« Paulie Sigh | Main | You Can't Outsource Diplomacy »
Will YouTube Take Out Lieberman?
Here's an interesting piece from the Hartford Courant website about the beating that Joe Lieberman is taking in the blogosphere, especially on YouTube. Lieberman's primary opponent Ned Lamont just stunned most political observers by getting more than double the number of delegates he needed at the state Democratic convention to win a place on the primary ballot.
It was clear before the convention that Lieberman had earned the enmity of most of the progressive blogosphere; the convention showed that Lieberman was in trouble at home as well, since any strong candidate would have been able to keep a challenger like Lamont below the 15% threshold for getting on the ballot.
Lamont's success to date raises one of the most difficult intraparty questions for an out-of-power party: what is the trade-off between disciplining an incumbent like Lieberman, versus the chances that succeeding in knocking Lieberman off might jeopardize the party's chances of taking back the Senate? If Lamont continues to gain strength, this question will hopefully be moot.
-------------------
Joe's Getting Blogged Down
--------------------
Paul Bass
FRIENDLY FIRE
April 23, 2006
A virus is dogging three-term incumbent U.S. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman. One of its gestation spots is www.youtube.com, a web site where anyone can post a homemade video.
Go there and search for "Ned Lamont." He's the liberal Greenwich businessman staging a spirited challenge to Lieberman for the Democratic nomination.
Up spring a queue of videos posted by bloggers who love Lamont and despise Lieberman. There's Ned on WFSB-TV. Ned giving a speech in Southbury. Ned on "Beyond the Headlines." A montage of Ned photos and messages played to the tune of "Rock The Boat."
Now search for "Joe Lieberman." Up spring a queue of videos posted by bloggers who ... love Lamont and despise Lieberman. Joe on TV defending the war in Iraq. Joe equivocating on Bush's illegal wiretapping. A montage of Abu Ghraib torture and President Bush and Joe Lieberman photos played to the tune of "Masters of War." (The fade-out switches to Lamont and "All You Need Is Love.")
The bloggers who spend untold hours preparing these videos also post articles and comments and campaign information all over the Web attacking Lieberman and enlisting supporters for Lamont's campaign.
They don't report to Lamont headquarters in Meriden. They don't charge a cent.
No wonder Lieberman, who months ago seemed the safest of safe incumbents, hasbe en uncharacteristically testy and stumbling lately, getting booed at the Jefferson Jackson Bailey dinner, getting into a bizarre confrontation with radio talk-show host Colin McEnroe over the evil of bloggers and The New York Times. (The transcript's at www.firedoglake.com (search: Lieberman).
The man who was so ahead of the political curve when he entered the Senate 18 years ago is now hopelessly behind it.
In 1988, his sleeping-bear commercial about Lowell P. Weicker pioneered the modern TV attack ad in Connecticut. Joe understood the need to appeal to independent voters, at the expense of his party's traditional liberals, in order to win statewide office. Once in Washington, he realized power lay in building alliances not with fellow Democrats but with right-wingers like Ralph Reed and Charles Murray, not to mention a succession of presidents named Bush.
But now it's 2006. Joe's original party base is hungry to punish Bush, Republicans, and any Democrats who play GOP footsy. They're maddest most of all about the Iraq war, for which Lieberman has been the most vocal Democratic cheerleader.
TV and high-priced hired-gun TV ad makers no longer rule campaigns. Bloggers have taken their place. Politicians have to inspire them, not buy them. Their wildcat work spreads like a virus through computer screens across the country.
In just 45 days as a candidate, Lamont brought in donations from over 4,000 people across the country. Thousands more clicked on to volunteer.
By the time Joe saw what was happening, it was too late to order a vaccine. He ran into a perfect marriage of a new technology, an issue geared to people who use that technology (the war), and, lastly, a credible, motivated, intelligent, wealthy candidate.
Some of those wildcat bloggers showed up at Naples Pizza in New Haven recently to cheer on - and videotape - Lamont. The event was organized by veterans of 2004's Howard Dean meet-ups.
