Recently in
Party Reform Category

[Photo of Shirley Shor painting "Leaning, 2005", by Gallery Paul Anglim]

Self loathing is an ugly thing. The despair that it can cause in the human heart can wreak havoc on the world around. And this, sadly, is where Senator Larry Craig seems to be.

Last night, in what I can only think of as a sad and desperate act, Senator Craig (R-ID) indicated, through a spokesman and others, that he wanted to perhaps, rethink, his position on his resignation.

"It's not such a foregone conclusion anymore, that the only thing he could do was resign," Sidney Smith, Craig's spokesman in Idaho's capital, told The Associated Press.

"We're still preparing as if Senator Craig will resign Sept. 30, but the outcome of the legal case in Minnesota and the ethics investigation will have an impact on whether we're able to stay in the fight _ and stay in the Senate," Smith said.

Someone should tell him that the Republican leadership doesn't do takesies backsies, and that public life doesn't provide for do overs. Especially not when the news of your decision comes, not just from your spokesperson, but from the fact that you left a message, on stranger's phone machine, thinking it was your high-priced Washington lawyer's phone machine.

Clearly, stress is having an effect on Craig's judgement, and the pressure he is feeling is evident in his voice. The level of tension and his desperation to hold on to the fiction he has created for himself is tragic.

But the tragedy is compounded when one thinks of the effects of Craig's many votes during his 27-year Senate Career on GLTB issues.

I can only speculate that what is in Craig's mind, which is that he does not see himself as gay. He sees himself as having deviant urges that must, somehow, be suppressed, both in himself, and others. And when that twisted thinking is applied to his voting in the Senate, he turns the tragedy on everyone else.

How does this tragedy manifest itself on a daily basis? Here's one small example: Larry Craig married a woman with three small children. He subsequently adopted those children. To all observers, he has been a steadfast and loving parent to them. So much so, in fact, that one of them appeared on Good Morning America this morning to give public statements of support from himself and his two siblings. But that parental relationship never would have happened in a Larry Craig legislated world, because he opposed gay and lesbian adoption. And as a result, those children likely would have been deprived of the parent/child relationship that quite obviously developed to the benefit of all.

That is the tragedy of the closeted life expanded into a legislative life.

It's a hard lesson to learn, but maybe now Craig will understand that the legislature, be it state or federal, has no place in the bedrooms of consenting adults. And should this public fiasco result in him remaining in the Senate, one would hope that he would bring some newfound compassion for the persecution that homosexuals endure in our society, and reevaluate his Senate votes on these issues.

Of course, I won't be holding my breath, but I can always hold out hope that people will learn from their own personal tragedies.

Craig would say he supports freedom, but what freedom is there in constantly feeling as though you have to hide a most basic part of your self?

[Editor's Note: Link to Talking Points Memos Story added after initial posting of this story. Further note: changes made to correct grammatical and spelling error, incorrect links, and other coffee deprived errors. Apologies for the confusationess. ]

The Iraq War is a failure. The War on Terra is a failure. The War on Drugs is a failure. The projected Neocon Jihad on America is a failure. This President, and his entire administration are failures.

And so I have to ask myself...

["Clueless" poster image: Paramount Pictures]

I'm a proud Democrat. Most of the folks I know are proud Democrats. But the proud Democrats I know, are not particularly proud of the Democrats in Congress right now, and it's obvious to those of us in Realityville, USA, why this is.

Ask a Democratic politician why the approval ratings of this Democratic Congress are so low, and they will tell you that it's because of the Iraq War and Republicans. America has turned against the war, and it's dragging everyone's approval ratings down.

Wow. Is there a deeper level of willful ignorance anywhere in the world that surpasses that of Washington politicians?

I can't take it anymore. They're utterly clueless.

I had to write a letter to them:

Dear Congressional Democrats,

After reading that you blame the President and the Republicans for your low approval ratings, I feel compelled to write this letter and correct your mistaken beliefs about why people think you suck.

People think you suck, because you refuse to stand up to a president that is less popular than syphilis.

People think you suck because you swore to uphold the Constitution and protect us from all enemies, foreign and domestic, and you don't. I'm embarassed that Bruce Fein and Bob Barr understand this, and you don't.

People think you suck because you were sent to Washington to end the war and bring our troops home. Instead of the debate being about the date to begin leaving, you have managed to lose track of the discussion, and now it's about what happens if we leave, and how many troops to leave behind. Fortunately, Ari Fleischer is going to change the subject back for you. Who knew that Ari would come to the rescue of the message muddled democrats by delivering a straight and bold message from Republicans. Unfortunately for the Republicans, they are delivering a message that America has come to loathe and thinks is complete crap. You need to send a big thank you note to that man for doing what you folks couldn't.

People think you suck because you have no message machine at all. You have no coordination on agenda or debate. Here's a tip: We're not looking for a chorus. We're looking for a choir. Choirs need leaders, and you people don't know how to find them or grow them.

