unconditional and unapologetic acceptance that Howie shows Kristol and Krauthammer.
"What's so wrong with what Krauthammer and Kristol said?", you might be asking yourselves. Nothing much, except of course that it's a lie. And not only is it a lie, Kurtz proves that it's a lie and then chooses to ignore that fact. Here's what Krauthammer said about the meeting:
Krauthammer, whose op-ed column runs in The Post and is syndicated by The Washington Post Writers Group, said of his participation in a Jan. 10 meeting at the White House that it was "an informal, off-the-record discussion of U.S. Middle East policy. . . . This meeting was not designed to be the exercise in speech preparation. Nor did I have that impression during the meeting itself that it was. If I had, I would have mentioned it when commenting on it."
Here's what it said on the invitation to the meeting:
Wehner's invitation said: "What should this administration do/say more of -- and what should it do/say less of? What are the key, achievable goals we should aim for during the next four years?" In a follow-up note, Wehner asked Krauthammer to lead off the discussion on "spreading liberty to the Middle East."
Excuse me? Asking reporters, whose specific job it is to report on the White House, what the White House should be saying to reporters and how they should say it is now "perfectly proper"?
What struck me like a two-by-four upside the head when I read this article was the headline. Because the headline said it all, where we are, and where our media is heading:
Journalists Say Their White House Advice Crossed No Line
As if journalists giving the White House advice even has a line to cross. But I guess if you're Howie Kurtz there is a mile wide line available for all sorts of tiptoeing into, waltzing around, and leaping across as needed.
And when you do cross the line, he also has some custom made kid gloves he will happily don before sitting down at his desk to write about it.
Good one.
Krauthammer brands anyone criticizing Condi as racist & says if Clarence Thomas were to succeed Renquist & we put up any resistance, that would be racist.
In actuality, it's racist to promote minority token neocons and especially to disenfranchise minority voters.
& Kristol - it's no surprise we have neocon input into Presidential speeches. The State of the Union Address should be even wierder than the previous ones.
About Sen. Boxer
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=512&ncid=703&e=5&u=/ap/20050129/ap_on_go_co/barbara_boxer
A lot of great entries on the blog these last few days. I join everyone in post election weight gain. Perhaps we need a DCP Weight Watchers meeting.
I am reading “God’s Politics” by Jim Wallis. The book describes how problems such as poverty, war, ruining the environment and lying are religious values and how Democrats can become the party that embraces these values.
Wallis states that politicians walk around with a wet finger in the air looking for the wind. If we want to make changes then we have to change the wind. To change the wind, we must know what direction we want take. That is about vision. “When our public life falters and fails, it is usually for a lack of vision…And vision leads directly to values. What is politics for? What is the purpose of our public life, its meaning, its shaping and guiding principles? Where do we want to go and why? What do we want to achieve...what is good society?.”
Whenever we deal with social and economic decisions and policies, we must ask how it affects children. He suggests creating new ways of looking at problems and talking about crucial questions that could alter debates that have deadlocked us for so long and have allowed the Republicans to have the debate on their very narrow terms.
We must not be a party of complainers but be a party that provides solutions. We need solutions and we need to go beyond partisan politics. The conservatives are right when they say that social and moral issues of family breakdown, personal responsibility, sexual promiscuity, and substance abuse are prime reasons for domestic poverty. We Liberals are correct when we state the need for adequate nutrition, health care, education, housing and good paying jobs to overcome domestic poverty. But domestic poverty will not be overcome until all the above is done together. Our solutions may have to be more creative then before to that all sides accept them. We shift from protest to alternatives. The party of no will never be successful.
It is pretty obvious that Bush’s failure to support poor working families was an issue that in Wallis view is a religious failure. So are ruining the environment, fighting preemptive, unilateral, and optional wars. So is lying. Bush repeatedly gave Democrats soft targets but we missed them by not defining the problems in moral terms. This was done toward the end of the campaign but mainly in Churches, not on stump speeches.
Perhaps we could have a discussion about this book?
Great post, Casey. LOL
Regarding the Condi/racist thing - do we call them racist when they attack white men from Texas or Florida who happen to be Democrats?
I'm in favor, BB.
Perhaps we could have a discussion about this book?
Posted by: battlebob at January 29, 2005 08:03 PM
BB - I think that's a great idea. I'm increasingly impressed by Wallis and I, for one, would love to discuss his book.
There's a section on the forum "Suggestions for Future Readings" that asks for Book Chat suggestions. It would be great if you would add Wallis' book to the list.
http://www.democracycellproject.net/forum/index.php?s=a9cf2c6137c5b64859a229c6b8317826&showforum=30
Posted by: battlebob at January 29, 2005 08:03 PM
I'll pass your suggestion along. :-)
Also, if you'd like, you can post this in the Book Club Suggestion thread: SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE READINGS http://www.democracycellproject.net/forum/index.php?showforum=55
Resolute, LOL
Casey, old Howie lost his edge a long, long time ago. It's almost painful to watch him on Reliable Sources these days... especially since he seems to have lost the dictionary defination of "reliable" a few years back. (I say that, but actually haven't watched "RS" for months.)
Nice blog! Who knows? Howie may come 'round here to see what we great unwashed masses are thinking these days... LOL
A few minutes ago I was reading the "News" to find out what everyone including CNN is reporting when I came across and article that shocked me. It talked about the 3 News person paid by the government to support a Bush policy and how its against Federal Law to do so what shocked me was that is stated this in an article on CNN, I thought that interesting I may write a short note about it on the blog, i finishes scanning the news then checked the blog out, saw the article about Kurtz and thought that works as a place to put it and went back for it. Well its not there now anywhere not in politics nowhere now I know I wasnt seeing things. It was there now its gone, so I figure someone in the White House was checking the internet News sites and ran across it so in the twenty minutes it took to read other news and the blog it disappeared or did it?? well it may have except they did not kill the source link and i am learning a few things about computers and am now running a differant web browser that makes it super easy to find places you have visited.
So for anyone who did not see the referance to the legality of this practice is small but its there, I think someone in the White House must have thought ought oh when these stories started to come out which is why Bush disavowed the practice after department after department in his administration had done this for the last 4 years.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/28/paid.columnists.ap/index.html
That department, through a contract with the public relations firm Ketchum, hired commentator Armstrong Williams to produce ads that featured former Education Secretary Rod Paige and promoted President Bush's No Child Left Behind law. The contract also committed Williams, who is black, to provide media access for Paige and to persuade other black journalists to talk about the law.
Federal law bans the use of public money on propaganda.
This is from Christy on the chat room...
Just when you think BushCo can’t be worse, something comes along and tops it.
http://www.jg-tc.com/articles/2005/01/27/news/news03.txt
[snip]
Hartnett reported that all of the leadership personnel at the American military's Abu Ghraib facility were fired from jobs within prison systems in the United States. And they were dismissed for abuse of inmates, Hartnett said.
The three main instigators of the torture at Abu Ghraib were also alienated from their families at home, and each was under a restraining order from his wife, said Hartnett.
"The mastery they can't have at home, they have over there," he said.
And he said that America's "culture of brutality," where violence is entertainment, told these men that such mastery was their right.
so what kind of moral values are those eh?
Christians give Bush ultimatum to ban gay marriage
Conservative Christian leaders who played a key role in securing President George W Bush's re-election have given the White House an ultimatum over outlawing same-sex marriages.
(snip)
Mr Bush has said that "nothing will happen" for now on the proposed federal amendment leading to a constitutional ban on gay marriages. He did not mention the amendment in his inaugural address and the issue was not listed in the 10-point legislative agenda unveiled by Republican leaders in Congress last week.
(snip)
"We couldn't help but notice the contrast between how the President is approaching the difficult issue of social security privatisation, where the public is deeply divided, and the marriage issue, where public opinion is overwhelmingly on his side," the leaked letter said.
"Is he prepared to spend significant political capital on privatisation but reluctant to devote the same energy to preserving traditional marriage?
(snip)
"If Republicans do what they've done in the past, which is say, 'Thanks so much for putting us in power: now we don't want to talk to you any more', they will pay a serious price."
complete story:
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2
Hey BB!
