What Democrats Should Be Doing, Part One

I had hopes when I began reading the piece you copied into the blog because I thought it was going to encourage us to move foward by embracing a strategy of having innovative ideas and bringing them to the people FIRST...particularly where it notes that the winning strategy of the Republicans in the past has been to do just that. However, the article then devolves into essentially a "strategy" of "attack, attack, attack" which looks merely to be a variation on "defend, defend, defend". This "your mother is ugly" "Yeah, well YOUR mother wears army boots...whadya say to THAT!" type of political action DOES NOT WORK AND HAS NOT WORKED IN THE PAST. Can't we move beyond this?

I had hopes when I began reading this piece that it would be a call to action to come up with fresh ideas and bring them to the people FIRST. The article notes that the Republicans have been doing this successfully with the result of placing us in a position of chronic defensiveness, which clearly is not working yet again.

However, the article then articulates this new “strategy” as being “attack, Attack, ATTACK!” which, as described by TRex in the post, is again taking the defensive position. This “Your mother is ugly.” “Yeah, well, YOUR mother wears army boots!” type of discourse is hardly a strategy which we should be embracing. It has not worked for us in the past. Additionally, haven’t the American people shown us they are sick of these types of politics? How about a positive, yet unassailable, message, folks! Instead of the negative rhetoric about the President and his cohorts, can’t we come up with a platform about what is RIGHT and BEAUTIFUL and SAFE about our country and how we will make it more so in the future.

sorry about the somewhat duplicate post. when I posted the original, I got an error message and it appeared my first response had been zapped into the netherworld of cyberspace...thus, I had to remember and rewrite...see what happens on only half the daily dose of caffiene???

kos5678,

I think the tension you define is a huge part of the problem. We ARE split on whether attacking works. And so aome attack but have no backup, and some are more positively proactive but get no traction.

I don't know the answer, but I do know Casey is right about the media and the hauntingly reminiscent feeling I have right now. August 2004 was horrible and the media made it so.

Today's Five Minutes A Day is important. So much so, I am putting it here:

The Federal Communications Commission and industry lobbyists are trying to let huge media companies get even bigger by resurrecting the same rule changes that millions of Americans rejected in 2003.

Yesterday, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin began the process of relaxing ownership rules. If he prevails, we will see the further demise of local news, independent voices and critical journalism.

In 2003, your letters and calls stopped this nonsense. Now we need to do it again.
Tell the FCC: "Big media is big enough"
http://www.stopbigmedia.com/comment.php

This is the first step in Chairman Martin's calculated effort to gut some of the last remaining limits on media ownership.

When the FCC last tried to change these rules under then-Chairman Michael Powell, some 3 million people contacted the FCC and Congress to oppose the action. The rule changes were later overturned by the courts, sending the FCC back to the
drawing board.

Now Chairman Martin -- backed by the biggest media giants -- is angling to eliminate the newspaper-broadcast "cross-ownership" ban that prevents a single conglomerate from owning the major daily newspaper as well as radio and TV stations in a single market. And he wants to lift local ownership caps on how many TV stations one company can own in your town.

If these rule changes were approved, one company could own the major paper, eight radio stations and three television stations in the same city.

A handful of huge companies already control nearly all of the media in America. Such concentration destroys local news, sidelines dissenting views, and stifles competition. When we allow one company to own everything, we lose the diversity of views that is the lifeblood of our democracy.

Take Action Now to Stop Big Media. Send your comments directly to the FCC:
http://www.stopbigmedia.com/comment.php

Today, a diverse alliance of groups launched the www.StopBigMedia.com Coalition to make sure that the public voice is heard before Washington policymakers sell what's left of the local and independent media.

The only way we'll win is to flood the FCC docket with more than a million public comments opposing further media consolidation.

Your action today makes a difference.

Onward,

Robert W. McChesney
President
Free Press
http://www.freepress.net

How about we start with this narrative:

Everything the Republicans are saying today about staying the course in Iraq, about the larger War on Terror, about Global Warming, etc., is wrapped in deliberately deceptive rhetoric designed to mislead Americans.

They're lying to you now, and they've been lying all along.

Then document instance after instance where the Bush Administration and its Republican operatives have deliberately manipulated the truth in order to get the American people to go along.

We need to tar and feather these monsters.

As for the approach advocated in the header, I'm fine with that kind of a confrontational, take no prisoners stance.

Posted by: Kos5678 at June 23, 2006 07:03 AM

I think we have to agressively back the lying media into a corner. Karen's call to action is a starting point, just to stay at this current level of uneven playing field.

I'm not sure that yelling or being as drastically uncouth as Rush and Coulter are is the point. But I do think we need to take it to the Republicans while getting the few appearances they actually allow us.

Remember, the media controls the message. We've been making nice for too long! (Basically since 9-11 and even before that thanks to Clinton and Monica.) Even the 04 election was an example of 'taking it nice and taking it to the people directly.' JK was in the field, by boat, bus, train for almost 2 months, while he went face to face to get around the media, the media and the swifties attacked.