People think you suck because you seem to have no idea how people who live outside the beltway feel, and you don't seem to care much. Sure, you are somewhat less clueless when you get back from some time spent in your districts. But once you get back to Washington and start breathing the rarified air of power and privilege, well, the concerns of ordinary Americans fly out the taxpayer funded window.

But mostly, it's this--People think you suck because they sent you there to stand up for them, and instead, you drop to your knees. Look, it's not that difficult. We didn't send you there to fight the fights you can win. We sent you there to fight the fights that need fighting.

As Democrats, we'd rather die on our feet than live on our knees. Internalize that message. Needlepoint it on a pillow or tattoo it on your thighs. Whatever it takes for you to simultaneously be in Washington and remember why you were sent there, do it.

People don't think you suck because you lose. Losing we understand. We're Democrats, after all. No, they think you suck because you're not willing to fight.

If you don't want people to think you suck, try standing up for them. And then keep standing up for them. For as long as it takes to get the job done.

Yeah, it really is just that simple.

Yours truly,

Casey Morris, Proud Democrat

So...what's on your mind?

[Photo credit of eggs frying on sidewalk: operapixels]

All the kids I know are asking if you can really do this...yes, you can, but it's disgusting. I give that answer alot these days.

[UPDATE: Harriet Miers blows off the subpoena. Conyers responds here. My response? Throw her ass in jail. Now. What's your response?]

Speaking of these days, you don't need me to tell you that it's summertime. The mercury is through the roof, and we're all seeking a little shelter. And while you seek that shelter, what are you talking about with your friends and neighbors? More important, what are you talking about with strangers? You know, the folks in line at the grocery store, or in my case, at the town pool.

I usually know what's on the minds of my close friends and neighbors, but I've found that what's on the minds of strangers usually provides the most insight as to what the country, as a whole, is talking about.

So here's what people are talking back about:

"You win some. You lose some. And then there's that little known third category." - Al Gore -

Meet the new Congressman-elect from the Great State of Texas

Ciro Rodriguez

Last evening, in the last Congressional race of the 2006 cycle, Democrat Ciro Rodriguez beat the pants off of Republican Henry Bonilla, bringing the total number of seats gained by the Democrats in the US House of Representatives to 31.

But the Ciro Rodriguez story is not about Democrats versus Republicans for me. It's about the power of the people.

Remember how the Ciro story got going? It got started on Daily Kos, and Ciro's opponent in the Democratic primary, Henry Cuellar's people called it a one day story. THAT'S how this began. And Ciro lost that primary, but he never put away his campaign signs, and then next time out, he won, and went on to beat Bonilla last night.

Now, it's no secret that the DCCC pumped beaucoup bucks into the race in that last couple few weeks. That's not my point. My point is that a year ago, the DCCC would have been scratching their collective whatevers, and looking around that room with dazed blank facial expressions if someone had raised the name of Ciro Rodriguez. Back then, we would have had a response of yawning, not fawning.

No, the point here is that the PEOPLE brought Ciro forward as a candidate. The PEOPLE raised money through Act Blue pages, organized phone banks, reached out to fellow voters and in general worked their asses off for a guy that they believed might not win, but deserved a chance to compete. And they gave him enough support to bring him within striking distance of Bonilla, so that the DCCC would back him in the closing days.

THAT is power. And that is only ONE of the lessons to be taken from this story.

Here's another lesson from this story: Ciro Rodriguez won by nine points. In ALL of the Dec. 5, 2006 polling, Ciro was down by nine points. Let's all remember that the next time we see a poll that looks bad for a candidate that you support and it's a week out from an election.

And here's what I think is the most important lesson. Many political types, unfamiliar with what real political blogging is about, talk about the miracle of political blogging as the ability to raise money over the internets. How much money Howard Dean raised in small donor money is often cited. And yes, that was interesting then, and in this last cycle, that has become an even more formidable weapon in the PEOPLE'S arsenal than in the 2004 cycle.

But no, that was not the miracle of the Dean story.

The miracle of the Dean story was that complete strangers, from across the country, to across the world, talked to each other about politics and what mattered to them for the first time in a very long time. The miracle of the Dean story, is that complete strangers invited other complete strangers into their homes, their work and their lives. All for a political cause. All to take action. All of them, intent on making their voices heard and using some part of their lives in service to making the world a better place.

Now THAT is a miracle. And it's a miracle that the people can make happen.

More of that, please.

There's something very sad and world-wearying about the Foleygate scandal, which seems to keep bleeding, and bleeding, and bleeding.

We're not immune to political scandals--in either party. But the partisanship by which we regard this current scandal hits me with a feeling of unease. Are we any better because its THEM that its happening to, not us? Do we feel morally superior to them right now because now its THEIR turn on the wheel of karmic justice? Given everything we've been dealt BECAUSE of the Lewinsky scandal the past seven years--are we not finally vindicated?

Well, yes and no.

There still remains the bigger picture under which all of these scandals happen. The root of it comes from the abuse of power: being too long in the position of privilege, blinded by all the accompanying temptations accorded to that position of power, becoming heedless and numb to the original intent of one's leadership--serving the people who worked hard for you and voted for you to get there.