That's his name...Jim Wallis. I saw him on the Daily Show a week or two ago and I posted about him here but couldn't remember his name. I read that the Dems hope to get him out and about more doing media interviews and such. We have to show that there's a whole other school of religious thought that teaches acceptance and tolerance, and actively engages in a whole list of social issues that need to be addressed such as the needs of the poor and homeless,anti-war stances,etc., that the evangelicals don't address. Anyway, I too think Jim Wallis is a welcomed addition to the cause. And of course,as expected, the RNC's spokeswolves have already started slamming him by marginalizing his influence by saying he's out of step with all the holy hucksters they usually deal with. I pray Mr. Wallis doesn't have any skeletons. Jerry Falwell et al can swindle every grandma in America out of her SS check with their rip-off prayerlines and sleep with every hooker working in the Deep South, and it's okay. A Dem has a concentual affair and they are moral deficient heathens. Mainstream media sucks.
Alternative to mainstream media:
(I'll watch JK tomorrow - lst political tv I've watched since his concession speech)
t r u t h o u t | 01.29
Robert Fisk | Iraqi Election Will Change the World. But ...
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/01292005A.shtml
United States and Europe Differ Over Strategy on Iran
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/01292005B.shtml
Security Nominee Gave Advice to the C.I.A. on Torture Laws
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/01292005C.shtml
Democrats Bash Bush Social Security Plan
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/01292005D.shtml
J. Sri Raman | When Nuclear Neighbors Fail to Hold Small Fire
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/01292005E.shtml
Senator Russ Feingold | Abolish the Federal Death Penalty
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/01292005F.shtml
It's Not All Blue Skies for Drilling Project
http://www.truthout.org/environment.shtml
U.S. Embassy in Baghdad Hit by Rocket, 2 Dead
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/01292005X.shtml
Who's Dying in Our War?
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/01292005Y.shtml
Sunni Arabs Concerned Over a 'Shiite Crescent' of Power
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/01292005Z.shtml
If you read Wallis's book and look at Bush's record, the conclusion to me is Bush has no right to mention moral values or religious vales.
My taking Wallis's message to heart, we can bury the Repubs.
Now read the post above where Abu Ghraib administrators were fired for prisoner abuse. We need to beat the Repubs bloody with these issues.
Senator Russ Feingold | Abolish the Federal Death Penalty
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/01292005F.shtml
Posted by: DiAnne at January 29, 2005 11:04 PM
I have always been passionately against the death penalty (kinda ironic, living in Texas lol) so i clicked on this link and it mentioned a possibility that Feingold would run for president in 08. ...what do you all think of that?
BB
Terri Gross of "Fresh Air" - on NPR - had Jim Wallis & Reverend Land both on the same night. Land is head of the Southern Baptist Conference & represents the religious polar opposite to Wallis. Wallis was also on the PBS Special on Bush & his religion, pointing out the "faux theology" of Bush, particularly making comparisons between America and "The Light" (using reference to a Biblical passage) ratherthan the inded comparison between God & "The Light." This is heresy, blasphemy. Wallis has a Sojourners website & I've been getting it since before the war - I realized during the buildup to the war that the progressive religious community was such an ally. In Seattle the inter-church council (multidenominational) provided around-the-clock surveillance of a mosque that a crazed suburban yahoo had tried to torch with gasoline before running his drunken self and his truck into a phone pole. They also ran one of 4 nights of the occupation of the Federal Building in Seattle, trading off with SNOW (Nonviolent Opposition), Not in Our Name & ANSWER. They are allies. I've also met Catholic sisters at peace rallies many times.
Native Texan
Feingold is awesome. Strategically I think we could do well with someone Hispanic from the Southwest, geographically, demographically. It will probably depend on the lay of the land by then & I'm sure we'll see jockeying between idealistic and pragmatic forces. I wish there could be a meeting of the minds. Kerry was about right but we had the NE liberal v Southern populist argument. I'd have thought addition of Edwards to the ticket might have helped but now am wondering if Gephart could have swung Iowa & Missouri. It's because of the electoral system we have that we have to think this way & it also allows the Republicans to do things like Ohio.
The Republicans did not run on principle at all, except for the "morals" issue & now they're betraying those who were stupid enough to vote against their own interests (so far - & that's typically what Republicans do to get in - there is no other populist attraction as most of those "moral" Americans are not rich corporate honchos).
The Republicans did do their homework when it came to demographics. They bombed in the midwest as far as taking electoral votes in the upper midwest but damn, they got Iowa! They didn't come into the cities but I can see the truth of their research that young, growing exurbs can be exploited by appealing to fear of terror & they did that (also with women). Now we're seeing the cheating they did by paying off black commentators (& add to that the making voting machines scarce in urban areas).
Why can't we just have a fair election?!!
In Iraq, the Republicans should not pray too hard for something - they just may get it - but not the "democracy" they expected. So why should they assume their dastardly plans won't backfire in the US as well? "Blowback" would seem to be a universal principle, not just limited to dirty dealings overseas. People are people & at some point they snap. The last thing this group so desperate to hang on to power cares about is the common man, here or elsewhere. They are not saying a word about the tsunami damage - is it gone?! In fact, the USS Lincoln is pulling out at the end of February, though it is out there "indefinitely".
BB: May I suggest that we forming Democracy Cells that involve walking different neighborhoods in an effort to not only shed those unwanted Republican induced armoring, but to get helathy, get to know the folks out there.
One thing we have talked about alot and I think would be a good plan to aluch for springtime, is how to get "inside" our neighborhoods, houses of worships, schools, etc.
If there is one thing we have in common in America, it's calories. But since you are supposed to be able to talk while you excercise, I see this as a great opportunity to take the knowledge, articles, REFRAMING LANGUAGE OF ISSUES ESPECIALLY, and make it go viral.
While I hate to go OT on myself (that just sounds weird, but moving right along), let's move this idea to the forum tomorrow and really start to flesh it out with launch dates and topics, etc.
If you are interested in working on this, could you post so on this thread? Thanks.
April:
I know the story you are talking about. Try Yahoo. Sometimes they take down stories to update them. Also, try to find it on Reuters or Ap. Then get it in front of the firewall by right clicking and clicking on the targetting function.
Hope it helps. If I come across the story you are talking about, I will try to get it to you either here on the blog or through someone in the IRC.
~it has been noted here that many of you have not watched TV news shows since Nov 2...but for those of us who still do, here's tomorrow mornings' scheduled line up....
*Take special note of MTP with interview of John Kerry...(for the next 4 years, I consider him my President. I hope he appears frequently in this venue.)
ABC's "This Week" - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind.
CBS' "Face the Nation" - Rice; Sens. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and Joseph Biden, D-Del.
**NBC's "Meet the Press" - Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.
CNN's "Late Edition" - Rice; Sens. John Warner, R-Va., and Carl Levin, D-Mich.; Iraqi politicians Ahmed Chalabi, Adnan Pachachi and Jalal Talabani; Iraqi security officials Mowaffak Al-Rubaie and Barham Salih; Feisal Istrabadi, Iraqi deputy permanent representative to the United Nations; Ken Pollack, Brookings Institution; retired Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Michael DeLong and retired Army Maj. Gen. James "Spider" Marks; former Coalition Provisional Authority advisers Brett McGurk and Peter Khalil; June Chwa-Detroit and Jeremy Copeland-Maryland, Iraq Out-of-Country Voting Program.
DiAnne,
I just had a repug tell me he would love to go against Feingold; that he would be easy. That would have worried me, but now I don't care what they saw anymore. This is about US working our tails off, and if we think someone is a great person, we can make them a tough candidate. ...except Hillary. I've always stated that I think she's great, but I will not back her for the nomination if she should run.
Of course you're right about the demographics. Something to keep in mind....
Battlebob, Casey
Here the antiwar movement that alot of people made fun of has already had the Democrats & these religious people unified for a long time. It's one of the secrets of why we are "blue." It works. True there was a broad spectrum for the Democratic party & "factions" - Kucinich to Dean to Kerry & on - but when push came to shove, you could see them unify. This time, because of the war, we also picked up a bunch of pro-life Catholics who are offended by the war, death penalty, neglect of the poor, torture and who are consistent in their regard for life. These are people who voted for Bush in 2000 but not 2004.
The harder group might be the fundamentalists. They have the potential to be alienated by both parties, as happened in 2000 (that's 5% of the Republican block & they abstained).