They sat there spewing, "Are people tired of hate politics? Is John Kerry being too nice?" Well these same questions still haunt him to this day.

Me? I'm done making nice with people. They can deal or they can learn to deal. But I'm not going to sit here and continue being nice when it's clearly more the pattern of an abused person than a strong person.

I know what I think about Democrats & Republicans of various stripes and their war posturing, but for the short-term, I am going for action right here. I will also continue making and photographing political art, and find ways to disseminate, including on the internet, and I will attend the LGBT weekend looking for ways to help stop clampdown on diversity in US.

Actions to Support Ft. Lewis War Resisters
1.
Stand Up! Seattle invites you to banner in support of Watada and Swift and display other anti-war signs on the overpass. We will also leaflet and speak with military personnel and the public outside the Fort Lewis Gate in order to disseminate information regarding the situations and positions of Lt. Watada and Spc. Swift and the how's and why's of war resistance. The ultimate goal is to encourage others within the military to take a stand and resist the current illegal and unjust wars of empire and to build community support for such resisters. We'd like to thank Courage to Resist, Vets for Peace, the Olympia Movement for Justice & Peace, Women in Black, and other groups and individuals very visibly supporting his resistance to the illegal and immoral Iraq war.
 
Lt Ehren Watada is taking a courageous stand against the Iraq war by refusing orders to deploy out of Ft. Lewis to Iraq with the Stryker Brigade.  http://www.thankyoult.org Lt Watada's stand presents us with a historic opportunity to rise to his defense and show him, other soldiers and the rest of the world, that we will act in solidarity with those who elect to vocally resist illegal wars of aggression. This will send a strong signal to other soldiers with misgivings about this war that they do not have to check their conscience at the door when joining the U.S. military and become a piece of soulless machinery. Lieutenant Watada stated his view that it is going to take personal sacrifice on the part of all of us to stop this illegal and immoral war. Coming from someone who has just put his career and freedom on the line, is facing public scorn and possible years in prison these are not hollow words. 
 
Spec. Suzanne Swift has refused to return to Iraq and was arrested Sunday, June 11th, and imprisoned at Fort Lewis Tuesday, June 13th, for going AWOL in protest the Iraq war and the sexual harassment she endured from commanding officers. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/274746_swift21.html  for more articles go to http://www.myspace.com/yawr_seattle
2.
National Day of Action
Stand with Lt. Ehren Watada
Army Officer Lt. Ehren Watada Poised to Refuse Orders to Deploy to Iraq
Fort Lewis
Support Watada's Courageous Stand: US Army Lieutenant Ehren Watada Lt. refused orders ship to Iraq with his unit Thursday, June 22nd, 2006.  Lt.  Watada has publicly stated his belief that the Iraq war is illegal based on US and International law, and that he has an obligation to his unit and his country to refuse to participate. Supporters have planned actions across the country in places including  Ft. Lewis, WA, Charlotte, NC, Cleveland, OH, Harrisburg, PA, San Francisco, CA, and Oklahoma City, OK.  These actions will include marches, vigils, protests, nonviolent direct action or civil disobedience in support of his legal and moral refusal, and against the war and occupation of Iraq. Stay tuned to www.thankyoult.org for more details and an updated list of cities holding support actions. Sponsored by Olympia Movement for Justice & Peace (www.omjp.org) and Stand Up Seattle (http://web.mac.com/lidna/iWeb/standupseattle/Home.html)

This is from some ballsy Democrats one of our occasional bloggers (Tela) is involved with. I think people should have starting clamping down on media conglomeration when they could still nip it in the bud (first Gulf War era). Now that it's so much later, I for one don't know what to do. I'm pretty much off the grid, maybe. I think these Democrats (grassroots) are doing it right. We are doing similar locally.

Subject: The War, Republican morons, including Lieberman, and the beginnings of a coherent Dem message!
http://www.berkshirebrigades.org

Frontline goes after Cheney:
In "The Dark Side," FRONTLINE tells the story of the vice president's role as the chief architect of the war on terror, and his battle with Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/themes/tenet.html for control of the "dark side." Drawing on more than 40 interviews and thousands of documents, the film provides a step-by-step examination of what happened inside the councils of war.
See it online: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/

Reed: An Ideologue "as Far as The Cash Goes" http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000970.php
By Paul Kiel - TPM, June 22, 2006, 12:32 PM
Yet another delightful characterization http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000969.php of Ralph Reed, courtesy of today's McCain report http://www.indian.senate.gov/public/_files/Report.pdf on the Abramoff scandal.
This one comes courtesy of Jack Abramoff himself, via his discussion with Marc Schwartz, a public relations representative for the Tigua tribe in Texas.
Let's pick up the report on page 148. Schwartz was evaluating whether the tribe should hire Abramoff as its lobbyist...
To Schwartz, Abramoff appeared to have the right credentials. Abramoff claimed to be a close friend of Congressman Tom DeLay. He also discussed his friendship with Reed, recounting some of their history together at College Republicans. When Schwartz observed that Reed was an ideologue, Schwartz recalled that Abramoff laughingly replied “as far as the cash goes.”