Last night I watched, grimacing, the inexorably vigilant Nancy Grace ratcheting up public disgust with her normal vehemence, milking the show's phone hotline, allowing the vox populi to vent on the Mark Foley scandal. As much as I wished that would happen in the early hours of the Foley scandal as I watched, I took no pleasure from it. All she was doing was filling the need created by this scandal-addicted, junk-news fed American electorate.

But before I venture further down the road of blaming mainstream media for catering to the need for intellectually nutrition-free information I want to throw my energy down a different path.

Why can't Congress take this opportunity to come to grips with idealism again? Why can't it start to grab hold of vision, imagination, productivity, and peace? Why not use this opportunity to truly clean house and give people confidence in leadership again? Why can't we have people we trust in positions of power once more?

The vision of this Congress as it stands right now reminds me of a fine old club, once venerable and respected, now shoddy, unkempt and devoid of substance, meaning, and purpose. In my mind, this Congress looks to me a seedy mess, which, like public buildings long overdue their maintenance and repair, needs to be shut down and remodeled.

For all intents and purposes, Club Congress, devoid of both leadership AND decency, needs to be closed for renovations.

[Editor's note: This piece comes to us from DCP member ABQJohn. Thank you, John, for lending your wonderful insight to the blog discourse.]

I am finishing a wonderful, albeit short, stint with the State of New Mexico’s TANF/Food Stamp Program that we affectionately call the Welfare Office. The mission of the office is to give the clients the education and motivation to get them off of public assistance. All of these folks are experienced social workers and all have a heart the size of New Mexico.

The program starts with education, and the first thing clients’ learn is the definition of insanity. The definition of insanity is “doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.” We then move to motivation with a poster of a typical, Generation Y teenage girl with the familiar “whatever!” expression. On the poster is the phrase “If you continue to do what you’ve always done, you’ll continue to get what you’ve always gotten.” We encourage clients to change their habits to achieve better with our help.

The oft-used Republican mantra of stay-the-course is much like doing the same thing over and over. I like to call that the Ed Smith approach. Edward John Smith was the captain of the Titanic who famously stayed his course right into an iceberg on April 14, 1912, sinking the mighty, world’s largest ship on its maiden voyage and killing 1,595 people on board. And if we keep doing the same thing, we’ll get the same results – just more of the same old same old and Americans and Iraqis deserve better than more of the same.

The next mantra oft used to malign Democrats is the cut-and-run approach. But it was the Democrats introduced not one but two plans on the Senate floor last week – both dying a slow and painful death by the Republican led Senate with no help from the Republican White House, a soon all-Republican Cabinet, and an arguably Republican Supreme Court. And just in case you think you missed the Republican plan introduced into Congress this week – there was none. What is happening in Congress is cut-and-run. Every time a serious debate of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan arises, the Republicans cut-and-run. They cut the debate short and run from the issue, oft reverting to the Ed Smith approach to certain failure. We need a change in this Congress in November so real debate can take place to get us out of Iraq and give the Iraqis back their country.

So if we continue to do what we’ve always done, we’ll continue to get what we always gotten, but to continue to do the same things over and over and expect a different result? That’s insane!

Anyone feel like it's August 2004 again?

I do. The media is suckling at the Republican narrative "Dems are divided...Dems are weak on National Security..." teat and what are the Democrats doing? I mean, what are the Democrats doing?

Moreover, what should they be doing?

Here's some advice from TRex over at FDL and I'd like to know what people think of this:

Which brings me to tonight’s topic. As netroots activists, we hear a lot of talk about the importance of "reframing the arguments", and I couldn’t agree more. But so few of our advocates in the public sphere seem to be taking that advice to heart. The whole "Lie and Die" thing is a nice try, Mr. Kerry, it’s short and it rhymes, sure, but it is still a response to the GOP’s charges of us being "cut and run" liberals. It still places us in the argument in a defensive crouch.

As long as we continue to form our strategies and sound bites around defending ourselves, the GOP will always win. They have consistently set the tone for every debate from gay marriage to the War in Iraq by arriving there first, seizing the moral high ground, and hurling accusations, which the vichy Dems seem more than willing to waste their time parrying, ducking and weaving around in a doomed effort to justify themselves to the electorate, no matter how absurd and disingenuous the accusations are. We always enter the debate on terms set by the Republicans. If we continue to do that, we will always, always lose.

Listen to me, Democrats! Never defend. Never explain. Attack, attack, attack! When a right-winger accuses you of something, back up, reframe, ignore the charges, just ATTACK. How hard can this be? Ann Coulter doesn’t waste her time defending herself against our accusations. Neither does Rush Limbaugh. They launch their attacks and the terms of the debate are set from there, and once again, as liberals, we are bringing knives to a gun fight.

To whit:

A Republican says, "All you liberals are cut-and-run traitors! You don’t support the troops!"