In the suburbs and more conservative communities here, I think many people could be persuaded along the lines you've described. It happened here across the lake where suburbia (the more affluent, in this case) usually votes Republican. Also, many areas "split" - as in the Dakotas where you see Democratic senators such as Daeschle or Dorgan or even McGovern but then they always go for Bush. If we are able to get around that, we will indeed have had a paradigm shift!
~another version of the BushInc Payola-gate scandal~
HHS says it paid columnist for help
By Jim Drinkard and Mark Memmott, USA TODAY
The Department of Health and Human Services acknowledged Thursday that it paid a syndicated columnist at least $4,000 for work on behalf of Bush administration efforts to promote marriage.
The disclosure came a day after President Bush called for an end to paying commentators to promote his policies. Wade Horn, assistant secretary for Children and Families at the department, responded Thursday by issuing new rules banning the practice. (Related story: Bush to agencies: Don't hire columnists)
Conservative commentator Armstrong Williams and syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher both had publicly backed Bush policies while being paid by the government without disclosing it.
On Thursday, a third example surfaced. Mike McManus, who writes a weekly column syndicated in 30 to 40 newspapers, said he was paid about $4,000 to train marriage mentors in 2003 and 2004. McManus was subcontracted by the Lewin Group, which had a contract to support community-based programs "to form and sustain healthy marriages."
McManus' non-profit group, Marriage Savers, also is being paid $49,000 by a group that received a Health and Human Services grant to teach similar principles to unwed couples who are having children.
Since the consulting deals began in January 2003, McManus has touted Bush's marriage initiative in several of his columns. At least three of them quoted Horn, a former member of the Marriage Savers board of directors. Horn's office manages the grant and contract under which McManus' group is paid.
continue~
http://tinyurl.com/3soom
Native Tex
I would back Feingold idealistically and Hillary pragmatically if it came down to it. I am not above nose plugging while voting. It would be so great if we had someone that people truly believed in though, if an idea simply got fire & if things "went viral," as Casey said. We would need someone inspiring, like a Martin Luther King for us all. We need someone who will make people jump ship, cross lines - because what they say resonates so deeply. Frankly, I can not name someone who could do this. Barak Obama got a larger victory and more reknown than anyone in recent memory. That gives a glimpse that it is possible. People do seem to go for a cult of personality but if this was combined with values - & what could help us would be alot of "buyer's remorse" for Bush. I think we are seeing it already. I can't believe Americans are ready for total propaganda as we still have 4 year terms & actually do (sort of) have elections, vs how they'd probably like it - same dictator for 30 years or so like Saddam or Castro or Kim can do.
I think they hope for a one-party system like Putin, who has "opponents" but they get no airtime. We're headed in that direction but we would have to be a much more controlled society before we could be sufficiently clamped down on.
DiAnne:
It's so funny to read now what we've known since last year....Shrub has no plans of making gay marriage a federal issue. The sad part is that JK lost some votes over this. Black evangelicals who are not thrilled with Shrub voted for him because of this issue. I'm not sure if JK lost any white evangelical votes over this but at the very least this crowd wouldn't have bothered to show up en masse like they did in the red states and swing states - which of course pumped up Shrub's final national vote tally.
Although I think people mostly voted over national security issues, Rove did fire up those evangelicals and if they had stayed home, JK could have maybe better counterbalanced the effect of losing the votes of folks who weren't comfortable with switiching presidents during a time of war.
The religious right, as we have been saying all along, are, rightly, going to get screwed over this. For starters, Cheney's daughter is gay. I personally think that's the point JK was trying to make during the debates. He was trying to tell the religious right what was up all along. The man who is really in charge - Darth Cheney- has a gay daughter he loves and accepts, so the federal gay marriage hype they are spreading is just that. To try to appease this crowd, because they will maybe need them during the midterms, the RNC may launch anti-gay legislation in susceptible red states. It got them out in '04 so look for them to do this again on a state level in 2008. From this leaked letter however it seems as though state initiatives won't be good enough for that crowd. Shrub will play this from the middle, trying to appear moderate and will make the right look like unreasonable wackos. Rove will turn the question to, "Well it's banned in all the red states where they mostly live, what more do they want?" These religious right zealots got played big time and the sooner they realize it and decide to either stay home during the next election or throw their support behind some third party wingnut who doesn't stand a snowball's chance thereby undercutting the Repub candidate's support, the better. On the longshot they do bother to pretend to pass a federal law just to look good to the far right, look for them to blame the Dems and RINOs for it. Just like they will blame the Iraqi people for "not wanting freedom" when we finish our rape of their country's resources and decide to pull out.
And as for the abortion issue, I think the liberal and moderate judges on the SC who are expected to step down in the next four years will try to stick it out as long as physically possible beause they see the danger this country is in. They may have to be hooked to EKGs and IVs, but I pray they stick it out for this ocuntry's sake.
Another article found by Christy...
An influential congressional committee has dropped a political bombshell by suggesting that a tax originally created to pay for the Spanish American War could be extended to all Internet and data connections this year.
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-5555385.html?tag=sas.email
[snip]
Currently, the 3 percent excise tax applies only to traditional telephone service. But because of technological convergence and the dropping popularity of landlines, the Joint Committee on Taxation concluded in its review of tax law reforms that it might make sense to extend the 100-year old levy to new technologies. The committee did not take a position on whether Congress should approve such an extension and simply listed it as an "option."
DiAnne-
If Hillary were the nominee, I would of course vote for her. But as far as the primaries go, I wouldn't simply because I don't think she could win. I definately agree with you that we need a MLK-like figure. For me, I will always have Kerry, because he always insipres me. But as for the country/party as a whole... who knows. Obama is great, but i guess people will say he needs a bit of time in senate first.
A friend told me the other day that a sucessful movement has:
-organization
-communication
-leaders
-manifestos
-tactics
-goals
I supose as the 'progressive movement', we will have to build on all of these things.
Vets for Peace, Mpls just put this up -
Iraq Election demonstrators in Minneapolis.
Cool photos. Feel free to comment.
http://nyc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/140256/index.php
Re: Feingold -
JK changed the party platform by removing language about the death penalty, but he was smart to not run on the issue. The sad fact is that most Americans are for the death penalty.
It'll be interesting to see how Feingold does. He has been replaced as a darling of the left by Boxer. He's been slammed on the blogs for his tie breaking vote for Ashcroft and his most recent vote for Condi. His stock has plummeted on DK.
~hot off the presses, from Sunday's NYT= Dems on Soc. Sec...(sorry in advance for posting entire length, but reg. is req.)~
CONGRESSIONAL MEMO
For Democrats, Social Security Becomes a Defining Test
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
Published: January 30, 2005
WASHINGTON, - When Harry Reid, the Senate Democratic leader, unveiled his top 10 legislative priorities earlier this week, the issue that will dominate the Republican-controlled Congress in 2005 - Social Security - was not on the list. But that does not mean Democrats are uninterested.
In fact, Social Security - or, more precisely, beating back President Bush's plan to partly privatize it - is the Democrats' most important priority this year. With the White House and Congress firmly in Republican hands, Social Security has emerged as a make-or-break issue for Democrats, who see confronting the president as politically crucial.
If they can convince Americans that Mr. Bush is trying to dismantle the 70-year-old program, they will have a rallying cry to re-energize them after their bruising losses in November. A victory on Social Security would embolden them to challenge the White House on other issues, like the president's effort to cap jury awards in medical malpractice cases. And they would be strengthened for 2006 and the midterm elections, when the party in power typically loses seats.
"They kind of need to get back on the scoreboard," said Charlie Cook, a political analyst who tracks Congress. "They're a team that needs to win, and this is a big, big game."
The Democratic whip, Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, calls Social Security "the most unifying issue you can imagine," and to demonstrate that unity, Senate Democrats staged a one-sided hearing over the issue on Friday. A collection of senators, all Democrats, heard from Social Security employees who said they had been pressured to sell the White House plan, and from James Roosevelt Jr., former official of the Social Security Administration and grandson of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who created the program in 1935.
The session, packed with Capitol Hill aides in the audience to make it look crowded, was conveniently held on a day when most Republicans were far away, at a retreat in West Virginia. One Democrat after another lambasted the president's plan. "A tragic mistake," said Senator Mark Dayton of Minnesota. A plot to sacrifice the financial security of retirees, said Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, "so that more equity traders can buy summer homes in the Hamptons."