Lieberman abandons the party.... again!
The GOP opening remarks against the Democrats amendments to get out of Iraq were given by Joe Lieberman http://lamontblog.blogspot.com/2006/06/lamont-statement-on-levin-reed.html . It's no longer a matter of just not voting with the party, but he publicly opened the debate for the GOP.

John Warner:
"I'd like to now offer the first fifteen minutes [of my time] to the Senator from Connecticut"
Lieberman:
"Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendments introduced by the Senator from Michigan and others and the other amendment introduced by the Senators from Massachusetts and Wisconsin--I remember in that debate quoting the biblical wisdom in warning that 'if the sound of the trumpet is uncertain-who will follow into battle.' I suppose in our time we might amend that to say 'if the sound of the trumpet is uncertain-who will stay in battle"

Rick Santorum:
"...and if I could also associate myself with the remarks made by the Senator from Connecticut. I agree with them wholeheartedly. I thought they were incredibly articulately made and hits on all the relevant points as to why these two amendments should be defeated."

Begala http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/specialguests/2006/jun/22/gop_on_iraq_more_of_the_same on Iraq and Dems
http://www.tpmcafe.com/user/7738
By Paul Begala http://www.tpmcafe.com/user/7738/recent
The media are hyperventilating about “Democrats in disarray” over the war in Iraq. ABC’s “The Note” captures the stupidity, vapidity and gullibility of the mainstream media perfectly: “Democrats can deny it all they want (and not all do. . .), but they are on the precipice of self-immolating over the issue that has most crippled the Bush presidency and of making facts on the ground virtually meaningless. In other words, they are on the precipice of making Iraq a 2006 political winner for the Republican Party.”

I’m sure I’ve read a dopier statement of conventional wisdom, a more perfect transcription of Karl Rove’s ignorant talking points, but I really can’t remember when.

As usual, the Smart Guys have it backwards. Democrats can and will win the Iraq debate if they embrace the fact that they disagree and contrast it with the slavish, mindless rubber-stamp Republicans.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid is doing a Herculean job of herding cats onto the Levin proposal, which calls for a timetable to redeploy troops, but no strict deadline. Good for him. That’s what leadership is all about.
But it’s still a reality that Democrats like Russ Feingold and John Kerry support a date certain for America’s withdrawal from Iraq, while most of their Senate Democratic colleagues do not. So, rather than deny or ignore the disagreement, Democrats should highlight it, celebrate it, emphasize it.

The only place in the American government where there is an honest and spirited debate over Iraq is within the Democratic Party. Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer are not on the same page – and that’s a good thing. Hillary Clinton and John Kerry disagree. Hooray for that.

If anyone tells you the solution to Iraq is easy or obvious, they’re a liar or a fool (a false choice in the case of our president). So why not feature the debate? At least someone is debating what to do.

The fact is the American people want a new direction in Iraq, and the Democrats offer several. The Republicans, on the other hand, offer nothing more than a four-word strategy: more of the same.

Democrats should seize this moment to attack the rubber-stamp Republicans for their lemming-like devotion to a failed strategy and a set of incompetent and dishonest leaders. Republicans have a faith-based Iraq policy. They have faith in Donald Rumsfeld, they have faith in Dick Cheney, they have faith in George W. Bush. We don’t. They are liars and nincompoops – and the lives of tens of thousands of our best are in their hands.

Every time the GOP says “cut and run,” Democrats should say, “rubber stamp.” Every time they say we’re weak, we should say real strength is standing up to your president and your party when American lives are on the line. When they attack our patriotism, we should challenge them to sign their kids up for the military: “Since when did the sons and daughters of working people corner the market on patriotism, Senator? If this war is so wonderful, so noble, so vital, why the hell is your son throwing up on his date at Ivy League frat parties?”

In short, Democrats can and will win the debate over the war in Iraq not by playing defense (pleading “We’re NOT for cut and run!”) but on offense: the Republican Congress has blindly backed a failed strategy that has left 2,500 Americans dead, 20,000 wounded, and put us $2 trillion in the hole.

Being part of a party that has three or four different new approaches to Iraq beats the hell out of being part of a party that marches in lockstep off a cliff.

Josh Marshall's on Iraq
What Republicans want is More of the Same.
That's the motto. More of the Same.

The president says he wants to stay in Iraq for at least three more years. Virtually every Republican agrees. Three more years. They approve the course the president has set.

They're for More of the Same. They don't have a plan. They just want to stay indefinitely.
They're just for More of the Same.

[Note: Dems, let's start writing letters, talking to neighbors, etc. on this very issue. The Republicans are killing our kids, stealing our money, and beggaring the whole nation, and they don't even believe in evolution. Come on, time to get involved. Sign on to Berkshire Brigades' N2N organizing initiative. It's the only way we're going to save:

Our state
Our Country
Western Civilization
The Planet Earth

Stakes high enough for ya?