Instead of frantically beginning to tap dance and show that you’re not a traitor and that you do support the troops, you fire back, "Why are you Republicans such cowards? Your leaders are all draft-dodgers who’ve never fired a shot at anything but a bunch of canned quails and old lawyers. You’re using the troops as human shields against the midterm elections! Do you like seeing our brave men and women in uniform slaughtered and killed? Or are you just too much of a coward to face the consequences of your failed policies in Iraq? Which is it? Do you just hate the soldiers or do you hate your constituents?"

There. You have just put the burden of proof on the Repugnican that he/she isn’t a coward and that they don’t hate the troops. Then you set up a false dichotomy that they can’t answer without looking like a fool.

The rest of the entry is here. I'd like to know what people think of this approach. Please comment.

There are a couple of other strategies being floated out there and I will post on them later today for discussion.

I am posting these, because, as I have written on before, the Democrats will not be in charge of the narrative, because they are not in charge of the media. The only topics that will be covered in the media wil be Iraq, Immigration, fear and loathing. And it's up to the Democrats to deal with it. So the DCP will be posting several options, and we would appreciate your feedback.

Mark Warner is making a high-profile, much-anticipated lunchtime appearance at Yearly Kos, here in Las Vegas. We open with a biographical videotape and an introduction by Markos. We are given t-shirts and the video highlights many of Warner's accomplishments. Like several courting the netroots, Warner could possibly be a contender for the 2008 Presidential election.

And now, Governor Warner. He has visited 23 states and visited 4 countries since leaving office a few months ago. He sees energy and optimism in this room. He has seen what the netroots are doing in every state he has been to. He reminds us that we are running 423 candidates for the House. He applauds the new set of energy brought to conventional politics. He favors the 50 state focus vs attention to a few swing states.

Virginia is a so-called "red state." He tells us people there are tired of being labelled and ready for a change. We need to take the energy we have here and take it back with us into our communities, into our streets.

He is a public school product, another lawyer who worked for the DNC, started an eneergy company that went broke, failed at real estate and slept on his friends' couches. At 26, in 1982, he discovered the world of cellular phones, an emerging technology at that time. "Go ahead and tell your cell phones back on," he says. He gets points for humor.

He emphasizes his education and healthcare focus. When campaigning for government in 2001, there had not been a Democratic Governor since the 1960s. He presents as a self-made man who believes in people having a fair shot. He seems very aware of changes in technology as it affects service delivery and even security. He favors change and adaptation in politics, something very consistent with the message of this Conference. It could be framed as "Future vs Past."

He seems to have updated several sectors in Virginia. He needs to articulate his vision for America and this is the place to do it. This is the audience that is ready to hear it. We'll hear alot of speeches from alot of contenders from both parties.

It is a thrill to see new media, new people, new politics and a new agenda all in one place. It is a thrill to see a room full of tables of people with laptops and cameras - ordinary citizen activist/reporters from all over the country. It's exciting to see Markos of Daily Kos walk in with his wife and son, who are coming to see Howard Dean, and to hear that Markos will be interviewed on Meet the Press, that this Yearly Kos conference is covered on the front page of the N Y TImes.

Howard Dean starts by telling us that the politics of the right isn't working. He reminds us that younger people who were disappointed at the outcome of the last election have a short time horizon, that the movement to take back the country for real American values will take time and it's a daily fight. The opposition realized this 35 years ago but this is not about the Republican and Democratic parties - it's about the United States of America.

He urges us to appeal to our best instincts, not scapegoat. We are not the people who put the interests of party ahead of the country and we will not. He tells us that this is about all of us - this is the true Town Meeting where everyone gets to speak, and that the DNC has an Internet Department that reads what bloggers say all day long. This is a grassroots movements from the bottom up. The new politics is about trusting people in their own neighborhoods to do the right thing.

I understand the Democrats have television commercials running during the World Cup Soccer games. This, I assume, is to reach out to Hispanic/Latino voters. It's a great idea and shows some creative thinking on the part of the Democratic Party.

Which got me thinking--are there any ideas out there that you have heard of or come up with yourself that you would like to see implemented for your party? There will be opportunities next week to for the DCP to share these ideas with others.

Over the next week, we will be attending and covering Yearly Kos Convention in Las Vegas (opening today), and the Take Back America Conference (beginning on Monday). We will be live-blogging the proceedings and bringing ideas back here, but we would also like to share ideas with others.

So post your ideas and thoughts on this thread, and we will be happy to put them out to the larger audience of organizers.

And not to be lost in this discussion, is that many areas will be gearing up over the next few weeks for the fall elections. Getting others involved and activated is critical. What will you be doing to get others involved? What are you doing in your area? And finally, what would you tell someone who have never been involved in politics, but is starting to feel an urgency about the mistakes our government is making?

How do you turn emotion into action on the ground for someone who has never been politically active?

As we have discussed in this space many times, the media skews right. It's almost impossible not to notice the mulititude of conservatives vs. neutral reporters/very occasional progressive, on Sunday morning newschat shows. And yet we have seen something of a debate taking place over at Media Matters over just that fact.