"CTblogger," a dreadlocked 37-year-old western Connecticut man who runs his own site and squats on countless others, had both a video and a digital still camera working all night. (He prefers not to have his real name printed for fear his boss at his day job will find out how much time he spends posting.) CTblogger never got involved in campaigns before now. After 2004 he decided he was "tired of Democrats who didn't show any backbone."
At Naples, he worked alongside Beau Anderson, aka "Spazeboy." Anderson, who's 24, followed his girlfriend east from Iowa. He works in a medical records office and attends Tunxis Community College. And he puts together sophisticated videos about Lamont and Lieberman, not to mention an unofficial Lamont web site Spazeboy, too, is new to politics, propelled by his disgust with Bush and conventional Democrats.
Also working the room was Keith Crane, whose www.dumpjoe.com started enlisting anti-Lieberman volunteers and money before Lamont even decided to run.
Watching, but decidedly not orchestrating, these bloggers is a 46-year-old Leprachaunish-looking Wall Street refugee with a puffy graying beard. His name is Aldon Hynes. He "lives on the web," as he puts it. Sixteen hours a day, scouring sites, writing comments. As an official Lamont staffer, he finds donors and volunteers nationwide on sites like dailykos.com (another source of priceless yet free Lamont help).
Hynes believes the blogosphere is reviving democracy by enabling everyday people to participate in politics on their own terms. He knows that pro-Lamont bloggers like 62-year-old Kelly Monaghan of myleftnutmeg.com (Connecticut's version of the Daily Kos, with about 500 unique visitors and 2,800 page views a day) will never follow a central line or strategy. Monaghan regaled me with criticisms of the Lamont campaign at the Naples event. Hynes wouldn't have it any other way.
The idea isn't to replicate the "right-wing noise machine" that filters a central daily message to talk-show hosts and columnists and candidates across the country. It's to unbottle an anarchic, grassroots explosion of democratic participation.
The era that began with the Nixon-Kennedy debates has ended, Hynes declares.
"From 1960 to 2000 we had an era of broadcast politics," he says. "You get on TV. You get your 30-second sound bite. That's bad for the country. Spazeboy? He would have never ended up in politics. Some brilliant people have been disenfranchised by broadcast politics."
"People are starving for authenticity. People are tired of Photoshopped, airbrushed candidates," Hynes argues.
I agree. Internet politics may have the potential for even more abuse and dishonesty than broadcast politics. But unlike broadcast politics, it offers us the potential to reclaim our political system from the sell-outs and their Svengalis. That happy scenario may just be unfolding before Joe Lieberman's -and our own - eyes.
Paul Bass edits The New Haven Independent. E-mail him at
p.bass@newhavenindependent.org.
Bradblog has come up with a new, 'can you believe this' item...
BLOGGED BY BRAD ON 5/23/2006 @ 11:48AM PT...
INTERNET AD SEEKS TEMP WORKERS TO PRIVATELY SHUTTLE HACKABLE VOTING MACHINES FOR CALIFORNIA'S UPCOMING PRIMARY ELECTIONS
A tip received by The BRAD BLOG on Monday reveals that Temp Workers are currently being sought in San Francisco for California's upcoming primary election to "assist in dropping off election voting machines and picking these machines up when voting is complete," as the says.
A classified ad seeking the workers is currently posted on the Internet at Monster.com by Kelly Services. (A screenshot of the complete ad is posted at the end of this article.)
The salary offered to temp workers hired for the job -- who will have private unsupervised access to the state's voting machines before and after election day -- is $11.99/hour according to the posting.
read the rest and see the ad here...
http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002863.htm
Gov. Bush considered for commish
NFL representative approached president's brother
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) -- Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said he was privately approached about his interest in becoming the NFL's next commissioner.
Bush said Tuesday the issue was discussed at a recent meeting with Patrick Rooney Sr., according to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel.
Rooney's brother is Dan Rooney, owner of Super Bowl champion Pittsburgh Steelers and co-chair of the search committee looking to replace the retiring Paul Tagliabue.