Di,in this case Hillary isn't offering, only Begala offering cover for her. I don't see a plan, but we are talking about it.

We are in debate over the debate, but more of the same nothing is what the GOP are selling, as those in charge, and making people like it.

Heard there is a UN peace deal, of sorts, coming, where I guess they can claim victory and leave, anyway, while claiming patience and resolve. Whether or not they were involved. Have to see what it looks like for how friendly to us in the end for our 80 football field size embassy, bases and oil. Times of London reporting.

Good letters from Murtha & from Dean in my email
Hope people all across the country are focussing on taking local control, including House of Representative seats from their districts. Also reform of voting system. Local work is essential during the mid-terms & sets the groundwork for 2008.

Iraq? Whatever they say they will do (our govt) - stay, phase out, withdraw - there is sectarian violence every damn Friday against people who are trying to worship. It's more religious hypocrisy, doesn't matter what religion. We have more of the same here in US.

17 states at risk for election fraud.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20060622/pl_usnw/new_report_shows17_states_at_high_risk_for_compromised_election_results_due_to_electronic_voting_machine_problems139_xml

Peace deal floated out by Sunday
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-2239088,00.html

Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai has urged the international community to reassess how it is fighting the Taleban and their allies.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5105210.stm

Posted by: kos5678 at June 23, 2006 07:20 AM

Used consistantly it is very effective, we have tried the nice guy we have a plan defense so many times and failed it wouldnt hurt to try something like this. The Neo Cons used it to good effect in the last few elections. Taking the page out of their book can not hurt. Rove has already started effectivly attacking and we can not play nice guy to long or we will have another 2004 before us and will have given up any chance we have of doing the right things for this country. It is way past time to fight. As my cousin says if the other guy is fighting dirty you will never win fighting fair.

Kos5678 - Welcome aboard the DCP blog!!! And thanks for your feedback.

Casey:

Funny, I just sent you an email regarding this and other such sundry things, recommending TRex's diary from FDL before coming here to our blog.

I think TRex and Casey are right. Dems need to put the fight on an even footing for awhile, so the Republicans can lose balance.

This is The Real Game my friends. If we don't put our game face on, we'll be out on penalties with no chance to get out on the field to score.

What To Expect (Think Progress) - We will all pay for the conservatives' attempt to save face by not admitting they were wrong to go to war.

IRAQ
The Right Redeploys Politics

For the past two weeks, both the House and Senate have been engaged in the "first extended debate on whether the time had come to end that war." The House voted for a sham resolution linking Iraq to the "war on terror" while opposing a timetable.

Yesterday, the Senate gave an "endorsement to President Bush's Iraq policy," and voted down two amendments calling for redeployment of our troops out of Iraq. The debates made clear that "rather than engage in a serious debate about America's future course in Iraq," conservatives "have again opted for sound bites." (Take, for example, President Bush's claim that those who disagree with him on Iraq "wave the white flag of surrender in this war on terror.")

As war veteran Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) said yesterday, "War should not be drug down into the political muck. America deserves better. Our men and women fighting and dying deserve better."

However, a positive development has emerged. "Progressives," writes the Center for American Progress' Brian Katulis, "are offering sensible policy ideas to change direction and the chance for accountability."

Meanwhile, "White House allies are stuck on tired attempts to politicize national security, offering more of the same and serving as a rubber stamp for failed policies."

CONSERVATIVES WAGE A POLITICAL WAR...: The right wing's recent focus on Iraq is no accident; it is part of a larger political strategy to paint progressives as weak on national security.

Despite ongoing violence in Iraq and an American public that is fed up with the war's direction, conservatives "have concluded that the war is a clear winner." Karl Rove has his "reinvigorated hand in the strategy," which will "play out over the summer and into the fall."

The Washington Post's Dan Froomkin writes: "Rove believes that this strength vs. weakness rhetorical construct, combined with continued attacks on the media, will be enough to counterbalance whatever negative news about the actual war continues to emerge between now and the mid-term elections."

(Unfortunately, others in the media are buying into the rhetoric.) The administration's PR blitz has even enlisted the Pentagon, which offered a "74-page briefing book to Congressional offices...to provide ammunition" in support of the White House's "stay the course" view.

(Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) argued the use of "taxpayer dollars to produce partisan political documents" may have been illegal.) Sen. Hagel tried to add a semblance of seriousness to the Senate debate, arguing that it "should be taken more seriously than to simply retreat into focus-group tested buzz words and phrases like 'cut and run,' catchy political slogans that debase the seriousness of war."

...WHILE PROGRESSIVES OFFER ALTERNATIVES: Last November, the Senate overwhelmingly voted to declare 2006 "a period of significant transition." Two proposals introduced in the Senate this week sought to define what this means. While "there are some differences between the two resolutions," "the basic thrust is the same -- calling for a phased redeployment of U.S. forces to begin in 2006, coupled with increased efforts to set Iraq’s political transition and reconstruction back on track."