Media Matters produces a study, states its methodology, and then the television folks from the traditional media strain credulity in their eagerness to refute the study's findings. In separate letters/columns to Media Matters, CBS's Public Eye's Vaughn Ververs, and Meet The Press' Executive Producer Betsey Fischer snipe at Media Matter's findings for not studying things that Media Matters never claimed it was studying in the first place, and, in fact, specifically claimed it wasn't going to study. It's roughly the equivalent of me doing a study on Idaho potatoes and including the methodology that I was studying only Idaho potatoes, and you sniping at me because I didn't include in my study the fact that there are also potatoes grown in parts of Russia.

Here's an excerpt from the back and forth between Media Matters and Fischer:

Betsy,

You ask why our report did not discuss Clinton's first term, and you say that "perhaps it's because statistics from Clinton's first term do not support their ill-defined 'conclusion.' " Later, you call our study "intellectually dishonest." You seem to be suggesting that we analyzed the data from those years, decided it didn't fit the point we wanted to make, and thus excluded it from our public report. That would have been appallingly dishonest, and it is frankly offensive for you to suggest that we have done so. I have been asked in a number of interviews why there is an imbalance on the Sunday shows, and I am always careful to say that we ascribe no sinister intentions to the producers. It is unfortunate that you apparently couldn't bring yourself to extend us the same courtesy.

Let me be clear: We didn't examine the guests from those years, so we have no idea what doing so would have showed. We decided to go back only as far as the second Clinton term because there were gaps in the Lexis-Nexis data, and we had to stop somewhere. Gathering and analyzing the data for all the nine years was itself an enormous task. Since you seem to have a complete list of guests on Meet the Press available, if you send it to us, we would be happy to analyze the first Clinton term.

As for the numbers you provide, it is you who have mixed apples and oranges. You say that for the first Clinton term, the guest breakdown was 56 percent Democrats to 44 percent Republicans. Since you are speaking only of Democrats and Republicans, the relevant comparison in our data is not the overall guest list, which includes not only elected and administration officials but all guests, including journalists; the relevant comparison is the list of elected and administration officials.

The complete inability for the traditional media to even hear the word bias, let alone be willing to examine that bias honestly and forthrightly is disturbing. This sort of snarky knee-jerk response that Fischer gave to Media Matters provides nearly as much insight into the problem as the Media Matters study itself. For how can you solve a problem, when you spend all of your time denying its very existence?

(Editor's Note: Joe Shikspack is the nom de plume of a friend. He is not a DCP Crew member, but we welcome him as an occasional guest ranter.)

Is Joe Lieberman the Future of the Democrat Party?

In case nobody's presented him with a suitable award yet; I think that Joe Lieberman is clearly the leading candidate for the prestigious, "Grover Norquist Domesticated Democrat of the Year Award."  The award was conceived based upon Norquist's remarks to a Washington Post reporter:

"Once the minority of House and Senate are comfortable in their minority status, they will have no problem socializing with the Republicans. Any farmer will tell you that certain animals run around and are unpleasant, but when they've been fixed, then they are happy and sedate. They are contented and cheerful. They don't go around peeing on the furniture and such."

Rumor has it that the gratuity this year may include a cabinet post from the White House , while, in the most heartening development that I've seen in several years, it appears that the progressive grassroots may attempt to deliver Lieberman a large, full-featured clue-by-four.

Could it be?  Could the progressive community actually take down some of the spineless, supine wretches that have cashed in the slender dime's worth of difference that once existed between the two parties - and take out the Democrat political consultants who have destroyed the receipt and stolen the change?

-- Joe Shikspack

From Murray Waas of the National Journal (subscription):

Vice President Cheney and his chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, overruling advice from some White House political staffers and lawyers, decided to withhold crucial documents from the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2004 when the panel was investigating the use of pre-war intelligence that erroneously concluded Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, according to Bush administration and congressional sources.

Cheney had been the foremost administration advocate for war with Iraq, and Libby played a central staff role in coordinating the sale of the war to both the public and Congress.

Among the White House materials withheld from the committee were Libby-authored passages in drafts of a speech that then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell delivered to the United Nations in February 2003 to argue the Bush administration's case for war with Iraq, according to congressional and administration sources. The withheld documents also included intelligence data that Cheney's office -- and Libby in particular -- pushed to be included in Powell's speech, the sources said.

The new information that Cheney and Libby blocked information to the Senate Intelligence Committee further underscores the central role played by the vice president's office in trying to blunt criticism that the Bush administration exaggerated intelligence data to make the case to go to war.

You think now we can maybe have a real Congressional investigation?

Maybe a few Contempt of Congress citations?

Maybe a Congress that can do its damn job of asking questions and serving the function of being a check on the power of the Executive branch?

Watching the Republican Political Machine is an awful lot like watching snakes limbo. Just when you think the belly-crawling crowd has gone as low as they can go, they just slither right under the morality bar one more time.