"I met with Mr. Rooney and I said, 'I'm doing my job until I'm finished and then I'm going to consider other things,"' Bush told the newspaper.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/football/nfl/05/24/bc.fbn.jebbush.nflcommi.ap/index.html
Would Florida Gov. Jeb Bush make a good choice for NFL commissioner?
Yes 25% 829 votes
No 75% 2548 votes
Total: 3377 votes
He would bring back the bomb...
HAIL MARY!
There is an action alert at dailykos for an Iranian woman sentenced to death for defending herself and her niece against rape.
read it here...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/5/24/9373/26958
Glen Greenwald makes a lot of sense today...
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/05/any-differences-between-democrats-in.html
House Democrats plan hearings, write Bush on Iran strike
Wednesday May 24, 2006
As concerns build over increased tensions between the United States and Iran, some Democrats in Congress are beginning to mount opposition to a preemptive nuclear strike, RAW STORY has learned.
Members of the House Democrats' Progressive Caucus are holding unofficial hearings and gathering signatures for a letter to President Bush, in hopes, they say, of attenuating the risk of nuclear confrontation.
The first unofficial meeting of Congress on the subject of a possible war with Iran is set to take place later this afternoon in the U.S. Capitol. At 3:00 pm, a group of Democratic Representatives plan to hold a hearing probing the question: "Would war with Iran help or hurt U.S. national security?"
Testifying before lawmakers will be Samantha Power, Former Executive Director of the Carr Center for Human Rights at Harvard University, and Dr. Jessica Tuchman Matthews, President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Both speakers are also authors of books relating to U.S. foreign policy.
The 62-member caucus, co-chaired by Reps. Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), plans to continue holding ad hoc hearings and public forums to examine the potential effects of a war with Iran. Also on the table will be the broader question of preemptive warfare as a national security strategy.
Representatives Peter DeFazio (D-OR) and Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) are also reportedly taking part in the proceedings.
"War with Iran is not inevitable if the United States is ready to lead the way with honest, patient negotiations," Kucinich said yesterday on the House floor, "However, this Administration seems intent on war."
more...
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/House_Democrats_begin_hearings_write_Bush_0524.html
heading over to liveblog the CPC for:
for the first in an on-going series of public forums and ad hoc congressional hearings we are going to host on the growing confrontation with the Government of Iran and more broadly on the Bush doctrine of preemption warfare as national security strategy.
Pleas help me out once I am there--people need to know these hearings are hapenning...
Paranoia as Policy
How Bush Brewed the Iran Crisis
from Paul Craig Roberts
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts05232006.html
sorry to be off topic, Dick.....
But this essay by Glenn Greenwald gets right to the heart of what I've been trying to say about people who don't vote. The 'WHY BOTHER?' factor has fertile ground in which to grow.
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/
There are supposedly , what twelve or thirteen Dems that are exploring, or are expected to make a run for President in 2008. So, this election year, and the votes they cast in Congress are purely for positioning themselves for that run? And, with the help of God and a good PAC, the stupid voters will forget what they did way back when?
There is a person out there who feels like no one represents them. Why bother to vote, then? And, I know we can say over and over that if you don't vote, you have no right to bitch, but isn't it pretty plain that for some people the position of 'non-voter' is their manner of registering their lack of faith and trust in anyone?
What I've heard is, "they're all the same" from people who don't vote. I don't want them to think like that, I don't want them to think they can't make a difference. I don't want them to think that voting is a waste of their time, or to think that nothing will change because they cared enough to vote. But, I can understand it. If I can say DINO, see DINO, so can they.
We keep hearing about how discouraged 'R's' are going to stay home this year. The polls are so bad, you know. But, if that's strategy for the Dems, it's not going to work. Waiting for the other guys supporters to stay home is pure folly. It says nothing about encouraging people to particiapte in the process. I don't want to WIN because all the 'R's' stayed home. What will we have won if we can't get more people to vote, but managed to discourage people from it? Less voters is not a positive banner to stand under, not for people who are supposed to be working for change.