The proposals indicate a "progressive unity" position that redeployment must begin this year. Progressives should not shy away from pushing their proposals -- the American public agrees with them. One sensible idea is Strategic Redeployment, co-authored by Katulis and Larry Korb.

IRAQIS WANT US TO REDEPLOY: "The Iraqi people want and need us to help them," Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) said while arguing against redeployment. The Iraqis disagree. According to a World Public Opinion poll, 70 percent of Iraqis favor setting a timeline for the redeployment of US forces.

The Iraqi prime minister, the Iraqi president, and the Iraqi vice president all have called for withdrawal to begin soon, and Iraqi National Security Adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie joined them this week. "Iraq’s ambition is to have full control of the country by the end of 2008," Rubaie said in a Washington Post op-ed. "In practice this will mean a significant foreign troop reduction. We envisage the U.S. troop presence by year’s end to be under 100,000, with most of the remaining troops to return home by the end of 2007."

Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, who served under Colin Powell in the first term of President Bush, echoed the sentiment in an interview with The Austrialian. The paper reported that Armitage "believed the Iraqis would soon ask the US to leave their country," and he personally "hoped there could be a draw-down of US and other coalition troops in Iraq in the next 12 to 18 months."

IGNORING GRIM REALITIES: The conservative desire to debate Iraq is partly due to a renewed sense of optimism created by the Zarqawi's killing. "We have the momentum," Sen. John Warner (R-VA) said. "We must take advantage of this momentum and this opportunity to move forward." The conservative Weekly Standard wrote in their editorial, "Seize the Day," "The death of Zarqawi and the completion of the new Iraqi government have created a moment of opportunity for President Bush in Iraq. ... If we return to 'business as usual' and the counterproductive Washington obsession with troop withdrawals, the moment will be lost." But eliminating brutal foreign terrorists like Zarqawi -- who only represent 6 to 8 percent of those committing violence in Iraq -- will not end the daily sectarian violence that Iraqis face.

In fact, a recent cable from the U.S. embassy in Iraq detailed how ethnic cleansing "is taking place in almost every Iraqi province, as political parties and their militias are seemingly engaged in tit-for-tat reprisals all over Iraq." Today, the Iraqi government was forced to declare a state of emergency in Baghdad, despite the recent crackdown against violence, "after clashes broke out in a central district."

Outside Baghdad, in the city of Mosul, "At least 25 people have been executed gangland-style." In western town of Ramadi, U.S. forces on cracking down on a city that has "emerged as biggest hotspot in Iraq." Armitage describes "Shia on Shia violence" in the south as so bad that British soldiers there "won't even go to the latrines without their helmets."

Talk about messages...

This is the one I missed at TBA and boy, am I sorry.
Go here and read the speech that Barack Obama gave.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/23/84849/6360

It should be trumpeted everywhere.

Barack Obama For President, this is someone who gets it. Sadly he would be a great president but the powers that be will never allow it to happen.

Re the FDL, attack, attack. They really are referring to the basic strategy of dealing with any addict or similar type person. First, you never listen to their "junk", not ever. (backup) You focus your attention on the harm they've caused and demand it be cleaned up. (reframe) Then you move forward with your own plans and agenda. (attack)

You can stay lost in somebody else's addiction for years by trying to debate/reason/argue with their bs lies, excuses and attacks. Just like we've been lost for years in the right's lies and attacks. Sometimes you may go toe to toe and come out ahead, but it's a lousy strategy to bring about change in the long run.

Re: Weak, Divided, bla bla puke

In Dec 2005 the Senate passed the Warner Amendment which called for this year to be a year of transition, for Iraq to take over their country, and for our troops to come home. Did the Republicans mean it when they voted for this?? The Levin Amendment is simply following through on what was already promised. Kerry-Feingold demands dates since Republicans can't seem to be trusted to follow even their own Iraq strategy. Either way, most Democrats agree it is time for Iraq to seriously step up and take over their country and for the US to seriously begin withdrawing troops. We're actually pretty close on this, although Begala obviously is still trying to pretend there's this huge gulf between various groups when there really isn't. (Except Joe) It's ridiculous on their part.

All Democrats need to repeat is Republican's "failed collision course" in Iraq, demand they meet the criteria set out in the 2005 Senate resolution, and vow that Democrats will continue to put pressure on transition and withdrawal. Turns out that's exactly what Iraq wants too.

I am in agreement with everyone here, but also just wondering about the value of talking at all.

The media is not covering the language and stories that the antiwar contingents are speaking and writing (JK included).

I am pondering the value of simply ACTING.

Question:

Are Bush and the current power-welding Republicans pathological liars?

http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/428/428lect16.htm

Nolie posted something on her blog, so it made me curious.

OMG--someone has already asked that question.

http://www.chud.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-65968.html

Found this at Raw Story:

Raw Story readers will most likely know that Ann Coulter has been the far right's designated brawler for some time. She's the one who called Max Cleland "lucky." Who said that John Walker Lindh should be executed "in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too." The one who said "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building." The one who said "We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee." The one who said that Congressman John Murtha was "the reason soldiers invented 'fragging.'"