Take United States Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison's (R-TX) performance on Meet The Press yesterday morning:

I certainly hope that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn’t indict on the crime so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation were not a waste of time and dollars.

I was watching the show with my older sister who was visiting for the weekend. Now, you should know that I call my sister nearly every day with my "political outrage of the day". And everyday, her response is a stunned, "Are you kidding me?".

I always give her the same response, "I can't make this up."

As commentor Spinnaker noted below in the previous thread, Lindsay Beyerstein of the blog, Majikthise, held a fundraiser a short time ago so she could travel to Texas and cover the Tom DeLay perp walk and arraignment.

Having reached her fundraising goal, Lindsey was at the event yesterday and has posted her photo gallery and Amanda's account of the proceedings on her (sic) blog here.

Aside from Tom Delay's maniacally beaming mug shot, I have yet to see any other photos of this historic event in any of the major news outlets. Nice work, Lindsay, and thank you for giving us the insider's view.

Armando over at DailyKos posted this article from Yoo and Paulsen at the LA Times. Let's ignore the snarky implication of "Where were these guys on Robert's?", and move forward to what is obvious--that this is the approach the Senate should be taking on all nominees.

The administration's stealth strategy assumes that it is improper for senators to ask, or for a nominee to answer, a question about Roe vs. Wade or any other substantive constitutional question. This has things exactly backward. The Constitution not only permits such questioning, it arguably requires it. Although the Constitution makes judges independent after appointment, it sets up an explicitly political appointment process before a judge is approved. Why on Earth would determining a nominee's approach to interpreting the Constitution be thought to be out of bounds, before giving her a lifetime appointment to do exactly that?

Is there any line of inquiry that the Constitution does not permit? Yes. It would be improper to try to exact a pledge as to how a nominee will rule in future cases. As long as the inquiry stops short of that, it does not violate the Constitution's protection of judicial independence, nor does it violate judicial ethics. Parties before the courts are entitled to judges who will consider their cases without bias. But they are not entitled to judges who have no views of the law. An open mind is one thing; an empty head is another.

Well said.

After two disastrous weeks of media coverage, the White House assembled a team of 20 high powered professional image gurus and legal coaches to remake their candidate for the Supreme Court, Harriet Miers.

Yesterday was the unveiling, and yesterday their efforts to manipulate the media fell as flat as their efforts to manipulate the media did last week.

Meet the new Harriet Miers. The same as the old Harriet Miers.

Confused and confusing.

Trying to woo senators who will determine whether she is confirmed for the court, Miers aided the White House as it scrambled yesterday to quell controversy over a published report that two Texas judges said she opposes the 1973 decision that affirmed the right to an abortion in all 50 states. "She said, 'No one knows how I would rule on Roe v. Wade ,' " Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) told reporters after their private meeting.

But as Miers sought to distance herself from the judges' assertions, her day on Capitol Hill ended in confusion over how far she went in telling senators that she believes there is a constitutional right to privacy -- the right that is the legal premise of Roe.

I have heard many proponents of the Iraq War, those specifically who disagreed with France's refusal to join the coalition, fling out the words, "Hey, like they've got anything to talk about. They've got the whole Oil for Food scandal." Then the same people would smirk at the idea that our soldiers are over in Iraq fighting for Iraq's oil. They say, "Blood for oil, yeh...right!"

The common theme in both appear to be the oil and the allegations of corrupt behavior to get to that oil. Can either be substantiated with solid proof? U.N. Secretary General-General Kofi Annan has praised the Oil-for-Food Programme for accomplishing one of the largest, most complex and unusual tasks ever entrusted to the Secretariat.

In a statement to the Security Council (20 November 2003), he noted that the Programme, which closed on 21 November was the only humanitarian programme ever to have been funded entirely from resources belonging to the nation it was designed to help.

There is alot going on in a city and it's easy to miss much of it! So it was that last week I, as a commuting worker with limited vacation time, managed to miss John Kerry, John Edwards and the launch of the Progressive Legislative Action Network (PLAN). The launch was co-sponsored by MoveOn, EIU, the United Steelworkers and progressive philanthropists.

David Sirota has been at the Center for American Progress for two years, has appeared twice weekly on the Al Franken show, and is working on a book about the middle class economic squeeze. He is also one of the co-chairs of PLAN, which launched last week in Seattle.

The rightwing has had its corporate-backed conservative action network called ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) for decades. Now progressives will have PLAN. Sirota says PLAN will work alongside other organizations but focus more on aggressive advocacy, working side-by-side with legislators and state-based grassroots organizations.

It is not unusual in American history for movements to start at the municipal and state "grassroots" and move upward. It is impossible for corporations to buy off fifty different political arenas at once. Local lawmakers are closer to their constituents than national politicians could ever be.

Sirota advocates getting outside of the "beltway." "The goal is to bring as diverse a coaliton together as possible so that our side has a cohesive agenda in the states," says Sirota. "For too long, conservatives have been able to use alot of money to push the most radical rightwing policies through state legislatures. I am commited to putting together the necessary resources and necessary coalitions of progressive legislators to stop this unchecked extremism and start passing legislation that makes state governments work for ordinary citizens, not just monied special interests.