For the moment, the war over Social Security is a war of words, with the White House trying to convince Americans that the system is in crisis and Democrats trying to convince them that it is not. If Mr. Bush prevails and persuades the nation that the cure is private investment accounts, Democrats will have ceded one of their core issues to Republicans - and with it a core constituency, the elderly, who are already voting Republican in bigger numbers than ever.
"If we let the president successfully convince people there's a crisis in Social Security, when in fact there is no crisis at all, then shame on us," said Senator Byron L. Dorgan of North Dakota, who as chairman of the Senate Democratic Policy Committee presided over Friday's hearing. "We've got to fight on this issue, and we've got to wage an aggressive fight."
On that score, Democrats have been getting some help from Republicans, who are hardly united over the White House plan. Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, who is in charge of getting more Democrats elected to the Senate in 2006, says he hopes to exploit those divisions all the way to the polls.
"I think the feeling among Democrats," Mr. Schumer said, "is we've been handed a gift."
Some see Democrats taking a page from the House Republicans of a decade ago, who stood firm against President Bill Clinton when he called for a government-created universal health care program and who then rode that issue to victory in the 1994 midterm elections.
"It's eerily similar that in '93, the Clinton administration said there was a health care crisis," said Marshall Wittman, a senior fellow at the Democratic Leadership Council. "That's why you hear many Democrats now drawing the line on the question of whether there is a Social Security crisis."
Still, Democrats know that if they are going to find a way out of the minority, they must do more than simply block the White House, a tactic that led Republicans to define the last Senate Democratic leader, Tom Daschle of South Dakota, as an "obstructionist" and contributed to his defeat in November. They will need to come up with their own idea for revamping Social Security, and Mr. Reid promised they would - but not before Mr. Bush puts forth some specifics.
"The rubber is going to meet the road very soon, because he's going to have to put something in writing," Mr. Reid said of the president. "And when that comes forward, we'll be happy to take a look at it."
Republicans, for their part, are portraying Democrats as do-nothing lawmakers who would "pass the buck" to the next generation, as Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania told reporters this week. Mr. Santorum said he hoped some "brave souls on the other side" would cooperate. The likely suspects: Democrats from Republican-leaning states who are up for re-election in 2006.
One such Democrat, Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, has taken a tentative step toward working across party lines, by attending a private meeting with Republicans, led by Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, to talk about Social Security. But Mr. Graham's idea, to increase Social Security taxes as a way of financing the transition to private accounts, is not in favor at the White House.
Another Democrat from a heavily Republican state, Senator Max Baucus of Montana, joined Republicans to help pass Mr. Bush's tax cuts and prescription drug coverage for the elderly. But Mr. Baucus, who as the senior Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee is the party's point man on Social Security, says he will not join the president in the current fight.
Across the Capitol in the House, Representative Harold E. Ford Jr., Democrat of Tennessee, has in the past embraced the concept of private accounts. But Mr. Ford, who intends to seek the Senate seat being vacated in 2006 by the Republican leader, Bill Frist, also opposes Mr. Bush's plan.
"The math isn't right," Mr. Ford said, adding that while he liked "the idea of building wealth," he did not favor using private accounts to replace any of the guaranteed Social Security benefit.
The challenge now for Senator Reid and his House counterpart, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, is to keep lawmakers like Mr. Ford in step with the party. Steve Jarding, a Democratic consultant, said it was critical for Democrats to stand firm.
"I'm not sure Democrats have hit rock bottom," Mr. Jarding said, "but if they lose this one, we can establish a new floor."
http://tinyurl.com/5joc9
Native Texan
I was using Obama as an example. I think there will be rising stars or someone who will be seen as the right person in the right place at the right time, who can win. That was John Kerry except 9/11 was exploited by the Republicans, & the social conservatives were duped. I also suspect alot of tax money was used in addition to the hundreds of millions of large donor & corporate money the opposition had. We did rather well, considering all that.
I have said probably ad nauseum that I was inspired to work for McCarthy, McGovern in a Dean-follower like way, as I was young & idealistic & there was an atrocious & immoral war on. I was in the red state of South Dakota but then I'm a 5th generation Democrat. Later I always voted but worked for causes rather than candidates (antiwar, antinuclear, feminism, environmentalism) so was a "progressive liberal". I was a Hart delegate (so happy when he endorsed Kerry & antennae out when he predicted terror problems we ended up having & many didn't listen). I voted for Clinton twice & Gore but didn't work for them. I considered them too centrist & now I wish I'd been more pragmatic & done more but didn't imagine Bush II could be worse than Nixon, Reagan or certainly his dad.
This election, I personally heard (over 2 years) hundreds of people say that this was the first time they ever worked for or donated to a candidate. I met I will say dozens of converting Republicans. I still can't believe we "lost" but we did collect phenomenal small donations & most people voted since wasn't it some time in the '60s? (I'm forgetting now - the "mandate" business is the complete opposite of reality).
On to Victory
Thanks for that great article!! It's important.
All we'd have to do to make Social Security solvent for the forseeable future is raise the maximum one can earn and still have to pay in payroll tax. Currently, I believe it's $85,000. Why not raise it? Social Security was already adjusted so as workers come of age they have to work longer.
Re. the Gonzales issue I remember reading on the Forum (from Dick) that if the Dems voted together along with Jeffords the Independent and six Republicans, the confirmation of torturer-planner/endorser Gonzales couuld be stopped. I wonder if the same is true of Social Security? Do they need 60 Senators to change the law?
My mom said Bush is coming to Fargo ND - she lives in Jamestown - an hour or so away. She said people there are highly flattered (older people) that Bush is coming to their state. So good to see that their Dem Senator is not being swayed so far. We know that Bush operates not only with propaganda but with bribes, as we saw with the native American tribes & others.
If the Dems can get alot done while the Republicans are away at a retreat, think what they can do while Condi & Bush go overseas!
Too bad Santorum can't be shipped somewhere
So Harold Ford is running for Frist's seat? That would definitely be a step up for Tennessee. Frist sucks. Harold is kinda conservative - a "blue dawg" Dem I think. Changing his mind on the SS issue will be a soft spot for him during the election but he is a rock star in Tennessee and I think they will turn out for him.
This election, I personally heard (over 2 years) hundreds of people say that this was the first time they ever worked for or donated to a candidate. I met I will say dozens of converting Republicans. I still can't believe we "lost" but we did collect phenomenal small donations & most people voted since wasn't it some time in the '60s? (I'm forgetting now - the "mandate" business is the complete opposite of reality).
Posted by: DiAnne at January 30, 2005 12:13 AM
I like how you put "lost" in quotes, not just because we may never know what REALLY happened, but because you're right- people worked for Kerry who had never participated before- myself among them. I've talked to many students who are incredibly motivated now, and of course all the Republicans who are appauled by bush. I think we gained more in this election than some social conservative who voted for bush because he liked his tax cuts could ever gain. Bush may have gotten more votes, but he got them by scaring people and from people who are affraid of gay marriage. We got our votes by challenging people to ask "what if?" and from people who were motivatived to create possitive change and fight for democracy in their country. Because of this, WE have the mandate.
I don't know if I mentioned this to you before, but my parents met working on McGovern campaign and i think, like you, they are still inspired by memories of that campaign. =)
Posted by: florida dem at January 30, 2005 12:23 AM
Wow, imagine defeating Frist! That would be wonderful!
Want to clarify this point I made earlier....
On the longshot they do bother to pretend to pass a federal law just to look good to the far right, look for them to blame the Dems and RINOs for it failing.
Hey Native!
Native - Frist isn't running for that seat, he's running for president. Ack! He will be the candidate of choice for religious zealots. But I'm not sure party leadership is thrilled with him. They'd prefer Jeb, I'm sure.
Here's a thought...maybe Dems can forge a partnership with the religious right to stop this SS private account nonsense. That could be our inroad into this community. It's a start.
Hi Florida! Haven't talked to you in a while! ...where did you find info on Harold Ford? God, I would love to see Frist lose...
Native -
It's posted at: Posted by: on.to.victory4Dems at January 30, 2005 12:09 AM
Check out the last few paras of that story. Ford's intentions are mentioned.
Native - Frist is vacating his senate seat to run for prez. So unfortunately we won't have the pleasure of stomping him in the ground, which I think Harold could.
With Frist vacating his post in '06, does that mean Delay or Santorium will move up to Majority Leader???
oh the horror!!
Now THAT'S incentive enough for us to work really really really hard get a DEM MAJORITY back to the House of Rep. in '06!!
ok, I just realized my mistake, Santorum is a senator, not a Rep.....but that still leaves Delay to take Frist's position....ugh..
Only sign what you agree with - for example, some advocate increase of minimum wage to $10/hour (from http:/www.oldamericancentury.org)
http://www.boycott-republicans.com
Write this url on your one, five and ten dollar bills (if you want).
Sign the petition to stop social security privatization, increase the minimum wage, and repeal the faulty Republican prescription drug benefit and replace it with a simple 80 percent coverage of medication under Medicare Part B
(if you agree).
http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/progressive
Sign the petition to stop the War and Occupation in Iraq (if you agree)
http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/stopthewar
Also visit these fine websites (if you want to)
http://www.Buyblue.org
http://www.choosetheblue.com
http://www.bushblackout.com
http://www.imblue.net
http://www.ididnotvote4bush.com
http://www.2005blue.com
ok, its late, I should think before I post :)
...Santorum is a senator, so is Frist...its Delay who is a Representative...so its Santorum who would be "moving up"...
right???
~when JK/JE said so many times on the campaign trail that "Everything is at stake" in the election, they were so right!
Bush Aims To Forge A GOP Legacy
Second-Term Plans Look to Undercut Democratic Pillars
By Thomas B. Edsall and John F. Harris
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, January 30, 2005; Page A01
When President Bush stands before Congress on Wednesday night to deliver his State of the Union address, it is a safe bet that he will not announce that one of his goals is the long-term enfeeblement of the Democratic Party.
But a recurring theme of many items on Bush's second-term domestic agenda is that if enacted, they would weaken political and financial pillars that have propped up Democrats for years, political strategists from both parties say.
Legislation putting caps on civil damage awards, for instance, would choke income to trial lawyers, among the most generous contributors to the Democratic Party.
GOP strategists, likewise, hope that the proposed changes to Social Security can transform a program that has long been identified with the Democrats, creating a generation of new investors who see their interests allied with the Republicans.
Less visible policies also have sharp political overtones. The administration's transformation of civil service rules at federal agencies, for instance, would limit the power and membership of public employee unions -- an important Democratic financial artery.
If the Bush agenda is enacted, "there will be a continued growth in the percentage of Americans who consider themselves Republican, both in terms of self-identified party ID and in terms of their [economic] interests," said Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform and an operative who speaks regularly with White House senior adviser Karl Rove.
Many Democrats and independent analysts see a methodical strategy at work. They believe the White House has expressly tailored its domestic agenda to maximize hazards for Democrats and tilt the political playing field in the GOP's favor long after this president is out of the White House.
continue~
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47559-2005Jan29.html
said Grover Norquist, "starve the beast"
starve the beast v. To cut taxes with the intent of using the reduced revenue as an excuse to drastically reduce the size and number of services offered by a government.
—starve-the-beast n., adj.
—starving the beast n., pp.
—starve-the-beaster n.
Example Citations:
The starve-the-beast doctrine is now firmly within the conservative mainstream. George W. Bush himself seemed to endorse the doctrine as the budget surplus evaporated: in August 2001 he called the disappearing surplus "incredibly positive news" because it would put Congress in a "fiscal straitjacket."
Like supply-siders, starve-the-beasters favor tax cuts mainly for people with high incomes. That is partly because, like supply-siders, they emphasize the incentive effects of cutting the top marginal rate; they just don't believe that those incentive effects are big enough that tax cuts pay for themselves. But they have another reason for cutting taxes mainly on the rich, which has become known as the "lucky ducky" argument.
Here's how the argument runs: to starve the beast, you must not only deny funds to the government; you must make voters hate the government. There's a danger that working-class families might see government as their friend: because their incomes are low, they don't pay much in taxes, while they benefit from public spending. So in starving the beast, you must take care not to cut taxes on these "lucky duckies." (Yes, that's what The Wall Street Journal called them in a famous editorial.) In fact, if possible, you must raise taxes on working-class Americans in order, as The Journal said, to get their "blood boiling with tax rage."
—Paul Krugman, "The Tax-Cut Con," The New York Times, September 14, 2003
Quotes by Grover Norquist:
On Pat Robertson's 700 Club, Norquist said the following about the Bush Adminstration, “We is them, and they is us. When I walk through the White House, I recognize as many people as when I would walk through the Heritage Foundation.”
“My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.”
“I want to reduce the size of government in half as a percentage of GNP [gross national product] over the next 25 years. We want to reduce the number of people depending on government so there is more autonomy and more free citizens.”
“Every time you cut programs, you take away a person who has a vested interest in high taxes and you put him on the tax rolls and make him a taxpayer. A farmer on subsidies is part welfare bum, whereas a free-market farmer is a small businessman with a gun.”
“In the old days, George Wallace stood in the schoolhouse doorway and told children they could not come in. Today, the foes of school choice stand in the doorway and say to the grandchildren of George Wallace's victims, “You cannot get out.”
Grover Norquist is “the person who I regard as the most innovative, creative, courageous and entrepreneurial leader of the anti-tax efforts and of conservative grassroots activism in America . . . He has truly made a difference and truly changed American history.”-- Former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA)
“Americans for Tax Reform is a wonderful-sounding name. As far as I’m concerned, it’s a front organization for Grover Norquist’s lobbying activities.” --Former Sen. Warren Rudman (R-NH)
Norquist is “the V.I. Lenin of the anti-tax movement.”
-- Paul Gigot, Wall Street Journal columnist
“Americans for Tax Reform is a front for the Republican Party. Republicans are hiding money in this group, and that is fundamentally dishonest.” --Charles Lewis, executive director of the Center for Public Integrity
“You can wear too many hats and [Norquist] does. He’s a whole hat store. And that’s the conflict of interest: He’s head of a non-profit. He’s a corporate lobbyist. He’s a foreign lobbyist. This gives nonprofits, which are supposed to be doing research, a bad name.” --Charles Lewis, executive director of the Center for Public Integrity
I think the below story is the one April was referring to where the link doesn't work. I had already gotten the link off of one of my e-newsletters and read the story. It's on a yahoo page, but I think the link was in the Information Clearinghouse e-newsletter.... (I've encountered the phenomenon before of disappearing stories. When I see something really interesting, I go to the trouble of opening a new email page, and instantly copying the link, and then copying and pasting the story into a draft email that I save with the title of the story and the date in the subject line.... Usually to get the story without ads I copy and paste the story off of the 'print page' that often comes up without ads, and/or I use plain text so ads disappear, even if I have to edit out text from ads that still copy. It's also a useful way to send stories to people who are not signed up for as many newsletters as I get, or have time to wade through all those stories....)
This proposed legislation sounds nifty. Wonder what the actual bill says, and where the loopholes might be? More interesting yet is the name of the publication it originally came from... not a mainstream newspaper...!!!
Sens. to Introduce 'Stop Government Propaganda Act'
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ep/20050127/en_bpiep/senstointroducestopgovernmentpropagandaact
http://tinyurl.com/3rm89
Sens. to Introduce 'Stop Government Propaganda Act'
Thu Jan 27, 6:40 PM ET Entertainment - Editor and Publisher
NEW YORK In response to continued revelations of government-funded "journalism" -- ranging from the purported video news releases put out by the drug czar's office and the Department of Health and Human Services to the recently uncovered payments to columnists Armstrong Williams and Maggie Gallagher,who flacked administration programs -- Sens. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.) will introduce a bill, The Stop Government Propaganda Act, in the Senate next week.
"It's just not enough to say, 'Please don't do it anymore,'" Alex Formuzis, Lautenberg's spokesman, told E&P. "Legislation sometimes is required and we believe it is in this case."
The Stop Government Propaganda Act states, "Funds appropriated to an Executive branch agency may not be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States unless authorized by law."
"It's time for Congress to shut down the Administration's propaganda mill," Lautenberg said in a statement. "It has no place in the United States Government." The bill is co-sponsored by Sens. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) and Jon Corzine (D-N.J.).
Formuzis told E&P that while the bill is being introduced by Democrats, its message and intent is something endorsed by Republicans and Democrats alike.
"We only have a few senators on the bill so far, but we hope and expect that we'll get a number of others to sign on to the legislation once we introduce it," he said. "This is not a Republican or Democratic issue. This is an issue about an independent press, and I think that's something that will cross party lines."
The act would allow citizens to bring qui tam lawsuits on behalf of the United States government when the Department of Justice does not respond.
If the matter is taken to court, the bill proposes that the senior official responsible would be fined three times the amount of the "misspent taxpayer funds" plus an additional fine ranging from $5,000 to $10,000. And if a citizen's qui tam suit is accepted, the bill proposes that the plaintiff receives between 25 and 30% of the proceeds of the fine.
"The President said that his cabinet agencies made a mistake when they paid commentators to promote his agenda," Kennedy said in a statement. "It's more than just a mistake, it's an abuse of taxpayer funds and an abuse of the First Amendment and freedom of the press. ... If the President is serious about stopping these abuses, he will support this legislation."
According to a release, publicity or propaganda is defined in the bill as: news releases or publications that do not clearly identify the government agency responsible for the content; audio/visual or Internet presentations that do not identify the responsible government agency; any attempt to manipulate journalists or news organizations; messages created to aid a political party or candidate; messages with a "self-aggrandizing" purpose or "puffery of the Administration, agency, executive branch programs or policies or pending legislation"; and, finally, messages that are "so misleading or inaccurate that they constitute propaganda."
Brian Orloff (borloff@editorandpublisher.com) is a reporter for E&P.
This organization is so important, started during the Reagan years, I think - check out Rightwing Watch. These guys are pros. I plan to make more use of this site.
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=163
People For The American Way
People For the American Way Foundation is a 300,000-member national nonprofit organization that defends constitutional and civil rights and promotes the democratic values of citizen participation, freedom of expression and respect for diversity.
It's also Ed Asner's group & if you've never seen Ed Asner speak, you should. I'd like us to have a podcast with him.
RFK Bashes Bush for 'Crimes Against Nature'
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0128-08.htm
[RFK talks about media in this, and has some observations about media....]
Latino Democrat Lawmakers Won't Back US Attorney General Nominee
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0128-06.htm
Joan Chittister | What the Rest of the World Watched on Inauguration Day
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0128-35.htm
[I remember the Moyers interview with Chittister from before the election. What she has to say in this article gives one pause for thought.... I sent the story out as an email....]
Karyn Strickler | Is It Time For A Corporate Death Penalty Act?
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0128-22.htm
Congress proposes tax on all Net, data connections:
An influential congressional committee has dropped a political bombshell by suggesting that a tax originally created to pay for the Spanish American War could be extended to all Internet and data connections this year.
http://news.com.com/Congress%20proposes%20tax%20on%20all%20Net,%20data%20connections/2100-1028_3-5555385.html
http://tinyurl.com/55ezr
Americana Mindless :
How does a nation lose its mind? Ask the ancient Romans. Ask the Nazis. Ask the Khmer Rouge, Ask Robert Mugabe. Ask George W. Bush, or the millions who voted for his gangster government
http://207.44.245.159/article7905.htm
U.S. Companies Back in Business in Libya
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=580&e=2&u=/nm/20050129/bs_nm/energy_libya_bids_dc
This is another site that I'm completely sold on.
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/c.biJRJ8OVF/b.8473/
"liberal thinktank"
More on how People for the American Way started - this is part of why you will hear rightwingnuts talk about "damn Hollywood liberals"
People for the American Way, according to the organization's history, began in 1980 when "acclaimed television and movie producer Norman Lear began searching for an appropriate response to [what he perceived as] a new and disturbing political movement in America. The Religious Right was determined to impose a radical and extremist agenda, one that acknowledged only its leaders' religious beliefs, and that sought to diminish Americans' fundamental freedoms. Those who dared dissent, the Religious Right called 'atheistic,' 'immoral,' 'anti-Christian,' and 'anti-family' ... [i.e.] Jerry Falwell. Pat Robertson. The Moral Majority ... Religious bigotry. Anti-Semitism."[1] (http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=2851)
"Lear's unique approach was to create a series of television commercials celebrating difference. The ads featured a mix of recognizable faces - Muhammad Ali and Goldie Hawn, for example - with average Americans. The overwhelming response to the ads led Lear to create People For the American Way. And in the 20+ years that followed, through a variety of political battles, the organization has advanced the same basic themes - embracing America's diversity, respecting Americans' rights, defending liberty, democracy and the American Way."[2] (http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=2851)
Posted by: DiAnne at January 30, 2005 02:23 AM
DiAnne: That web site also has an e-newsletter, and they send out bulletins. (I signed up for it a while back.)
Michael Moore's site now has a "To Do" list - very cool!
http://www.michaelmoore.com/
I like all the emphasis on ACTION.
Thanks for the PFAW link, DiAnne! :-) I signed up for their e-newsletter, too.... :-)
..... she writes..., like she needed to be on yet another progressive and/or liberal e-newletter mailing list.... :-)
A couple of chuckles in the Sunday column by WaPo Ombudsman Michael Getler:
On the lighter side of the news business last week, the Style section last Tuesday featured an "Appreciation" of Rose Mary Woods, who died last week at the age of 87. She was the former secretary to President Richard Nixon who had claimed in 1973 to have inadvertently caused an 18 1/2-minute gap in a tape recording that would have been crucial to the Watergate investigation. The Style story, by Hank Stuever, had a big chunk of white space in the middle. It was a spoof, but some readers didn't get it and wanted either a new paper or the story restored online.
On the other hand, The Post got fooled in its special inaugural edition Jan. 21. It published a picture of a middle-aged guy in a tuxedo waving his wallet at an anti-Bush protester and saying he wanted to thank the president for the tax cuts. The man was identified in the caption as Rich R. Danu of Detroit. Thanks to Erik Wemple of Washington's City Paper, we now know that Rich R. Danu was part of a group called "Billionaires for Bush, a bunch of lefty satirists who parade around in jewels and rich-person outfits pushing their 'agenda.' " Other members' names include "Ivana Moore-Enmoore, Robin Eublind and Fillmore Barrels."
Gaps in Disclosure, and in Satire
By Michael Getler
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47781-2005Jan29.html
Kerry Demands Investigation into SBA Fraud; Small Business Groups Cheer
29 January 2005
As a small business owner, I have always admired John Kerry’s work in Senate as Ranking Member of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Small Business is the cornerstone of the American economy, yet we hear so little about the tireless work from John Kerry to protect the interests of Small Business and to help Small Businesses receive funding from programs like the Micro-Loan program.
Although George W. Bush likes to portray himself as a friend to Small Business, in reality he is a friend to BIG BUSINESS. Small Business owners who went along for the ride and voted for Bush are in for a rude awakening, if they have not already figured out that, they have been duped.
http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=295
"Bah!", he said as an aside. Look at it logically, what we are colectively saying here: the self-serving implications & the extent to which theoretical social analysts and/or conspiracy theorists in general monitor & make notes of the convos in this and similar politrix-related blogs and IRC channels and websites can never fail to amaze me, you know... it is enough to collectively croggle the mind, aye.
I mean, look at what your (our) selves continue to cogitate about and discuss at some length here in the channel and and in the forums and all, not just DCP's own but in DU's and Koz's and all the such like routes for words upon words to be written and read, and then read again, and, well, and it gives one pause...
Because it is all so very easy to see how simple it is for the Other Side to portray us all as braying fools and whining losers and such... which is all the more reason why we need to measure the relative proportions of how much we talk about what we *can* do to make things better for us & our children, versus how much we whine & whinge about what's fupped-duck about who's in place and how outnumbered and powerless we are, thanks to the neocon bots that have been let loose in the world...
And sometimes it's hard to feel anything but pessimistic about who we are and what we're trying to do any more... but that is *all* the more reason to ask & keep asking yourselves, "is this *really* what we want to be doing and what we want to be saying, or are we just being suckered into playing again the fools' game that the other side has so conveniently laid out for us?
The Democracy Cell Project exists because it stands *for* something, something brave and strong and powerful, not just because it stands against something else that we find reprehensible.
We cannot afford to lose ourselves in redundant recriminations and regrets and wishes about what could have been but ultimately wasn't this time -- but now we can and we must and we *shall* rise up and stand up *for* what can be, *for* what we believe in -- *for* the irresistible force of the thousands and then the millions of citizens shouting out loud:
"This is our country! *OUR* country! And we're taking it back, right now, and right here! Because you can't steal it, and you can't have it, and you can't take it away from us any more!"
This is our country, people, to have and to hold. And hold it we will, and have it we shall, and no one -- I mean NO ONE -- will be able to stand between us and that goal.
"My country,' tis of thee,
sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing;
land where my fathers died,
land of the pilgrims' pride,
from every mountainside,
let freedom ring!
"My native country, thee,
land of the noble free, thy name I love;
I love thy rocks and rills,
thy woods and templed hills;
my heart with rapture thrills,
like that above.
"Let music swell the breeze,
and ring from all the trees,
sweet freedom's song;
"Let mortal tongues awake;
let all that breathe partake;
let rocks their silence break,
the sound prolong."
Karl Rove, this is *my* country, not yours. Donald Rumsfeld, this is *my* country, not yours. Condoleeza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, John Ashcroft, Tom DeLay, and especially Mr. George W. Bush -- this is *my* country, not yours.
You can love it or you can leave it. But dammitalltohell, this is *my* country -- and I am taking it back, starting right *now*. So deal with that, or don't -- it's your call. But just don't you dare come knockin' on my front door tryin' to tell me that you're heroes when I know damn well than you're nothin' but zeros... and zeros with a great big capital Z, too.
Meal from Hell Whets Appetite for US-Iran Clash
Sat Jan 29, 2005 4:31 PM ET
By Paul Taylor
DAVOS, Switzerland (Reuters) - Call it the meal from hell.
A World Economic Forum dinner designed to promote dialogue between Iran and the United States on Friday night began with a comic strip series of diplomatic and gastronomic blunders, and ended with a sharp exchange over nuclear weapons.
With Iran's vice-president and foreign minister in the room, the organizers began by announcing they had disinvited Swiss cartoonist Patrick Chappatte, one of the listed panelists, because the issues were too serious.
The star guest, U.S. Senator Joe Biden, ranking Democrat on the Senate foreign relations committee, was missing. The organizers kept saying he was on his way.
Moderator David Ignatius, a Washington Post columnist, apologized for the fact that wine had been served, upsetting the Muslim guests. Waiters cleared the offending glasses.
They also removed the menus since the hotel had planned to serve non-hallal meat, breaching Islamic dietary rules. Even the soup spoons were withdrawn -- erroneously, it transpired.
One participant asked whether different cultures could not tolerate each other's dietary customs. Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi responded that tolerance was fine but it did not mean people should not respect each other's religious values.
If wine was served, his delegation could not participate in the meal, he said.
SELF-SUFFICIENCY
The questioning quickly focused on Iran's disputed nuclear program and the risk of a U.S. or Israeli military strike on its atomic facilities.
Kharrazi swore anew the program was purely for peaceful, civilian purposes, contrary to U.S. and Israeli charges that it is a front for a secret drive to build nuclear weapons.
Continued ...
http://today.reuters.com/News/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2005-01-29T213140Z_01_N29274401_RTRIDST_0_POLITICS-DAVOS-IRAN-MEAL-DC.XML
Torture Chicks Gone Wild
Maureen Dowd
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/30/opinion/30dowd.html?ex=1264827600&en=0c3e59b39b3504a3&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt
Posted by: Otter at January 30, 2005 09:40 AM
Otter - sorry, I don't understand the point you are trying to make.
Posted by: Indy at January 30, 2005 10:47 AM
Indy,
Looks like we're a little out of practice at the "diplomacy thing."
Posted by: Indy at January 30, 2005 10:47 AM
Ah-h-h-h..... let's see now... NO WMD found in Iraq, which means someone told the truth about the matter in the first place before BushCo decided on their pre-emptive strike in Iraq because they considered Iraq a "threat".... hmmmm.... who to believe about anything "nukular" in Iran....?!?!? Let's take a pregnant pause and remember we've been lied to before by BushCo.... and the "fox paws" committed by BushCo over a dinner serving wine that would naturally insult customs from another country would be guaranteed to make BushCo put their own propaganda twist on the whole situation....
Thanks for the link, Indy.... it keeps reminding me that BushCo will stoop to any lengths to start a war, even insulting people to get the ball rolling toward yet another imaginary reason to start a war....
~John Kerry interviewed on Meet the Press this AM w/ Russert.
My own personal over view after watching the interview:
Best interview I have ever seen JK give, the way he answered questions reminded me of the JK we saw and heard at the 1st debate. I am not a Russert fan, but in fairness, Russert asked all the right questions, to get decisive answers from JK about many of the unanswered questions from the campaign and current topics. JK was relaxed, poised and in control of his message.
Some of the questions/ topics covered were:
He said today's election in Iraq went as expected, he praised American troops there, said vote in Iraq is significant, but no one should "over hype" the results, Iraq is more of a terrorist threat now than it was 2 years ago because of failures of Bush administration.
JK repeated what he said during the campaign, his 4 steps needed to stabilize Iraq: 1) massive rapid training of Iraqis 2)reconstruction to bring services to Iraqis 3) international community must help 4) hold elections. So far, Bush admin. has only accomplished this 1st election. Its his belief that this is Bush's last chance to "get it right" in Iraq.
Rumsfeld has mismanaged Iraq, with as much miscalculation as any war leader in our history, and said 800,000 people have signed his online petition calling for Rumsfeld's resignation.
He does not agree with Sen Kennedy calling for immediate withdrawal of 12,000 troops from Iraq. JK said he agrees that it is vital for US to make it clear we are not there with long term goals and he agrees the goal is to withdraw troops in time, but the most important thing is having stability in Iraq. We cannot leave a failed state, a haven for terrorists, we must train Iraqis to take over for themselves. He thinks we have to stay "short term" to train Iraqi's.
He said over time this administration will have to face the reality that a prolonged American presence in Iraq is neither affordable nor wise. He said he "wouldn't be surprised if the administration privately behind closed doors asked them to ask us to leave Iraq."
Questions from the '04 campaign:
about the B/C ad, using his "voted for 87B before I voted against" giving the Republicans the chance to define him with "fear, vacillation, cutting & running" tag, JK said "in a campaign people spread a lot of lies & do a lot of smears". He said he never suggested cutting & running & he took a lot of criticism from his own side for not doing that. He did admit he made a mistake in how he phrased that 87B issue, but Bush made the greater mistake in how he went into Iraq & conducted the aftermath.
He believes this administration has "set back" American interests & security on a gloval basis and over the next few months he intends "to lay out exactly how they've done it and how we can do a better job".
When Russert displayed a photo of JK at inauguration & asked him how he felt that day, JK said he does not feel sorry for himself, he thinks they ran a great campaign, mistakes were made, and he takes full responsibility for any mistakes.
When asked about what he thought was biggest reason he lost race, he said "9/11 hurdle". Country did not want to change horses in midstream, did not want to shift CIC in time of war, and that bin Laden video on the eve of election helped Bush.
It was such a close election, he thinks Bush won a "mandate for unity", to find common ground, not a mandate to change Soc. Sec., nor a mandate to find individual hot button items to punch.
Russert pulled out a copy of "swiftvet" book, and asked what effect SwiftVets charges & their book had on campaign? JK answered that he should have responded more quickly & more forcefully, but the lies and smears were proven false by major newspapers and by his crew. He doesn't think this issue determined the outcome, he repeated that the "9/11 hurdle" was the main factor.
He is not thinking about 2008 Senate & Pres. elections right now, but "all options are open".
DNC Chair:
When asked about his position on who should be DNC chair, and specifically about Dean, he said he has confidence in Howard Dean, that "Dean proved during the campaign he was loyal & a go-to person, he campaigned his heart out" and he is grateful for that. He said any one of the candidates would be capable to be DNC chair and who ever is chosen will unite the Dem. party.
On the topic of abortion:
He thinks Hillary Clinton gave a great speech on this issue and Dems need to find new ways to welcome "pro-life" Dems into the party, he mentioned that Sen. Harry Reid is "pro-life".
He said "Too many people believe "pro choice" means "pro abortion". It's not. " He personally does not believe in abortion, but he supports R v. W, as the law of the land.
When asked if he would vote to confirm Justice A. Scalia as next Chief Justice, he said he would vote against that. He says he made a mistake in voting to put Scalia on Sup. Ct., because Scalia has proven to be ideologically rigid and too far to the right and he would vote against Scalia for Chief Justice.
On Social Security:
opposes raising the retirement age
opposes cutting benefits
says Bush is "hyping phony crisis" on Soc. Sec.
to fix Soc. Sec. he would roll back part of Bush's tax cut for the wealthy & that alone would make Soc. Sec. viable well into the next century.
He said the real crisis was the "fiscal irresponsibility" of this administration. He reached in his jacket and pulled out a copy of the Financial Times, with the headline & article "Central Banks Shun U.S. Assets"
(here's the link to that article)
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2005/US-Assets-Shunned24jan2004.htm
Final question,
"What is the most important thing you learned from running for President?"
"How great the American people are. The courage of American people, day to day, blew me away. This is an amazing country, I came to love it even more."
~~~
The full transcript will be available online at MTP MSNBC website next week, but this is my short hand version :)
John Kerry makes me proud I support him and it sounds like we will all be seeing a lot of him in the coming months & years.
IMO, the rest of America will come to know what we all know, John Kerry would have been an EXCELLENT President.
Posted by: Otter at January 30, 2005 09:40 AM
Good to see you, Mr. O.
Posted by: resolute at January 30, 2005 12:14 PM
I interpret his post to mean to stop whining and get to work on positive goals. At least, that's how I feel. It's easy to get caught up in all the negativity, especially with the actions of our current administration. But to me, reframing applies not only to our words, but also to our actions and approach. How to do that? Still trying to work that out...and that's why I'm here.
Just a reminder of who has their hands in the cookie jar...no conspiracy THEORIES...just the facts.
THE TRUTH ABOUT HALLIBURTON AND GENERAL ELECTRIC
Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton and still has ties with the company…and a paycheck of deferred compensation of about $150,000 a year.
General Electric owns NBC Broadcasting.
Sound fishy? Like a Cannery!
VW, Ericsson, Statoil Invest in Iran, Undeterred by Tensions
Aug. 22 (Bloomberg)
General Electric, the biggest maker of medical-imaging machines and power-generation equipment, is active in Iran through its Canadian subsidiary, while Halliburton, based in Houston, has an office in Iran opened in 2000 by a Cayman Islands subsidiary, Halliburton Products & Services Ltd.
``As we said in our proxy this year, U.S. law, regulation and policy contemplate that U.S. companies will do business in Iran and elsewhere through foreign subsidiaries and provide clear guidance on how those activities are to be conducted,'' said GE spokesman Gary Sheffer.
Some companies are reacting. In May, ThyssenKrupp AG, Germany's largest steelmaker, paid 406 million euros ($473 million) or three times the market price for shares in the company that were owned by Iran to avoid potential U.S. economic penalties. The move reduces Iran's stake in ThyssenKrupp to 4.4 percent from 7.79 percent.
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000085&sid=aEwGuFdDPUVs&refer=europe
Actual letter from New York Comptroller William C. Thompson expressing concerns over General Electric, Halliburton and Conoco involvement in IRAN:
http://www.conflictsecurities.com/security/article.php?id=35&subarea=nyc
-----------------------snip---------------------------
“If we are trying to eradicate terrorism, we must ensure that companies in our portfolio are not using off-shore subsidiaries to legally evade United States sanctions against terrorist-sponsoring states,” Comptroller Thompson said. “This is an issue of paramount importance.”
“We believe their use of off-shore and United Kingdom subsidiaries to establish operations with countries that sponsor terrorism violates the spirit, if not the letter of the law,” he added. “These actions also expose the companies to the prospect of negative publicity, public protests, and a loss of consumer confidence, all of which can have a negative impact on shareholder value.”
Halliburton opened an office in Iran under the name Halliburton Products and Services Ltd., its Cayman Islands subsidiary, in February 2000. The resolution requests the following statement be put before shareholders for a vote at Halliburton's annual meeting on May 21: “The Iranian government has actively supported and funded terrorist operations against innocent civilians outside its own borders. These activities led to the imposition of government sanctions that provide that virtually all trade and investment activity with Iran by U.S. corporations is prohibited.”
Posted by: Otter at January 30, 2005 09:40 AM
Otter,
The passion is evident. I of course agree with you that we have to stop "spinning our wheels" in forums,blogs and chat rooms. The other sites that you mention need greater functionality. The DCP site provides it. Also, recriminations and regrets has very limited learning potential.
Most people who want change don't spend hour upon hour on the net. They are confused about what we need to do as a country. They are initimidated by their own inhibitions. What is stopping them? I believe there has been a pervasive effort by the Buscho propaganda (BP) machinery to intimidate those who want to speak out, but are too afraid. Not necessarily afraid of the government, but afraid of, what they perceive would be social stigmatizism. BP is doing its job.
The DCP is (major emphasis on the word "is") the voice of people like you and me to help instill in others the courage to stand up for their beliefs. We have to spread the word. We have to show others the DCP. We have to encourage people to register. E-MAIL EVERYBODY about the DCP. SPREAD THE WORD.
Posted by: madame defarge at January 30, 2005 12:58 PM
I find it really fascinating that some people are getting upset at the "idea" of finding the best way to communicate progressive values and a progressive agenda, to America. Why is this perceived as whining or being negative. And the bottom line is - the Democrats/Progressives have a vastly different view of the world, and vastly different goals than the Bush wing of the Republican party.
In fact, I think what we're trying to do here is the opposite of whining and being negative. We were stunned that an overwhelming number of Americans didn't turn out at the polls to vote for Kerry. (And most people I know were very active doing useful things during the campaign(canvassing, etc.) not just whining about Bush.)
But the fact is - our message, our values, our approach - didn't get out in a way that resonated. In fact, our message, values, programs (actually who we are) were twisted and distorted by the Bush campaign, many Republicans, and a lazy press corps - and the Dems seemed to not know how to respond. So I think it's perfectly appropriate for us to be taking stock, looking at what who we are and what we stand for - and trying to take the discussion and the issues back. That's what politics is about - and politics is what we are here for. We are here to clarify what our goals are and then learn how to best operationalize our actions in ways that achieve those goals - on a local, grassroots level?
So, what's the beef? Action is essential - yes. But we have to work from a point of clarity.
Of course my entry above is in reference to DCP and the discussions taking place here. I'm not referring to Kos or DU or any other online community - because I think DCP has been developed for an entirely different reason.
Posted by: resolute at January 30, 2005 01:17 PM
I'm sorry you took my post as "beefing." As always, I speak for myself here and no one else.
Certainly we need to define goals. No disagreement there. Strategic and tactical goals and organization are critical success factors in any business and politics. But work must go on, on a daily basis. And I personally find it counter-productive to continually discuss about how wronged we have been. I'm ready to stop analyzing the past and take action to deal with the issues facing us today and in the future. My choice, my actions.
Here is a problem that Arizona is dealing with.
Assaults on border agents increase
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050127-115822-7314r.htm
[snip]
In October, Mr. Hutchinson noted what he called a sizable increase in border apprehensions under the initiative, saying the increase showed "sure and steady progress toward its goal of stemming illegal immigration into the southwest United States."
But Mr. Hutchinson made no mention during the October press conference of the rising number of assaults on the agents involved in the program, who are assigned out of the Border Patrol's Tucson sector.
T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council (NBPC), which represents all 11,000 Border Patrol non-supervisory agents, said increased enforcement efforts in the Tucson sector have emboldened smugglers to become more aggressive in challenging competitors and protecting themselves from detection and arrest.
Blogs and chat are, by their very nature, free flowing. Form follows function and vs versa.
Water cooler are necessary places. In other days, it was the well. I think water is always involved. ;-)
There is a DCP forum as well. The forum is for concrete, substantial discussion based around specific, goal-oriented actions.
Then, there's the telephone, email and face-to-face.
I'm all for discussion problems... to the end of either solving them, for finding ways around them. To me, identifying a problem is 50% of the battle. Once I know what I'm up against, solutions appear. And when I'm working with others, those solutions multiply.
I like solutions.