When Michael Moore had the gall to confront Americans with the footage of our deer-in-the-headlights 9/11 President in 2004, Republicans were quick to force Democrats to distance themselves from such blasphemy. They savaged as "Michael Moore Democrats" all who would not disown him. That cleft has contributed to the alienation of the grass roots of the party from those who chose respectability over populism.

In the fetid, malodorous bog that is the Republican ecosystem, in contrast, Coulter has found a warm, comfortable home. That place is as the basso profano in the tragicomic conservative opera buffa - the villain who gives voice to the evil the others feel but dare not speak. Coulter has completely adapted to the feedback loop that characterizes her surroundings: the more outrageous her rhetoric, the more media attention she gets. The more attention she gets, the more books she sells, and the more she gets paid for her lecture tour appearances, and so on. A "godless" Darwinian process has thus prevailed: survival of the foulest.

Republicans (as well as their Stockholm-Syndromed counterparts in the press and the Democratic establishment) refer to the left blogosphere as a "fever swamp," yet the sulfurous venom that spews from Coulter's orifice creates nary a peep of Republican unease. Neither Universal Press Syndicate nor a single newspaper has dropped her syndicated toxin. And why should they? She sells papers, and blogospheric outrage is but a distant thunder for them.

Coulter's ascendance is a manifestation of a deep and serious problem that has been building for many years. Republicans have been extraordinarily successful in casting large swaths of the Democratic loyalists as lepers. Democratic leaders have largely concurred in that diagnosis, and have been running away from their own supporters for more than a decade. As Stanford linguist Geoffrey Nunberg recently pointed out, the Democrats are so cowed they have acquiesced in the demonization of the word "liberal," which now battles for lead pariah status with the dread acronym "ACLU." In short, the greedy, venal wing of the Democratic Party has been cut loose from its only source of strength and differentiation from the greedy venal wing of the Republican Party. The cleavage has been devastatingly effective. Yet no serious attempt has been made to create a similar schism between fringe Republicans and those who stress fitness for polite company.

If the pundit-class Democrats were waiting for an engraved invitation to that party, it just arrived.

The question, "Are you an Ann Coulter Republican?" should confront every Republican running for every office in the land, from President to dog catcher. Every Democratic candidate should accuse his or her opponent of being in favor of poisoning Supreme Court Justices and killing Congressmen. At every opportunity, every Republican should be made to answer: "Do you agree with Ann Coulter that the 9/11 widows are witches and harpies?" And George W. Bush, Tony Snow, Dick Cheney, Laura Bush and Barney (the only lapdog with a good excuse) should be confronted with these questions as well.

Republicans have been able to maintain a Kabuki symbiosis with all manner of cave-dwellers by speaking in an elaborate, dog whistle-like code. They hold racists, homophobes and rapture acolytes close enough to keep their votes without ever having to either publicly embrace or disavow such extreme viewpoints. That relationship with white-sheet America has been essential to their electoral strategy for decades.

But Ann Coulter has furnished us with a turn-key solution. We can now easily put them in the logical fork they should have been forced into years ago: disavow Coulter's vile, sub-human ravings, or embrace them. If they distance themselves from her, they risk alienating the mouth-breathers who demand such red meat as the price of their loyalty. If they embrace her, they lose significant swaths of the middle - the decent folks who are the reason Republicans talk about Dred Scott and "state's rights" rather than criminalizing abortion and gutting civil rights laws.

Which chess piece will Republicans sacrifice? I suspect it will vary. New York Governor George Pataki is one of the few Republicans to come out against Coulter, but that's a freebee - 9/11 happened in his state, and he appears to have no higher ambitions. Deep southerners in local races will probably embrace her. But what will John McCain do? I don't see how he can answer that question and still become President. Rudy Giuliani? He has already shown he'd rather run into a burning building. Bill Frist would prefer to declare himself to be in a persistent vegetative state. The list of high-profile Republicans desperate not to confront the Coulter question is very long.

Many lefties wonder why we give Coulter the prominence she so clearly craves. They think we lose by raising her profile. But I think she is exactly the hate-contorted face we want on the Republican Party. We need to make Ann Coulter the third rail of Republican politics, just as Michael Moore was for Democrats two years ago. (They can be equally significant as symbols; there is obviously no comparison in talent or accuracy.)

How will the Republicans choose? It matters little, so long as we force them to go one way or the other. Humanity lines up against her. But if they prefer to align with her, perhaps we can finally have an honest confrontation between an unmasked, rabid radical right and the rest of us.

John Steinberg is a Senior Recidivist with the Poor Man Institute for Freedom and Democracy and a Pony. He bloviates regularly @ www.bluememe.blogspot.com.

Fe,

Sounds good to me. I've always thought that her rabidness was specifically to make them look nicer.