While the task is daunting, it's time to start winning state-level victories and building a progressive movement.

Keep in touch with http://www.davidsirota.com and http://www.workingforchange.com

Can anyone argue that the GOP has not become the bastion of a Culture of Corruption? This is just a sampling of today's GOP-involved corruption stories.

Uber-lobbyist Jack Abramoff has been indicted and a warrant for his arrest issued in a completely separate case from the corruption and influence peddling investigation that involves Tom DeLay. This case has ties to Republican Senator Conrad Burns (R-MT).

Speaking of Tom DeLay, the FEC (Federal Elections Commission) audit finds $300,000 of misreporting in DeLay's ARMPAC.

Next up, the RNC is paying the legal bills ($722,000 so far) of the ringleader in the 2002 phone-jamming scandal, a case which involves Bill Frist (R-TN) and Ken Mehlman, chairman of the RNC.

And speaking of Republican Legal Defense Funds, Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA) would like us all to know that his legal defense fund is open for business. He has asked the FEC if he can use his campaign contributions for legal defense. At least he didn't ask Tom DeLay for his advice on how to use the funds.

Then there's the epicenter of the culture of corruption, Ohio. The Ohio Ethics Commission investigating Governor Bob Taft (R) has announced that it has completed its investigation and will forward the results to prosecutors. Part of those results will no doubt be his 2001 Mother's Day Brunch outing with Tom Noe. Tom Noe, of Coingate fame, we find in today's Toledo Blade article, a court having ruled in favor of broad public disclosure of records involving the state's dealings with Noe.

And finally, Walter Pincus of The Washington Post, brings the subject back around to the Federal Grand Jury investigation into the CIA leak that threatens our national security, and reaches inside nearly every office door in the West Wing of the White House. The list of those that have not been called before the grand jury is pretty short and getting shorter all the time.

Once again, this isn't about right and left. It's about right and wrong.

Now as we students of Amerian history all know, political corruption can infect the members of any party. But judging by today's stories, there are a lot more lawyers getting rich trying to keep Republicans out of jail than Democrats.

(thanks to Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo)

Jim Wallis wrote an op-ed appearing in this morning's New York Times, that, in the wake of the Paul Hackett-Jean Schmidt campaign in Ohio, presents some interesting points for discussion left, right and center.

The Message Thing
By JIM WALLIS
Published: August 4, 2005

SINCE the 2004 election, there has been much soul-searching and hand-wringing, especially among Democrats, about how to "frame" political messages. The loss to George W. Bush was painful enough, but the Republicans' post-election claims of mandate, and their triumphal promises to relegate the Democrats to permanent minority status, left political liberals in a state of panic.

So the minority party has been searching, some would say desperately, for the right "narrative": the best story line, metaphors, even magic words to bring back electoral success. The operative term among Democratic politicians and strategists has become "framing." How to tell the story has become more important than the story itself. And that could be a bigger mistake for the Democrats than the ones they made during the election.

Language is clearly important in politics, but the message remains more important than the messaging. In the interests of full disclosure, let me note that I have been talking to the Democrats about both. But I believe that first, you must get your message straight. What are your best ideas, and what are you for-as opposed to what you're against in the other party's message? Only when you answer those questions can you figure out how to present your message to the American people.

Because the Republicans, with the help of the religious right, have captured the language of values and religion (narrowly conceived as only abortion and gay marriage), the Democrats have also been asking how to "take back the faith." But that means far more than throwing a few Bible verses into policy discussions, offering candidates some good lines from famous hymns, or teaching them how to clap at the right times in black churches. Democrats need to focus on the content of religious convictions and the values that underlie them.

The discussion that shapes our political future should be one about moral values, but the questions to ask are these: Whose values? Which values? And how broadly and deeply will our political values be defined? Democrats must offer new ideas and a fresh agenda, rather than linguistic strategies to sell an old set of ideologies and interest group demands.

To be specific, I offer five areas in which the Democrats should change their message and then their messaging.

Once upon a time, a man who believes in his country volunteers to fight for his country. And that man does so, in one of the most dangerous assignments in the world, by all accounts. Also by all accounts, he serves with honor, valor, courage and distinction.

This same man, after fighting for a country he believes in with all his heart, decided to run for public office. In the midst of running for public office, this man speaks the truth about what he believes--that his Commander-In-Chief is a sonofabitch, but he would lay down his life for him, because the Commander-In-Chief, he says, is the President of all the people, not just the ones who like him.

And for that bit of honesty, the opposition party has decided, with the help of the White House, and all the apparachik at it's disposal, "have decided to bury him".

Let me repeat, a man serves his country and commander faithfully, and the political party he is running against, has said they have, "decided to bury him."

I'm a little unclear--who supports the troops?