I have to laugh, when I read that the polls say that respondents think the D's would do better on EVERYTHING. Yes, indeed, they would do better, and in the same breath, they also say, but my R. isn't the problem. Somebody else is going to vote for Dems, somewhere else, so they don't have to.
Imagine what it must be like for someone who doesn't usually vote, to decide that this year, this election, they really need to pay attention. Even if they wade thru all the media muck and really educate themselves, are they going to find something that lights them up, inspires them, calls to them? Dumb it down, or whip them up in some kind of frenzy. So, we end up with the dumb and the frenzied voting, but the intelligent ones back away in disgust.
We've been asked to take a stand, face our fears, deal with harsh realities, demand change. I know what I want. I want someone who wants me to vote, wants my vote to do the exact same things. Stop, make a stand, pick a path and walk it. Don't dilute the message. Don't forge a bond with me and then forget me in the next town. Make sure that what you tell me is what you tell everyone. On the campaign trail and in the House and Senate. The difference between right and wrong is not decided with a dollar sign. When you don't know the answer, say so. Don't be expedient, be effective. Don't make a deal with the devil and then try to act like an angel. You aren't going to hold a government office forever. Someone has to come after you. Remember that having and holding this office today will have an effect on everyone's tomorrow. The selfish self interest shows, and it is not attractive. There is power to impose and there is power to improve, and imposing is much easier. It's also ugly. And it cheapens my vote to worthlessness. My vote doesn't come cheap, it never has. My capacity for forgiveness has worn thin. The silence that you hear from half the people of this country who don't vote isn't admiration or agreement, it's disgust.
I'll ride straight into hell for the person who takes the necessary road, no matter how hard it is, no matter how lonely it gets. Maybe thats because in my heart of hearts, I know that what is necessary won't be so hard and so lonely once the journey has begun. If I'm not afraid, why does the candidate have to be? I can't be the only one that knows how many number ourselves among the fearless. Red or blue they don't get it. When someone does, when some candidate out there gets it, it will be something to see. I just hope we're all here, that we survive long enough for it to actaully come to pass.
Yes, yes, tutterfly... now to find the candidates who get it. I really don't care what party the candidates are from IF they are willing to stand up for regular people and listen to them, and quit with the equivocation, triangulations, fence-riding, lobbyist-welcoming and the party-line voting.
Moscow angered by US plan for 'star wars' bases in Europe to counter threat of Iran
By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
Published: 24 May 2006
In a move that is raising hackles in Moscow, the US is proposing to install an anti-missile defence system in central Europe to counter any future attack from a nuclear-armed Iran.
The plan, for which the Pentagon has requested $56m (£30m) of exploratory funding from Congress, would cost $1.6bn and involve 10 interceptor units.
The most likely base for the system is Poland, followed by the Czech Republic, officials said. For the moment, the scheme first reported in The New York Times this week and which would parallel the anti-missile shield under construction in Alaska and California against attacks from North Korea is largely symbolic and hypothetical.
Iran currently has no weapons capable of hitting western Europe, let alone an intercontinental missile that could strike the United States. But as a showdown moves closer between the West and Tehran over its uranium-enrichment programme, and with the Israeli Prime Minister in Washington warning that Iran represents a threat not only to Israel but to Western civilisation, the US is determined to send another signal of its determination to act.
The new shield would bring a direct US military presence deeper into Europe. And for Russia, the project reeks of American encroachment into what used to be its own sphere of influence. The move would have "a negative impact on the whole Euro-Atlantic security system", Sergei Ivanov, the Russian Defence Minister, told a Belarus newspaper, hinting at further strain on ever-delicate relations between Russia and Nato. The mooted site for the system was "dubious, to put it mildly", he said.
This is not the first time the missile shield has divided the two countries.
In 2002, President Bush upset Moscow by unilaterally pulling out of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, long regarded in Moscow as the cornerstone of nuclear arms control.
The possible extension of missile defences into Poland or the Czech Republic both staunch American allies is the latest episode of a story that has inspired dreams and controversy in equal measure since it was first sketched out by President Ronald Reagan in 1983 as the Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI), quickly dubbed "Star Wars". But despite more than 20 years of work and tens of billions of dollars in spending, it is now accepted that any such shield would be overwhelmed by an attack from Russia, which possesses a nuclear arsenal comparable to the US.
more...
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article570954.ece
The hole keeps getting deeper and blacker.
Tutterfly's pointer to Glenn Greenwald's post is right on.
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/05/any-differences-between-democrats-in.html
In the best of all possible worlds, the Democrats would have taken a stand back in 2001. They should have greeted Bush with a simple ultimatum: either consult with us in advance, or we're going to stop your administration as dead in its tracks as we can: no appointments to anything (like oil industry hacks to monitor global warming, coal lobbyists to protect miners, etc.), no judges, Supreme Court or otherwise, and on and on. Democrats should have insisted that Bush had a very shaky claim on legitimacy after his Supreme Court installation, and that there was no reason to treat him as if he had actually won a presidential election.
Think about the opposite situation: does anyone doubt for a moment that the Republicans weren't ready to pursue scorched-earth tactics if Gore had won on the up-and-up, much less if Gore had won by a vote of the Supreme Court?
It's a grim vista, even with Bush's numbers in the dump. If anything is going to change, it looks like it's going to have to be from the bottom up, like what's going on with the Lamont-Lieberman primary in Connecticut.
"Think about the opposite situation: does anyone doubt for a moment that the Republicans weren't ready to pursue scorched-earth tactics if Gore had won on the up-and-up, much less if Gore had won by a vote of the Supreme Court"
Senator Daschle was the target of an assasination attempt using Anthrax. The Anthrax was traced to a US military weapons manufacturing plant. After the source of the Anthrax was located, the investigation was dropped. At the time Senator Daschle represented the greatest political threat to the White House.
If Gore had won, odds are 50/50 some right wing nut would try to assasinate him. Gore does not have the piccadillys President Clinton did, there would have been nothing to pursue or investigate.
The core right wing is afraid of change and world affairs. They sit at home terrified the United States lose the implied right of Manifest Destiny. Any measure is justified, any measure is overlooked that maintains the status Quo, even the attempted assasination of elected leadership.
Democrats have been allowing Republicans to walk over them for the last 25 years, to the point of cowering to the White house while thousands upon thousands of innocent iraqis are killed, and thousands of Americans lose their lives. Our rights at home are bring sold off piecemeal to the highest defense contractor, while Congress debates issues of no importance.
President clinton is impeached because of a tryst with an Intern... President bush is hailed a conquering hero for ordering the slaughter of
iraqis and destroying the Economy.
Respect and strength are earned by standing when others sat, by taking the hard road instead of the easy path, by forcing America to see the truth in spite of itself.
America could really use a Barbara Jordon right now.
I have been in China for a few weeks, will be here another month or so. There is so much to discuss regarding geopolitics and where China is headed...conversations with CPC members are the most interesting, people i meet on the street always ask about the Clintons; if Senator Clinton will run for President (heck yes !) President Clinton is incredibly respected here, as is Senator Clinton.
The Bush White House has purposely taken a path that divides...while Russia, Europe, Latin America, China, and the rest of Asia are uniting into progressive and productive geopolitical / geobusiness partnerships.
If the Democratic Party would only stand up, take its place at the table and demand the Constitution be recognized and acted upon. The cost to the United States is grave if the Democrats continue to allow this White House to break the laws of the land and create divides in the world.
Paul Bass' excellent article ("Joe's Getting Blogged Down") was written before he was aware that all the Ned Lamont related video at YouTube is collected under a single umbrella group called "Nedheads".
http://www.youtube.com/group/nedlamont
The group now comprises approximately 350 members and 100 short video's.
Thanks for the update, Scarce and welcome to the DCP.