Posted by: sparrow at June 23, 2006 02:00 PM

sparrow:

LOL!!!
_______

Caught another great one today at Crooks and Liars - O'Reilly caught off-center by columnist from Chicago Trib!!

"Columnist Clarence Page, also of the Chicago Tribune, was a last-minute replacement for Wycliff, and witnessing the bullying he was subjected to as a welcome guest it's no wonder Wycliff kept his distance. O'Reilly started the segment by opining that the paper has been fair in its coverage of the "war on terror" but erred in publishing the critical column, which he said was "grossly irresponsible and a lie, which makes (him) angry,"

In a role reversal, Page asked BORe how it was irresponsible and a lie. O'Reilly says that saying the US government is to blame for the grisly murders is irresponsible. Page invites him to look at Wycliff's logic and at his own commentary the past week, saying BORe praised Saddam Hussein's tactics of martial law and curfews, but, as Wycliff notes, there can't be martial law without adequate police and military force and there hasn't been adequate troop strength from the get-go...read on"

MORE:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/06/23.html#a8826

Karen
I agree about action.
AntiWar transcends US politics.

The question, "Are you an Ann Coulter Republican?" should confront every Republican running for every office in the land, from President to dog catcher.

Posted by: Fe at June 23, 2006 01:57 PM

Absolutely the right question to ask.

As Bruce was saying on CNN the other day...

O’BRIEN: In 2004 you came out very strongly in support of John Kerry and performed with him - your fellow guitarist, I think is how you introduced him to the crowd. And some people gave you a lot of flack for being a musician who took a political stand. I remember…

SPRINGSTEEN: Yeah, they should let Ann Coulter do it instead.

O’BRIEN: There is a whole school of thought, as you well know, that says that musicians – I mean you see it with the Dixie Chicks - you know, go play your music and stop.

SPRINGSTEEN: Well, if you turn it on, present company included, the idiots rambling on on cable television on any given night of the week, and you’re saying that musicians shouldn’t speak up? It’s insane. It’s funny.

O’BRIEN: As a musician though, I’d be curious to know if there is a concern that you start talking about politics, you came out at one point and said, I think in USA Today listen, the country would be better off if George Bush were replaced as President. Is there a worry where you start getting political and you could alienate your audience?

SPRINGSTEEN: Well that’s called common sense. I don’t even see that as politics at this point. So I mean that’s, you know, you can get me started, I’ll be glad to go. […] You don’t take a country like the United States into a major war on circumstantial evidence. You lose your job for that. That’s my opinion, and I have no problem voicing it. And some people like it and some people boo ya, you know?

Watch it yourself here:
http://images1.americanprogress.org/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/2006/springsteen.320.240.mov
or read more here:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/23/video-springsteen-hits-coulter-defends-right-to-take-a-stand-on-political-issues/

And speaking of what Democrats should be doing, lately, I've had this Dixie Chicks song going round & round in my head...(and I've been singing it at the top of my lungs when it comes in my car -- with the top down & the windows wide open I might add...)

I'm not ready to make nice
I'm not ready to back down
I'm still mad as hell and
I don't have time to go round and round and round
It's too late to make it right
I probably wouldn't if I could
'Cause I'm mad as hell
Can't bring myself to do what it is you think I should

...(and I've been singing it at the top of my lungs when it comes in my car -- with the top down & the windows wide open I might add...)

why madame:

I would pay to see that on the road!

ps: I do it myself, too!!!

If the Democrats do not mention the FACT that the invasion and occupation of Iraq is a WAR CRIME, and that the concentration camp at the US military base at Gitmo is a WAR CRIME and that the pResident sanctioning torture is a WAR CRIME, and then bring up IMPEACHMENT, then they don't deserve my vote.

It's a direct attack that the neoCons can't possibly "defend."

Posted by: NonnyO at June 23, 2006 05:35 PM

They laugh that off as extreme left liberal internet crazy 'base'.

I think they just need to lay things down at the media. "Stop repeating Republican lies and spin. Fact check and ask questions before you show any lies. Call me when you're ready to be a real journalist."

Then leave. Say it to every talking head. And say it often.

Then take that video and go door to door if you have to. Because while the media lies, they will simply be able to refute that with another lie or smear.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060623/wl_nm/somalia_death_dc
Swedish cameraman shot dead at Somalia rally
MOGADISHU (Reuters) - A gunman shot dead a Swedish cameraman covering a pro-Islamist rally on Friday in Mogadishu, just weeks after its new rulers said they had pacified one of the world's most lawless cities after 15 years of anarchy.

Cheney Says He Might Testify in Leak Case
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/062306J.shtml
Vice President Dick Cheney said Thursday he might have to testify in the CIA leak trial of his former chief of staff. Cheney made the comment in a CNN interview, following last month's suggestion by prosecutors that the vice president would be a logical witness in the case of I. Lewis Libby, who is accused of perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI.
Excerpt:
Libby is "one of the finest men I've ever known," Cheney said, then declined further comment. "I may be called as a witness."

{{{I hope you are not eating or drinking anything when you read the short column. I found it so funny I spluttered coffee all over my computer desk and now I have to clean it up!}}}

Posted by: sparrow at June 23, 2006 05:42 PM

Facts are facts... and even Lamestream Media has talked about the concentration camps (prettifying it by calling them "detention centers") and torture, even if it was only to quote AWOL-in-Chief that he'd "like" to shut Gitmo down, 'but some of the prisoners were too dangerous.' Pure B.S.!!!

Middle-of-the-roaders who once voted for the neoCons could be so guilty they voted for NumbNutz and his supporters before that they could vote Dem as an Anybody But Republican this time around because they are ashamed to have once supported an administration that has committed WAR CRIMES and now sanctions torture and openly admits it has a concentration camp at a US military base at Gitmo....

Also, throwing up the distinct LACK of military service on the part of the majority of Repubs isn't a bad idea....

Still, there needs to be a segue into opening up talk about IMPEACHMENT, and whether or not candidates would support it. I'm looking for candidates with backbone, in other words, candidates who have the testicular fortitude to mention these things on Lamestream Media Sunday talking heads shows, who will bring up the subjects of WAR CRIMES and IMPEACHMENT and not let the talking heads steer clear of "sensitive topics" for neoCons....

Posted by: April at June 23, 2006 12:41 PM

Powers that be? Democratic powers or Republican ones?

I think he has a strong chance. Though I put it more at 2012 than 2008.

Though frankly, after seeing these smear machine Republicans in action, I would not chose to put my family on the line.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/23/fox-gitmo/

Unbelievable! And who argues we don't have a facist regime?

Democrats Need A New Script

by Helen Thomas

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/275029_thomas23.html

She knows.

Bruce Springsteen has lot more credibility when speaking about American values than Eva Coulter.

Related to the thread head; I don't think we have to say too much. The news speaks for itself. People are not studpid. They can see what a miserable failure this disaster has been.

Iraqis call state of emergency in Baghdad

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060623/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_060623180825

Posted by: DiAnne at June 23, 2006 08:51 PM

DiAnne,

I wish Helen Thomas would run - for any office. She could teach the Dems something about getting the message out loud and clear.

Posted by: oncall at June 23, 2006 09:14 PM

"studpid"

Hey, Lookey there, I made a new word.

Oncall,

You made a new Bushism.

OnCall
Helen Thomas is one of the only people left with wisdom, common sense. She is just the penultimate! She has a new book out & I want to read it.

I sent this to mbk & hope she can go:
John Kerry to Address Energy Independence, Environment,
Climate Change Solutions

Senator John Kerry will deliver a major speech on energy independence, the environment, and global climate change at Faneuil Hall in Boston, MA on Monday

Kerry will address the urgent need to break our dependence on foreign oil, address the growing threat of global climate change, and establish a real energy policy.

Anyone else in Boston?

Dubya: Doing for Iraq what he did for Harken and Arbusto.

Posted by: Cyrano at June 23, 2006 09:54 PM

Dubya and fellow Republican neocons doing for the American people what Bush did to Harkin, Arbrusto, Iraq, NOLA, etc..

Posted by: DiAnne at June 23, 2006 08:51 PM

Helen Thomas has been around long enough to know what's what, who's who, and where the bodies are buried.... She's an example of why it's old people are wise and one should listen to one's elders; she uses her head for something other than ornamental hats.

Seriously, if the DNC had any brains in the back room, they'd hire Helen Thomas as a consultant or a script writer....

Er.... I meant to write:

She's an example of why it's said old people are wise and one should listen to one's elders; she uses her head for something other than ornamental hats.

Good morning NonnyO!

NonnyO

Some wingnut Congressdude made a crack about 76 virgins who look like Helen Thomas & had to apologize.

Your comment about wisdom reminded me of Harriet the turtle, who died at 175. Turtle is my favorite animal so I was very sad to hear about her. She was already older than most humans when the civil war started.

Recently I saw a documentary ("The Chances of the World Changing") about a guy who had 1500 endangered turtles rescued from places like restaurants & was trying to establish breeding grounds. He was evicted & had to farm them out to turtle raisers all over the country, a race against time (using a U-Haul no less, going through snow, depending on space heaters).

I tell you, I've about had it with humans. It's getting very close to monastery time.

mbk IS going to hear JK talk about energy independence.
I love thinking about that.

Book on slang banned in NC schools, and it's not uncommon to ban books like The Color Purple, or perhaps a book on Cuba.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1804805,00.html

Eva Coulter.

Nice one Cyrano. You have such a way with words.

Posted by: April at June 23, 2006 11:21 AM

April, I agree.

Attack by telling the truth. It's not exactly slander. Tell the truth. Tell it loud. Tell it strong. Tell it LOUD!!!! And, tell it long.

As some of you have mentioned, John Kerry did not go into '04 slandering. He's not that kind of guy. So while he was playing nice according to most sane and caring people's morals, they Rove-slimed him, took over the media, and, well....here we are. Then his own called him weak and ineffective.

No more.

EVER.