I was speaking to a friend last night about Karl Rove's comments at a Conservative fundraiser, and he told me something I didn't know. It wasn't a conservative fundraiser for Republican New Jersey gubernatorial candidate, Doug Forrester.

So that made me think about something else altogether.

To what extent, if any, are the candidates for a political office responsible for the remarks made at a fundraiser held to help them attain that office?

Coingate. We've heard about it and read about it and seen it on television all of the...wait--whhhat's that?

Oh, right. Okay, let's try this again--Coingate, you've heard about it if you visit blogs which print the truth, and you've read about it if you have access to The Toledo Blade, or live in Ohio, and you have come nowhere near seeing it on television unless you've been taking peyote during some well deserved down time from your 9-5 gig.

But in a nutshell, Coingate is a story about the GOP led government in Ohio, and the looting of a $225 million Ohio State worker's comp fund. At least, that's how the story began--how it ends is anyone's guess. It was true for Watergate and it's still true. Follow the money, baby, follow the money.

The fact that there is all this money gone missing, and that Ohio had what was at best, poorly run elections, and at worst, fraudulent elections which led to the reelection of President Bush by a mere 10,000 votes, I am sure is a complete coincidence (pun intended).

And I haven't written about it before because I have been waiting to see what the lamestream media would do, the GOP would do, the Democrats would do, and how long it would take to get Coingate, Ken Blackwell, elections and Bush involved the same overall story.

We have crossed that threshold and the bride of scandal is in the house.

[Editor's Note: In response to the post reporting the Progressive Agenda from the Take Back America Conference, there was an interesting conversation ensuing about the war in Iraq, strategy for ending it, and how the nature of our language regarding war itself has changed. In an effort to explore some of these ideas more thoroughly, I asked Victoria to please write a thread header about them. Thanks.]

I inadvertantly began a small war on a thread today when I wrote about a "Progressive Agenda" in an attempt to initiate discussion on Iraq, National Security, etc... I believe that these issues must be addressed from the Progressive viewpoint.

The responses were myriad, but in reading down the thread, I was struck by a consistent sense of discomfort with this topic. Part of it seemed to be my use of the word "win" in relation to Iraq. Using the word "win" seemed to somehow imply consent, approval, acceptance -none of which I feel. But it also felt like Progressives reminding me that we didn't start this war. Which is true. That doesn't mean we won't be responsible for ending it. And it's that reality that we have to deal with. I'm done talking about whether or not the war is right or wrong. We all know the answer to that. The question now is "what do we do about it?" Which brings me to my real point here...

When a child imagines a monster under the bed, they find the trusted grown-up who can rid their bedroom of the object of their fear. Calm is restored once the grown-up banishes the monster. Tucked back in with a favorite blanket or cuddly stuffed animal, the child returns to a peaceful slumber. The mythical monsters of childhood are easliy managed.

Grown-ups know about other monsters. Monsters with an agenda of destruction on a large scale. Like frightened children in the night, America's grown-up children are looking for that security blanket that will restore their peace of mind, and keep them safe. There is a popular myth that one party is good at keeping the monsters away and that the other party would not be very good at a monster eradication program.

I find that curious. Large numbers of people in America feel that the Republican Party are somehow better equipped at safety. But are they? It escapes me how the party that was on the job on a beautiful September day that turned devastatingly tragic can be viewed as the keepers of the 'blankey.' Almost four years later, instead of that colossal failure being proof of their weakness, it has been mythologized into their greatest triumph. For all too many Americans, the security blanket fairy tale didn't begin with the ignored warnings, it began on a pile of smoldering ruins and a picture of a President with a bullhorn in his hands.

If there are Republicans questioning the choice of Tom Delay to spearhead the “save Terri Shiavo” campaign, I haven’t heard them. I haven’t heard them because there aren’t any. In typical take-one-for-the-team fashion, Republicans have thrown a political life-vest to the man closest to drowning: Tom Delay.

“Laws are like sausages. It is better not to see them being made.” -- Otto von Bismarck

Ain’t that the truth. And it’s never truer than it is at budget-bill time.

Appropriations bills, and for that matter any other kind of bills, are incredibly complicated documents by the time they ever come up for a vote. Even the simplest, most obvious proposal gets bogged down in subclauses and disquisitions and legal caveats and so on before it ever gets introduced, and then they all get even more weighted down with amendments and exceptions and corollary clauses and such before they ever reach the floor.

The bigger the bill, the more barnacles that it's encrusted with before it ever even leaves the dock. Every Senator and Congressman with an axe to grind or an agenda to pursue has to put his or her $.02 in, and back-door deals and quid-pro-quo's and lobbyist maneuverings make it such a mess that there's no way that any one bill can ever just be about any one thing by the time it finally comes up for a vote.

That's why it's equally specious to make oversimplified statements like "Congressman X voted against tax cuts for the poor" and "Representative Y voted to spend billions on selfish pork-barrel projects". The devil is in the details, and boy howdy are there ever a devilish bunch of details to deal with whenever we look at the legislative process. So let's see if we can't use a simpler example to address this topic instead: