Burnt Orange Report

State of the Union Open Thread

By Phillip Martin

Thoughts, opinions and ideas with historical perspective are a plus. Thoughts, opinions and ideas along the lines of "stupid liar" are unoriginal. Tell us what you thought. We'll do a wrap up when it's all over.

Everybody Loves Poll Numbers...

By Damon McCullar

There's a new poll out on the eve of the State of the Union address. In a NBC Nightly News/Wall Street Journal poll, the President's approve/disapprove numbers are 39/54. Read the full poll here.

Phillip Martin Posed with Jack Abramoff

By Phillip Martin

From left to right: Unidentified, Phillip Martin, Secretary Norton, C. Bryant Rogers, and Jack Abramoff.

President Bush's Interior Secretary, Gale Norton, posed for a photo with notorious lobbyist Jack Abramoff, as well as Chief Phillip Martin of the Mississippi Band of Chocataw Indians. Chief Martin -- whom I have read about for many years after numerous Google searches -- did not officially meet with Abramoff.

Since I know Phillip Martin would never lie, we'll take him at his word. The story is here. The link to the photo is here. Thanks to fellow blogger Rawhide for the tip.

Sen. John Kerry Threatens Filibuster on Alito Nomination

By Damon McCullar

According to CNN, Sen. Kerry has said that he will filibuster the confirmation vote on Sam Alito. I have to say that I'm dubious about the success of this. The the confirmation vote as been scheduled for 4:30pm eastern time on Monday.

What President Bush Knew About Katrina

By Phillip Martin

An article in today's Washington Post uncovers a report the White House received two Days prior to the landfall of Hurricane Katrina. The report, issued by FEMA, warned the intensity of Katrina could cause significant levee damage, displace over a million Louisiana residents, and require one of the largest search and rescue operations in United States history.

From the Washington Post:

A computer slide presentation by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, prepared for a 9 a.m. meeting on Aug. 27, two days before Katrina made landfall, compared Katrina's likely impact to that of "Hurricane Pam," a fictional Category 3 storm used in a series of FEMA disaster-preparedness exercises simulating the effects of a major hurricane striking New Orleans. But Katrina, the report warned, could be worse.

The hurricane's Category 4 storm surge "could greatly overtop levees and protective systems" and destroy nearly 90 percent of city structures, the FEMA report said. It further predicted "incredible search and rescue needs (60,000-plus)" and the displacement of more than a million residents.

The NISAC analysis accurately predicted the collapse of floodwalls along New Orleans's Lake Pontchartrain shoreline, an event that the report described as "the greatest concern." The breach of two canal floodwalls near the lake was the key failure that left much of central New Orleans underwater and accounted for the bulk of Louisiana's 1,100 Katrina-related deaths.

The article went on to note that President Bush -- despite notice of the storm's impact two days before landfall -- insisted, immediately following the storm, that no one could have expected what happened.

President Bush, in a televised interview three days after Katrina hit, suggested that the scale of the flooding in New Orleans was unexpected. "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees. They did anticipate a serious storm," Bush said in a Sept. 1 interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."

President Bush has since apologized for "the extent that the federal government didn't fully do its job right," going on to say that he wanted to "know what went right and what went wrong."

It seems that at least one thing that went wrong was a failure to listen.

Alito Hearings, Day One

By Jim Dallas

Shorter Lindsay Graham: When Alito was writing anti-Roe memos for the Reagan administration, he wasn't being a wingnut, just a kissass.

Shorter Chuck Schumer: Judge Alito - you're crazy, aren't you?

[Schumer then proceeded to rake Alito over the coals, but finished with a thoughtful argument for why mum ain't the word.]

Shorter John Cornyn: All the Democrats are for Alito, except for the ones that aren't [metaphorical evil eye to Schumer], and that's swell.

Shorter John Cornyn (2): I want someone on the Supreme Court who will cram religion down our throats - you know, someone who doesn't have an extremist liberal agenda.

Shorter Dick Durbin: I might vote for you if you dressed up like Sandra Day O'Connor.

One Warm Fuzzy Feeling, A Little Bit of a Fix-er-Up-er

By Jim Dallas

About a month ago I cited the UFW as an example of how to write good fundraising letters. The L.A. Times (via Matt Stoller) shows us why good fundraising can make little difference if the funds aren't used well:

Today, a Times investigation has found, Chavez's heirs run a web of tax-exempt organizations that exploit his legacy and invoke the harsh lives of farmworkers to raise millions of dollars in public and private money.

The money does little to improve the lives of California farmworkers, who still struggle with the most basic health and housing needs and try to get by on seasonal, minimum-wage jobs.

Most of the funds go to burnish the Chavez image and expand the family business, a multimillion-dollar enterprise with an annual payroll of $12 million that includes a dozen Chavez relatives.

The UFW is the linchpin of the Farm Worker Movement, a network of a dozen tax-exempt organizations that do business with one another, enrich friends and family, and focus on projects far from the fields: They build affordable housing in San Francisco and Albuquerque, own a top-ranked radio station in Phoenix, run a political campaign in support of an Indian casino and lobby for gay marriage.

The current UFW leaders have jettisoned other Chavez principles:

The UFW undercut another union to sign up construction workers, poaching on the turf of building trade unions that once were allies.

The UFW forfeited the right to boycott supermarkets and stores, a tactic Chavez pioneered, in order to sign up members in unrelated professions.

And Chavez's heirs broke with labor solidarity and hired nonunion workers to build the $3.2-million National Chavez Center around their founder's grave in the Tehachapi Mountains, a site they now market as a tourist attraction and rent out for weddings.

For what it's worth, the story reads like a hit piece; at least a couple of the sources seem like they've got some axes to grind. That doesn't mean the criticisms are baseless, though.

The point to take away from this is not that unions are crooked and that idealism is futile. The point Matt Stoller makes is that half the battle for organized laborers is keeping their institutions clean. The same can be said, I think, of any progressive institution.

Which leads us to recent posts by some bloggers (e.g. Matt Yglesias), who ask of our House Democrats, "where's the beef?"

I'm all for a Democratic political reform package but I wouldn't put too much stock into it. At the moment, Republicans are loving lobbying reform bills. Such bills allow them to seemingly get out from under the cloud of sleaze while remaining, fundamentally, in hock to corporate interests.

To run a campaign, you need ideas the other side can't sign on to. More to the point, you need ideas they can't easily co-opt by counterproposing a watered-down version. That means you need to attack some of the substance of what K Street Republicanism has done, not just the atmospherics of the lobbying trade.

Dern tootin'. While my googling skillz are not running on all four today, I do recall someone saying something to the effect of "our ethics reform proposal will have gone far enough when half the caucus has to be dragged along kicking and screaming." I like that saying. I think I'll put it in my clip-and-save box.

House Slashes Patriot Act Extention **Update**

By Damon McCullar

As I'm sure that you are aware of, the Patriot Act renewal passed the Senate yesterday. The renewal was for six months so that lawmakers could sort out differences on violations of civil liberties. Well, when the measure when to the House of Representatives, they only approved a month extension. Now I'm fuzzy on the rules, but I think that the bill has to either go back to the Senate for approval or to conference committee to work out the differences.

Also in Congressional news, the ANWR amendment (drilling in ANWR) that was attached to the Defense Appropriations Bill was removed after the Republican leadership couldn't drum up enough votes to end debate (i.e. filibuster). Once the ANWR amendment was removed, the Defense Appropriations Bill was approved unanimously on voice vote. Alaska Senator Ted Stevens has been trying to get this measure passed for twenty-five years! In his latest attempt, he did everything but get down on his knees an beg senators to vote for it. And of all the underhanded tricks the Republican leadership has played, labeling a vote against the Defense Appropriations Bill with the ANWR Amendment as a vote against the troops is about as low as I have seen them stoop.

And finally, yesterday the Senate passed a budget deficit reducing bill that reduced the amount of money set aside for college loans and slashed funding for programs for the poor. The Vice-president had to come forth from his undisclosed location to cast the tie-breaking vote.

**Update** 10:30pm

The Senate met for a few hours today and approved the one month extention that the House had preiously approved.

David Van Os: "The Constitutional Crisis"

By Damon McCullar

This is a press release I received via email from David Van Os, candidate for Attorney General. The thing that I thought was the most interesting about it was the precedents that he sited in the footnotes (case precedent after the jump). For your reading pleasure:

George W. Bush has plunged the country into the kind of Constitutional crisis that was resolved in 1974 by the issuance of articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon and Nixon’s subsequent resignation. Make no mistake about it – the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution covers telephone communications, and warrants are required for wiretaps. (See for example, Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 [1967]*). Federal judges can and do quickly issue warrants authorizing wiretaps whenever the government shows the need. George W. Bush cannot and does not claim that the judges have been stingy with such warrants; rather he claims that the legal and constitutional requirements simply do not apply to him. As if that were not bad enough, he also claims the authority to spy on peaceable American citizens who are engaging in traditional American freedom of speech and assembly. Make no mistake about this – Bush’s claim of the authority to wiretap Americans’ telephones without warrants and to spy on peaceful First Amendment activities is in brazen defiance of the Constitution.

George W. Bush’s arrogant claim that the “executive power” referenced in Article II of the Constitution authorizes him to override the First and Fourth Amendments is a declaration of war against the very notion of a Constitution, because if his claim wins out, then there are no longer any limits on what the chief executive can do, and we will be living under dictatorship instead of in a democracy. To George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Alberto Gonzalez, the Constitutional rights and liberties of Americans can be wiped away by a president’s executive decree – my dear friends and fellow Texans, a Bill of Rights that exists only at the sufferance of executive power is not a Bill of Rights at all, and an executive who claims such power is no longer the executor of Constitutional government, but has become by such actions an unconstitutional usurper. My words are provocative, because the situation is provocative when the U.S. president makes open war on the Bill of Rights that so many fearless American patriots sacrificed so much to preserve, protect and defend.

If Bush’s claim of the power to wiretap the telephone communications of Americans without warrants and to spy on peaceful American citizens is not blocked now, he will have prevailed in claiming that he can overrule our Bill of Rights by executive decree. There is no tomorrow on this one. There is no middle ground on this, no room for normal protocols. George W. Bush has declared that he has been wiretapping Americans without warrants, that he has the power to do so, and that he is going to continue to do so. He has declared that he is going to continue to spy on Americans’ freedom of speech and assembly. Bush has thrown down the gauntlet, and he has dared the people to pick it up.

A Texas Attorney General who understood that his job was to be the people’s lawyer would pick up that gauntlet. The Bill of Rights belongs just as much to the people of Texas as it does to anyone else in America. As Texas Attorney General I will fulfill my duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, by fighting on behalf of Texans with every means and resource at my disposal against any and all such anti-constitutional federal usurpations. For example, I would move swiftly into the courts as the lawyer for the people of Texas to challenge the Bushite government’s defiance of the Bill of Rights and have their actions declared unconstitutional. The current Texas Attorney General clearly will not challenge them, since he is a Bushite mouthpiece and will not bite the hand of the master who appointed him to statewide Texas public office. Probably no other Texas public official will challenge them either; but under the Texas Constitution it is the Attorney General, more than other state office-holder, whom the people of Texas most depend upon to fight for their Constitutional rights and liberties; and I will do so against all comers.

*United States Supreme Court Justice Tom Clark in Berger v. New York (1967): “They [previous Supreme Court decisions] found ‘conversation’ was within the Fourth Amendment’s protections, and that the use of electronic devices to capture it was a ‘search’ within the meaning of the Amendment, and we so hold. …The purpose of the probable cause requirement of the Fourth Amendment [is] to keep the state out of constitutionally protected areas until it has reason to believe that a specific crime has been or is being committed.” (Justice Tom Clark was from Texas.) Justice Louis Brandeis, 77 years ago in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928): “The progress of science in furnishing the government with means of espionage is not likely to stop with wire tapping. Ways may some day be developed by which the government, without removing papers from secret drawers, can reproduce them in court, and by which it will be enabled to expose to a jury the most intimate occurrences of the home. …As means of espionage, writs of assistance and general warrants [two examples of British abuse that contributed to the American Revolution] are but puny instruments of tyranny and oppression when compared with wire tapping. …The makers of our Constitution…conferred, as against the government, the right to be left alone – the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment.”

Federal Judge Rules Intelligent Design Out of the Classroom

By Damon McCullar

A federal judge today ruled that a statement read before studying the theory of evolution in the Dover, PA school system is unconstitutional.

From the Washington Post:

In his ruling today, Jones said several members of the Dover Area School Board repeatedly lied during the trial to cover their motives for promoting intelligent design even as they professed religious beliefs, the Associated Press reported.

I'm impressed. I was sure that this dressing up of creationism would be able to sneak it's way into the classroom. I guess over the years I've become a bit of a cynic when it comes to the religious right. It just seemed to me that they were a overpowering influence in our country that was insurmountable. I guess they aren't as powerful as I figured. Maybe brighter days are ahead.

New from Jib Jab: 2-0-5

By Damon McCullar

From the creators of This Land, It's Good To Be in DC, Second Term and Big Box Mart comes a year in review politcal parody, 2-0-5. Check it out it's worth a few chuckles.

President Bush Bashes NY Times

By Phillip Martin

In a televised address, President Bush said that the New York Times article that described the secret authorization of wiretapping and eavesdropping should not have been released, and that sharing this information with the public "puts our citizens at risk."

From the transcript of his remarks:

This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security. Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States, our friends and allies.

Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country.

The secret program described in the Times article differs from wiretapping that is legal under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978. That act allows for a secret court to receive and approve warrants that seek to gather information for any person or persons that could be a threat to national security. A recent FISA report showed that, in the past three years, the issuance and approval for such warrants has more than doubled from previous years. According to the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC):

There were 1758 applications for secret surveillance in 2004, an all-time high. None of the applications for secret suveillance warrants were denied. In 2004, as in 2003, more secret surveillance warrants were granted than federal wiretap warrants, which have more stringent standards. A report on federal wiretapm warrants in 2004 reveals that state and federal courts authorized 1,710 interceptions in 2004, an increase of 19 percent over 2003 and more than in any previous year. Federal officials made an all-time high 730 intercept applications in 2004, a 26 percent increase over 2003.

The secret program President Bush has reauthorized 30 times, however, allows for the covert eavesdropping on any domestic communication without court-approved warrants. This change in intelligence gathering policy surprised many Senators and Congressmen -- especially since FISA already allows for immediate, 72-hour emergency wiretapping without court approval. Should an emergency come up immediately, the National Security Agency can eavesdrop on any person for three days, so long as they receive the warrant after the three days. Considering the fact that not a single warrant was been denied in 2004, it seems to some that existing law would be more than sufficient for any national security purposes.

President Bush didn't explicitly detail why there was a need to change the intelligence gathering policy, simply stating that the secret program "is crucial to saving American lives."

Partially due to the contents of the controversial NY Times article, the Patriot Act was not approved by the Senate on Friday. President Bush was not pleased with the Senate's delay, saying:

A minority of senators filibustered to block the renewal of the Patriot Act when it came up for a vote yesterday. That decision is irresponsible, and it endangers the lives of our citizens. The senators who are filibustering must stop their delaying tactics, and the Senate must vote to reauthorize the Patriot Act. In the war on terror, we cannot afford to be without this law for a single moment.

Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania), who is Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said that his committee plans to investigate the matter. In the mean time, the Patrioat Act remains in the Senate, and President Bush plans to continue reauthorizing his secret eavesdropping program as long as is necessary.

No word yet on whether or not the New York Times story was in fact illegal, as President Bush suggested.

Senate Blocks Renewal of Expiring Provisions of the USA Patriot Act

By Damon McCullar

According to Reuters, the Senate has block renewal of the expiring provisions of the USA Patriot Act On a vote of 52-47, the resolution fell 8 votes short of the the 60 needed to end debate and bring the measure to a vote.

Senate Democratic and Republican foes of the proposed renewal said the law could be swiftly reauthorized if lawmakers agreed to better balance national security with civil liberties.

"None of us wants it to expire, and those who threaten to let it expire rather than fix it are playing a dangerous game," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat.

Proponents of the legislation warned that much of sweeping anti-terror law was to expire at the end of the month, and if it did, the nation could be placed at increased risk.

"We have a clear choice before us today: Do we advance against terrorism to make America safer or do we retreat," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, said shortly before the vote.

It seems that the tide is turning in at least one of our houses of Congress. It's ironic that "The People's House", otherwise known as the House of Representatives can't do the will of the people but the Senate can. Hopefully that will change in November.

Fine, take a nap, then FIRE ZE MISSILES!

By Jim Dallas

The IAEA has Iran's gonna have nukes.

So, let's see, that makes two out of three charter members of the Axis of Evil so far. At this rate maybe we will end up finding WMDs in Iraq...

(Click here if you don't get the headline).

Money? No, but I'll give you a piece of my mind.

By Jim Dallas

Can I vent - just for a second? I'm tired of getting three-page-long fundraising pleas from national Democrats which devote two pages to whining about how awful the Republicans are and one page to meaningless platitudes. Lots of bloggers have made similar posts before, I'm sure (no, really, I'm sure, I'd link to them if I had the time to dig them up). But the message just doesn't seem to be getting through: yes, we know the Republicans are bastards. Fundraising letters are supposed to, you know, inspire people. Preferably in the 15 seconds or so between the time I open the letter and the time I toss it in the trash. I got a fundraising letter today, for example, from the United Farm Workers (they are asking for gifts). It was clear, concise (one page, front and back) and motivational. It explained in a few words what the UFW has done for farm workers this last year and what it wants to do.

As for the UFW - I don't have any money to gift out, but here's a "high-five" for giving me a warm fuzzy feeling about the labor movement.

Just plain wrong.

By Jim Dallas

Matt Stoller:

A party strategist tells me that a great fundraising idea would be to put press hound Sheila Jackson Lee in a room with Chuck Schumer and one TV camera and ask people to pay to watch them fight over it.

Person of the Year

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Over at TIME you can send in nominations for Person of the Year.

Or you can ignore that and nominate a Texan of the Year. That deadline is Wednesday.

Voting Rights Act Kabuki

By Jim Dallas

JURIST Paperchase has a blurb about the upcoming debate about renewing parts of the Voting Rights Act (or not):

A small minority of southern Republicans have announced their intention to challenge the renewal of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act [text; DOJ introduction], currently being evaluated by Congress for a 25-year renewal on the grounds that it is unfair to southern states and no longer necessary. Though the White House, Congressional leaders of both parties, US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the teh US Justice Department support the reauthorization of the Act [JURIST report] in its entirety, several southern lawmakers are critical of section 5, which requires southern states with dicriminatory voting records to seek federal approval before changing voting locations within districts, a requirement not imposed on northern states. The original purpose of the provision was to prevent the racist practice of moving voting locations to intentionally inconvenience black voters. Leading the opposition, first-term US House member Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA) [official website] argues that the areas protected by the provision are now "controlled by minorities" and no longer need protection. Representative Sanford Bishop (D-GA) [official website], one of many House members who support the renewal of the provision, has nonetheless noted that "in an ideal world we would not need the Voting Rights Act, and in an ideal world we could apply Section 5 across the board without watering it down and making it ineffective. But if history, both past and present, teaches us anything, it's that we do not live in an ideal world." AP has more.

Continued below the fold...

The AP writes it up this way:

A school closes that once housed a polling place. For the next election, city officials send voters to a new site across the street. In Boston, no problem. In Atlanta, no problem provided the federal government grants permission.

Such has been the law for 40 years under the Voting Rights Act, which sought to end racist poll taxes and literacy tests by putting Southern states - then, without question, the worst offenders - on a shorter leash than most other places.

Now President Bush, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and congressional leaders from both political parties are pushing to renew this requirement for 25 more years. Although it doesn't expire until 2007, continuation of Section 5 - the provision involving federal preclearance of voting laws - seems a foregone conclusion.

Still, a handful of Southern Republicans - particularly those from Georgia - are determined to mount a spirited dissent, though they realize it will probably be in vain.

"It's just a matter of feeling dissed when you know you've paid for your sins or the sins of your forefathers, and it wasn't even our party that did it," said Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga.

Congress is just a few weeks into its hearings on the act's renewal, but most have involved a parade of witnesses who support extending the requirement and a small handful who don't. So Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, a Georgia Republican in his first congressional term, decided it's time for the other side to mobilize.

Earlier this month, Westmoreland called a meeting of several Southern Republicans whose states are subject to Section 5 approval. He shared with them some facts involving his state.

First, blacks there now turn out to vote at a higher rate than whites, according to a study by two political scientists. Second, the state has little trouble electing minorities to office. Four of 13 members of the U.S. House are black, as is Thurbert Baker, who was easily re-elected as the state's attorney general.

"I'm not going to deny there weren't problems," Westmoreland said. "But right now, if you look at those same communities where there were problems, those communities are controlled by minorities."

Ironically, the loudest voices for continuing Section 5 use the same primary argument as those who want to scrap it. They just insist the progress happened mostly because the Voting Rights Act was there at all. Take that away, they fear, and discrimination returns in force.

At a news conference this past week largely in response to Westmoreland's efforts, Rep. John Lewis, a Georgia Democrat and civil rights leader, called Section 5 "the heart of the act." His Georgia Democratic colleagues agreed, with Rep. David Scott predicting a "full-frontal assault" by opponents.

This all seems kind of... ridiculous... to me. If, in fact, large areas of the South have changed (and they probably have), then the simple and reasonable solution to removing the heavy hand of Big Government is to change the coverage formula for Section Five, not repealing it entirely. The Justice Department has to vet thousands of election law changes a year under Section Five, and many of the jurisdictions covered were first added to the "naughty list" thirty or forty years ago. It's probably reasonable to suggest that this situation may not be entirely fair or efficient. But shouldn't the law have a provision holding serial offenders of voting rights accountable? Mend it, don't end it.

More to the point a debate over Section Five (unless Congress wants to extend its coverage to all fifty states, fat chance) does nothing to resolve voting rights issues in non-covered jurisdictions. Most of Florida and none of Ohio is covered by Section Five, despite widespread complaints in those states during the last two presidential elections.

And coverage means... what, exactly? It didn't seem to have any effect during Texas re-redistricting or Georgia's voter identification kerfluffle.

I fear that the debate over renewing the Voting Rights Act is going to be purely symbolic, instead of what we really need - a serious debate about improving the quality of our democracy.

Phoney Baloney

By Jim Dallas

Please, Mr. Hunter, for the good of the country, stop being a douchebag.

Update: After Jean Schmidt started calling Rep. Murtha a "coward", I realized I could never be a member of Congress. I'm sure that by now I'd have been dragged out of the House kicking and screaming obscenities.

Today's Iraq debate is about the closest I've seen to a barroom brawl on C-SPAN.

Dark Clouds? Yes. The Perfect Storm? Probably Not.

By Jim Dallas

Kenneth Baer puts in words a concern I've been having recently, to wit, that while 2006 will be a bad year for our erstwhile friends-across-the-aisle, it is silly to predict that recent generic-ballot polls could translate into huge Democratic majorities in Congress:

But if Democrats want to win, they should stop fetishizing the 1994 Republican takeover. It resulted from a once-in-a-lifetime convergence of institutional changes, historical trends, and some blind luck. With the ground less fertile in 2006, a new Contract with America containing simple, poll-tested nostrums won't be enough (and, in fact, most studies show that the 1994 Contract contributed little to the GOP win). What's needed is a coherent agenda, built around deeply held principles, that speaks to the challenges Americans face today: Islamo-fascist terrorism, a global and interdependent economy, underperforming schools, an inefficient and increasingly ineffective health care system, and a looming fiscal crisis. Put answers to these problems in a contract, and voters will readily sign.

Aside from the hyperbolic use of "Islamo-fascist terrorism", which all the kewl kids at The New Republic are apparently required to use at least three times a day (moreover, shouldn't Democrats have a plan dealing with other, non-militant-Islamic terrorism?), I would have said exactly the same thing.

The biggest reason is that the Republican takeover in 1994 hinged largely on a whole lot of seats changing hands in the South. I can't think of any area of the country so obviously prone for re-alignment. Winning back Congress will, almost necessarily, involve beating Republicans in Republican districts.

Cornyn Linked

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

From the Statesman...

Former Christian Coalition director Ralph Reed claimed in a 2001 e-mail to a lobbyist that he choreographed John Cornyn's efforts as Texas attorney general to shut down an East Texas Indian tribe's casino.

The lobbyist was Jack Abramoff, who is under federal investigation, along with his partner Michael Scanlon, on allegations of defrauding six Indian tribes of about $80 million from 2001 to 2004. The e-mail, along with about a dozen others, was released last week as part of the investigation.

In 2001, Abramoff was working as a lobbyist for the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana to prevent rival gaming casinos from siphoning off its Texas customers. He paid Reed as a consultant, and Reed lobbied to get the Alabama-Coushatta and Tigua casinos closed in Texas.

In the Nov. 30, 2001, e-mail, Reed told Abramoff that 50 pastors led by Ed Young, of Second Baptist Church in Houston, would meet with Cornyn to urge him to shut down the Alabama-Coushatta tribe's casino near Livingston. He said Young would back up the request in writing.

"We have also choreographed Cornyn's response. The AG will state that the law is clear, talk about how much he wants to avoid repetition of El Paso (where the Tigua casino was) and pledge to take swift action to enforce the law," Reed wrote. "He will also personally hand Ed Young a letter that commits him to take action in Livingston."

National Round-Up

By Phillip Martin

***Update*** Rawhide, over at Pinkdome, has written an excellent post titled "We're Still Here" that focuses on why Republicans shouldn't celebrate too long about yesterday's (sadly inevitable) results.

A look at a variety of stories about the results from other important items up for election yesterday:

Democrats won the governorships in both Virginia and New Jersey.

The Governator's slate of proposals were defeated in California. As CNN reported, the measures included "capping spending, removing legislators' redistricting powers; making teachers work five years instead of two to pass probation; and prohibiting public employee unions from using dues for political activities without the permission of their workers."

All eight members of the Pennsylvania school board that advocated intelligent design were easily defeated.

Feel free to leave any other results, comments, and discussions about all non-Prop 2 elections in the comments section below.

Election Night Open Thread

By Byron LaMasters

The campaigns are over, and I'll be watching returns tonight. Here's where to look to find results for races of national and Texas interest:

Virginia
New Jersey
Ohio
California
Texas
Houston City Races
Dallas Strong Mayor

U.S. Senate (Done) Meeting in Closed Session

By Phillip Martin

Update: The Senate is back, and there will be a Task Force of 6 United States Senators (3 from each party) to study "Phase 2" of the Intelligence Committee's investigation into the question of prewar intelligence -- who knew what, when they knew it, and if anything was hidden. The task force will report to the Senate leadership by November 14. The Democrat line seems to be that this investigation has been going on for 1 1/2 years, and it's time to see answers. The Republican line seems to be that they've been doing their job, and all of this was simply a stunt.

Well, anyone who ever complains that Democrats never stand up for what they believe in are going to have to get some new talking points.

Democrats in the United States Senate have shut down the U.S. Senate, accusing the Republican leadership and the Senate Intelligence Committee of putting politics ahead of the American people. The Democrats in minority want to talk about Iraq, the reasons we went to war, and how the White House may have manipulated information to sell the war to the American people.

The U.S. Senate is meeting in a closed door session -- no press, no cell phones, no blackberries, no pagers, no nothing -- and talking about why there has been no serious investigations into the corruption in the White House.

Here's what CNN is reporting:

Democrats forced the Republican-controlled Senate into an unusual closed session Tuesday, questioning intelligence that led to the Iraq war and deriding a lack of congressional inquiry.

"I demand on behalf of the America people that we understand why these investigations aren't being conducted," Democratic leader Harry Reid said.

Taken by surprise, Republicans derided the move as a political stunt.

"The United States Senate has been hijacked by the Democratic leadership," said Majority Leader Bill Frist. "They have no convictions, they have no principles, they have no ideas," the Republican leader said.

This comes out on a day when President Bush had announced his plan to address the bird pandemic, and a day after he announced Alito as his newest nomination for the Supreme Court. Looks like the White House can't chance the subject that eaisly, as Democrats are hell bent on not letting the issue of what the White House knew before the war slip into the back pages of the newspapers.

There's lots of arguments for and against this. Sen. Frist, the Senate Majority Leaders, is accusing Democrats of "hijacking" the Senate and using a "publicity stunt" to shut down democracy.

At first blush, this seems a lot like what Texas Democrats did when they went to Ardmore, Oklahoma and New Mexico during the redistricting battles -- an extreme, admittedly risky move to draw the public's attention to problems they see with the Republican leadership...

Updates as I continue to get them...

DeLay Judge Removed

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Democratic Judge Bob Perkins, who was scheduled to preside over DeLay's trial, has now been removed by a fellow Democratic Judge from Bell County.

More will be developing, but one thing that isn't going to change no matter which judge lands this job, is the fact that in Texas we elect our judges, and we elect them on a partisan basis. Many of them donate to their respective parties. To us here, it's hardly a big deal, but it's great political fodder.

Of course the DeLay team will play off of this to the national media where most people don't understand this concept of electing partisan judges (I'm not a fan of it by the way). More to come.

We wish you a Merry Fitzmas

By Jim Dallas

Scooter Libby indicted, resigns.

Now, let's get back to serious issues.

For example, taxes. Tax reform is like granola. It just reeks of seriousness but, in the end, isn't really all that good for you.

Miers Withdraws Nomination

By Phillip Martin

From CNN:

President Bush on Thursday accepted the withdrawal of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, according to a statement from the White House.

In her letter to the president, Miers said she was "concerned that the confirmation process presents a burden for the White House and its staff and it is not in the best interest of the country."

The White House said Miers had to withdraw over concerns that senators wanted documents of privileged discussions between the president and his top lawyer.

"It is clear that senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure at the White House -- disclosures that would undermine a president's ability to receive candid counsel," Bush said.

It seems this nomination didn't work because the Senate simply wouldn't take President Bush's word that Harriet Miers was well qualified. I guess President Bush and Harriet Miers were the last two people to realize that.

Bait and Switch

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

DeLay Headlines today...

DeLay acknowledges failure to report defense fund donations

DeLay presses case against judge

By the way, Austin City Councilman Raul Alvarez will not seek re-election as he comes up against term limits (thoug in Austin 19,000 signatures gets you around the limit). This is the "Hispanic" seat on the council so it will be interesting to see who moves up the chain to run for the spot. Austin does not have council district; instead there is an 'understanding' that certain at large Place seats are expected to be Black or Hispanic, male or female.

DeLay Judge Named

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Statesman Breaking News:

Bell County District Judge C.W. Duncan has been appointed to decide whether state District Judge Bob Perkins of Austin should continue to preside over former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's criminal case. A hearing has been set for 10 a.m. Nov. 1 in Austin.

Wrap-Up of John Edwards Speech

By Phillip Martin

I just got back from the Opportunity Rocks event in the Texas Union Ballroom, where Senator John Edwards talked about the way students can take charge of the grassroots movement to fight poverty. After the speech, I got a chance -- along with fellow bloggers Pinkdome and In the Pink Texas -- to meet John Edwards and ask him some questions.

Details of the speech and the questions we asked him can be found by clicking on the jump below, but here is one question I was able to ask:

PM: You mentioned the need for leadership that will stand up for the core beliefs of the Democratic party, that we need to lead, and not follow, if we want to show the country where we want to take America. As you know, there are opposite spectrums of the Democratic Party, and the moral priorities of the people they represent are extremely different. How do we persuade people that don't agree with our politics to work on issues like poverty?

Edwards: Whether you're on the far right or the far left, there is no question that the issue needs to be discussed. People will have different ideas about what we need to fix it, and that's fine, but first we need to recognize the problem...There's no ideological basis for fighting poverty -- we just need to help these people. They don't want a Democrat or a Republican. They want a champion. They want to feed their kids, and I think any person of either ideology can understand that and should work to help.

More questions, and details of his speech, after the jump.

Here are the four main proposals he discussed about how best to fight poverty:

1) Pass real labor law reforms, and increase the minimum wage.
2) Create housing vouchers for poor families across the country, so we no longer separate the rich and the poor in our communities.
3) Finance work bonds that match money that poor families are able to set aside into savings accounts.
4) Support a pilot program he's started called "College for Everyone," where any student that qualifies, isn't in trouble, and does 10 hours of work study their first year will be guaranteed free tuition and books.

Have You Hugged A Self-Identified ModerateToday?

By Jim Dallas

Paul Waldman argues that the American people aren't conservative, and that "[t]he Democrats' 'liberal' problem isn't about issues, it's about identity."

In addition to being self-flattering, the Waldman theory also happens to explain a few phenomena evident in polling that the simplistic "21-34-45" theory does not.

At any rate, I have one quibble; Waldman's salve is to start attacking conservatism. That's great... but... I'd argue that the current identity problem exists not just because the term "liberal" has low valence but because "conservative" has high valence. That is, after all, Waldman's rationale. The sticky point is this: how do you attack conservatism without making conservatives think that you are making a judgment on them personally?

And indeed, this may be part of our problem. If I had a dime for every GOPer who complained about the "preachy moralism" of the "Left," I'd be a rich man.

Accordingly, I would argue a more effective strategy would be to explain in rational terms, "this is what liberalism can do for you and your family." And no, not in the stale, technocratic "teh pR3SKRIPSHUN DRUGGS!!!11!!!1!one" way either.

Incidentally, Jason Stanford said basically the same thing the other day:

Yes, we need to get the folks in the middle of the spectrum to vote Democratic, but we can't do it by offering store-brand cola (Tastes just like Coke, but it's really cheap!). We need to capture their imagination and offer a compelling vision of the future that takes us all in a different direction.

Which, if you've been paying attention, is exactly what Chris Bell is trying to do.

Agreed.

DeLay: Warrent for your Arrest

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Greetings: You are hereby commanded to arrest: Thomas Dale DeLay.

Remember, it's not a crime to be a conservative, but it is a crime to be criminally corrupt! Book 'em, Dano!

Senate Committee Probing Miers For More Texas Data, White House Info

By Vince Leibowitz

I haven't seen much on BOR in recent days about the Miers nomination, and ran across some interesting sutff via SCOTUSBlog, which I thought I'd post and expound on.

In particular, SCOTUSblog links to a letter from Sens. Specter and Leahey requesting Miers supplement her answers to a previous set of questions she received from the Judiciary Committee. And, they're asking some things about her Texas work. In the letter, the Senators asked Miers to:

"Please supplement your answer to this question, listing all reports, memoranda, or policy statements prepared, produced with your participation, or produced under your guidance during the time in which you served in any public office, including your various positions at the Dallas Bar Association, the State Bar of Texas, the American Bar Association or any of your positions in the White House. Please also provide the Committee with any policy position documents or questionnaires you filled out while running for Dallas City Council. Specifically, if you sought particular group endorsements or responded to position questions by particular groups in the community, please describe and append relevant materials."

With regard to the State Bar stuff, I believe the Committee is referring to Miers effort in 1993, while Texas State Bar president, to persuade the American Bar Association to abandon its abortion-rights stance.

Of course, litigation concerning her former firm means Texas legal powerhouse Locke Liddell & Sapp, LLP.

The Dallas City Council material obviously refers to a Texans United for Life survey Miers filled out in 1989 when running for Dallas City Council, which included the following question, to which Miers responded, "YES:"

"If Congress passes a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution that would prohibit abortion except when it was necessary to prevent the death of the mother, would you actively support its ratification by the Texas Legislature?"

Miers' full responses to the questions, which are now online via the Washington Post, shed light on the former Lottery Commission chairwoman's legal activities, and include some interesting Texans whom she opposed or served as co-counsel with. Miers also states that she represented Smith County, Texas, though no specific information is stated concerning when or concerning what she represented them on.

For example, one of Miers' numerous co-counsels in Microsoft Corp. v. Manning, 914 S.W.2d 602 (Tex. App. exarkana 1995, pet. dism'd), was none other than Max Sandlin, Jr.

And, the infamous Andy Taylor rears his head, too. Taylor was co-counsel for the Texas electors in Jones vs. Bush, the case concerning whether or not Cheney was a Texas resident, and concerning whether or not the president and vice president may be from the same state.

Miers also represented a woman in a Social Secutiry Death Benefits case with her sister-in-law (and 5th District Court of Appeals Justice) Elizabeth Lang-Miers.

And, in Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Esprit Finance, Inc., 981 S.W.2d 25 (Tex. App. an Antonio 1998, pet. dism'd w.o.j.), Miers was opposed by none other than Carlos Zaffirin, the attorney husband of State Sen. Judith Zaffirini (D-Laredo).

Vince Leibowitz is former County Chairman of the Democratic Party of Van Zandt County, Texas, and is semi-regular contributor to Burnt Orange Report. He may be reached at Vince_Leibowitz-at-verizon.net

Odds and Ends

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

West Campus here in Austin has a lot of development going on right now, with last year's rezoning of the region. The Statesman had an interesting article about it earlier in the month.

The only reason I bring this up is because it's the best tie in I could think of to ask you to fill out a fellow blogger's survey for his stats project. You need only answer if you are actually renting the place you currently live. Answer his one question survey here.

Speaking of money, if you are a local candidate or campaign, you might think about buying a BlogAd. As you may have noticed, for the first time in months, we have a period of no advertisers. I'd take advantage of this lull as there are some more national buys coming later in the month and it's prime time for a buy. I've even noticed an uptick in people clicking on the Google Ads instead because that tower is now up at the top of the page.

Many times I use BlogAds sales to turn right around in my giving to local political action. For instance, I'll be making about $100 of recent income available to campus efforts to defeat Constitutional Amendment 2. We blog because we care, not because we're going to get rich!

You, too, can be a member of the liberal elite!

By Jim Dallas

Kevin Drum catches Rammesh Ponnuru telling us to take our latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading (maybe not, but I digress), Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show back to Oklahoma, where it belongs:

In 1997, Republicans lost a special election in the 22nd House district of California. I talked to a well-known Republican strategist afterward, and he blamed, in part, social-conservative activists who had run ads on abortion during the campaign. The strategist said that this was a stupid move "in a wine-and-brie coastal California district." It was a nice line at the time. But my impression is that the proportion of our population that consumes either wine or brie, or both together, has gone up since then. (If I were David Brooks, I'd have the data, straight from American Demographics, at my fingertips.) Hasn't the insult lost its bite? I thought of this when I read a crack against elites that mentioned bottled water. It sure seems as though drinking bottled water has ceased to be an elite activity. Back in 1997, conservatives could mock latte towns--but you can find latte in any town you're in nowadays. Conclusion: We need some new put-downs. (Confession: I like brie and wine, have occasionally had a latte, and buy bottled water for my family--but that last point reflects the high lead content in D.C. water rather than a preference on my part.)

Incidentally, the economic elite... that's another story entirely.

Anti-Earle Ads Running in Austin

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

As locals may have started noticing, the 'barking dog' anti-Earle commercials are now being broadcast here in Austin. Why? Because it's part of a Republican strategy to make the issue of corruption, not about Tom DeLay (because he's certainly not corrupt) but about a District Attorney who's prosecuted more Democrats than Republicans and was popularly elected county wide without Republican opposition last fall.

Watch the ad here.

I think my favorite part is the end of the ad, where the narrator urges people to call Earle (the phone number goes to the office of the DA, I called tonight) and "tell him it's not a crime to be a conservative."

No, it's not a crime to be conservative. But it is a crime to be corrupt or commit criminal acts.

In the meantime, Earle has subpoenaed DeLay's home phone and car records.

Some Poll Numbers

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Anyone else find it amusing that in the latest CBS poll Bush is now tied with the gas/oil crisis as the US's Most Important Problem, one point above Terrorism?

Bush, a bigger problem than Terrorism...

His new approval? 37/58
Right/Wrong Track? 26/69

How low can you go? How low can you go...

(Oh and gays who have been celibate for 3 years may soon be able to become Catholic priests according to leaked reports from the Vatican.) (PD)

Rove Under Fire Yet Again

By John Pruett

Frances Lovett, a 15 year resident and registered voter in Kerr County, filed a formal complaint today with the Kerr District Attorney over presidential advisor Karl Rove's voter registration status. This new complaint comes one month after the Texas Secretary of State's office determined that Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) could not submit a similar complaint. Under Texas law, the complaint must be filed with the county by a resident.

Ms. Lovett and CREW argue that Rove cannot be legally registered as a voter in Kerr County since he does not legitimately reside there. CREW's press release issued today states:

County property records show that Mr. Rove and his wife have owned two tiny rental cottages in Kerr County since 1997, the largest of which is only 814 feet and is valued by the county at $25,000. In contrast, the Roves’ Washington, D.C. home is valued at over $1.1 million.

CREW's initial filing arose from questions surrounding Rove's claim for homestead tax exemptions and property tax cap on his Washington, DC. home while claiming similar exemptions on his property in Texas. Elizabeth Reyes, an attorney with the Texas Secretary of State's office was later fired after "violating press protocols" when she spoke about the issue with the Washington Post.

Lovett's formal complaint calls for an investigation and for Rove's subsequent conviction. I'm sure that I'm more excited about the prospect than Rove is right now, especially since he's potentially facing charges for the Plame affair. It's unfortunate though that Rove's violation of Texas election law only counts as a Class B misdemeanor. Either way, Bush would probably whip out a pardon before he let his buddy face punishment.

"Tone, Truth, and the Democratic Party"

By Phillip Martin

If you want to have the best ten minutes of political reading you're likely to have for some time, you should read what United States Senator Barack Obama (D-Illinois) recently posted on his website for Daily Kos.

His essay, titled "Tone, Truth, and the Democratic Party," is nothing short of inspiring. This essay, prompted by Judge Roberts' recent appointment to the Supreme Court, talks about the way Democrats and the Democratic Party can change in order to work for not just a better political party, but a better country. In his words:

There is one way, over the long haul, to guarantee the appointment of judges that are sensitive to issues of social justice, and that is to win the right to appoint them by recapturing the presidency and the Senate. And I don't believe we get there by vilifying good allies, with a lifetime record of battling for progressive causes, over one vote or position. I am convinced that, our mutual frustrations and strongly-held beliefs notwithstanding, the strategy driving much of Democratic advocacy, and the tone of much of our rhetoric, is an impediment to creating a workable progressive majority in this country.

Here are a few of my favorite parts, for those who don't have the time to read it all the way through right now:

I am not drawing a facile equivalence here between progressive advocacy groups and right-wing advocacy groups. The consequences of their ideas are vastly different. Fighting on behalf of the poor and the vulnerable is not the same as fighting for homophobia and Halliburton. But to the degree that we brook no dissent within the Democratic Party, and demand fealty to the one, "true" progressive vision for the country, we risk the very thoughtfulness and openness to new ideas that are required to move this country forward...

...The bottom line is that our job is harder than the conservatives' job. After all, it's easy to articulate a belligerent foreign policy based solely on unilateral military action, a policy that sounds tough and acts dumb; it's harder to craft a foreign policy that's tough and smart. It's easy to dismantle government safety nets; it's harder to transform those safety nets so that they work for people and can be paid for. It's easy to embrace a theological absolutism; it's harder to find the right balance between the legitimate role of faith in our lives and the demands of our civic religion. But that's our job. And I firmly believe that whenever we exaggerate or demonize, or oversimplify or overstate our case, we lose.

The entire essay can be found by clicking on either of the two links above. I encourage everyone to read this through to the end. Even if you don't agree with it or are unmoved by it at all, it's positively, absolutely, not going to be a waste of your time.

Will is Shrill

By Jim Dallas

The news that George Will is not a happy camper has been posted elsewhere, but I'd like to parse this for everybody just to insure the message is clear.

For what it's worth, I'm not too personally negative about Ms. Miers being nominated for the Supreme Court. In a way it's inspiring -- if I can do a half-decent job in law school, only get in trouble once or twice as a practitioner, and sufficiently praise the Governor of Texas -- well then, I too might one day be a Supreme Court Justice.

Nonetheless, the better part of me agrees with Will that a more scholarly type (you know, like a judge) might be a better Justice.

Also, Will seems to have better reasons for flipping out than most of us here on this side of the blogospher. Remember, kiddos -- everytime you cast aspersions on the Texas business community (particularly the upstream oil and gas industry) in order to make a political point, the deity-of-your-choice kills a kitten. Please... think of the kittens.

Parsing is below the fold.

Senators beginning what ought to be a protracted and exacting scrutiny of Harriet Miers should be guided by three rules. First, it is not important that she be confirmed. Second, it might be very important that she not be. Third, the presumption -- perhaps rebuttable but certainly in need of rebutting -- should be that her nomination is not a defensible exercise of presidential discretion to which senatorial deference is due.

It is not important that she be confirmed because there is no evidence that she is among the leading lights of American jurisprudence, or that she possesses talents commensurate with the Supreme Court's tasks. The president's "argument" for her amounts to: Trust me. There is no reason to, for several reasons.

He has neither the inclination nor the ability to make sophisticated judgments about competing approaches to construing the Constitution. Few presidents acquire such abilities in the course of their pre-presidential careers, and this president particularly is not disposed to such reflections.

Remember those bumperstickers in 2000 that read "how dumb is too dumb?" 'Nuff said.

Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that Miers's nomination resulted from the president's careful consultation with people capable of such judgments. If 100 such people had been asked to list 100 individuals who have given evidence of the reflectiveness and excellence requisite in a justice, Miers's name probably would not have appeared in any of the 10,000 places on those lists.

Here George Will proves that he knows how to multiply large numbers.

In addition, the president has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution. The forfeiture occurred March 27, 2002, when, in a private act betokening an uneasy conscience, he signed the McCain-Feingold law expanding government regulation of the timing, quantity and content of political speech. The day before the 2000 Iowa caucuses he was asked -- to ensure a considered response from him, he had been told in advance that he would be asked -- whether McCain-Feingold's core purposes are unconstitutional. He unhesitatingly said, "I agree." Asked if he thought presidents have a duty, pursuant to their oath to defend the Constitution, to make an independent judgment about the constitutionality of bills and to veto those he thinks unconstitutional, he briskly said, "I do."

Incidentally, George Will apparently supported George W. Bush in 2004, after, we are told, Bush "forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution." Nonetheless, Kerry was also for McCain-Feingold and a "redistributionist." So in this regard, I suppose, this paragraph might be read as George Will's way of complementing Bush for not being a Communist. Alternatively, this is Will's way of attempting to make a mea culpa. Alternatively, this is all just a temper tantrum. Time will tell.

The wisdom of presumptive opposition to Miers's confirmation flows from the fact that constitutional reasoning is a talent -- a skill acquired, as intellectual skills are, by years of practice sustained by intense interest. It is not usually acquired in the normal course of even a fine lawyer's career. The burden is on Miers to demonstrate such talents, and on senators to compel such a demonstration or reject the nomination.

Under the rubric of "diversity" -- nowadays, the first refuge of intellectually disreputable impulses -- the president announced, surely without fathoming the implications, his belief in identity politics and its tawdry corollary, the idea of categorical representation. Identity politics holds that one's essential attributes are genetic, biological, ethnic or chromosomal -- that one's nature and understanding are decisively shaped by race, ethnicity or gender. Categorical representation holds that the interests of a group can be understood, empathized with and represented only by a member of that group.

Insofar as I can remember, Will has been amazingly consistent on this issue (especially given the "look ma, a minority" strategy that has been all the rage recently).

The crowning absurdity of the president's wallowing in such nonsense is the obvious assumption that the Supreme Court is, like a legislature, an institution of representation. This from a president who, introducing Miers, deplored judges who "legislate from the bench."

Minutes after the president announced the nomination of his friend from Texas, another Texas friend, Robert Jordan, former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, was on Fox News proclaiming what he and, no doubt, the White House that probably enlisted him for advocacy, considered glad and relevant tidings: Miers, Jordan said, has been a victim. She has been, he said contentedly, "discriminated against" because of her gender.

Her victimization was not so severe that it prevented her from becoming the first female president of a Texas law firm as large as hers, president of the State Bar of Texas and a senior White House official. Still, playing the victim card clarified, as much as anything has so far done, her credentials, which are her chromosomes and their supposedly painful consequences. For this we need a conservative president?

Emphasis his. Gotta love them italics.

Will wanted somebody more conservative and more qualified. He wanted (as noted above), Judge Wilkinson. But the upshot of this piece seems to be that many of the fears held about Miers are being projected on Bush. And Bush angering his base is just... surreal.

Granted, I don't expect we'll see this reflected too much in polling. But I do think that in 2008 primaries the Republicans are more likely to have a blood-bath than a coronation. I had once thought that whoever had the administration's blessing would probably waltz to the finish line - and that may still happen. But my suspicion is that even most Republicans are ready for a change; the question is, in which direction?

Of course, there've been more than a few comments about all this Miers stuff being a reverse-bait-and-switch. I think Bush is serious; I can't really explain why, it's just a gut instinct.

Details on the DeLay Indictments

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Thanks to the Statesman we learn that even though there are two outstanding indictments, three grand juries were involved in order to get them.

In a written statement Tuesday, Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle acknowledged that prosecutors presented their case to three grand juries — not just the two they had discussed — and one grand jury refused to indict DeLay. When questions arose about whether the state's conspiracy statute applied to the first indictment returned last Wednesday, prosecutors presented a new money-laundering charge to second grand jury on Friday because the term of the initial grand jury had expired.

Working on its last day Friday, the second grand jury refused to indict DeLay. Normally, a "no-bill" document is available at the courthouse after such a decision. No such document was released Tuesday.

Earle's statement on Tuesday said he took money-laundering and conspiracy charges to a third grand jury on Monday after prosecutors learned of new evidence over the weekend.

To understand the process, the Statesman gives us a timeline.

The first grand jury, impaneled by state District Judge Mike Lynch, a Democrat, had spent six months hearing evidence that Republican groups had violated a state ban against spending corporate money in the 2002 campaigns, including the exchange of $190,000 of corporate money for the same amount of campaign donations from the Republican National Committee.

The grand jury indicted DeLay on charges of conspiring to violate the state election laws, a state-jail felony. As DeLay's lawyers waited to raise an issue whether the conspiracy law applied to the election code, prosecutors apparently learned of the issue.

According to Earle's Tuesday statement, prosecutors presented "some evidence" to a second grand jury impaneled by District Judge Julie Kocurek, a Republican, "out of an abundance of caution."

It's unclear whether those grand jurors refused to indict DeLay on money-laundering charges, a first-degree felony, because of the evidence or because it was given to them on the last day of their 90-day term.

Earle did not say in his statement what new evidence surfaced over the weekend. White, who said he doubts the evidence exists, challenged Earle to reveal it. Prosecutors also called Lynch's grand jurors over the weekend to poll them on how they would have voted on money-laundering charges if they had been given the chance.

Then prosecutors tried again Monday with a third grand jury.

When Monday's grand jury, impaneled by District Judge Brenda Kennedy, a Democrat, reported for its first day, Earle was there to ask them to indict the second most powerful Texan in Washington.

About four hours later, the new felony indictments were returned.

Tom DeLay Indicted On One Count of Money Laundering

By Damon McCullar

The Austin-American Statesman has the story.

Apparently the first indictment again Rep DeLay was not a crime in 2002. The DeLay legal team is going to seek dismissal of the first charge.

Now the AP has a story that Rep. DeLay has been indicted on one charge of money laundering.

According to the Statesman though:

"In a letter to Earle, DeGuerin said DeLay is withdrawing his waiver of the statute of limitations to investigate him. Last month DeLay signed that waiver in an attempt to head off an indictment.

So it seems as if DeLay might walk because the statue of limitation for the crime has expired.

Is Ms. Miers Just Another Corrupt Republican?

By Damon McCullar

After doing some homework, I found this Houston Chronicle article. The summary is below and the full article is after the jump.

In the late 1990s two guys, a former pro football player named Russell Erxleben and Brian Stearns, ran a $40 million + ponzi (pyramid) scheme involving hundreds of people, bilking them out of tens of thousands of dollars a piece. The secret to the sheer magnitude of their scheme is that rather than keeping their money in a bank, they kept it in Locke, Liddell and Sapp's trust fund. They then convinced potential "investors" that the money was safe because it was locked up in this big law firm's trust fund. To close the deal, they told them that one Harriet Miers was a partner there and that she worked for the governor. Locke Liddell knew what was going on, kept quiet about it and ended up getting sued and having to settle for more than $30 million in the affair. At the time Miers was a managing partner, meaning she was on watch when this scandal went down.

Either Ms. Miers was in on the deal or she is highly incompetent. Given the Republicans knack for all things shady, I have to believe
that Ms. Miers was in on the deal. Is this party corrupt to the core?

Firm takes heat for cons' crimes

Settled suits cost top-tier legal entity $30 million, with more pending

By Janet Elliott
Copyright 2001 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau (10-21-01)

Locke Liddell and Sapp is one of Texas' premier law firms, having represented some of the state's top corporations and individuals, including George W. Bush when he was governor and general partner of the Texas Rangers baseball team.

But it is two other former clients, convicted swindlers Russell Erxleben and Brian Stearns, who have brought unwanted attention tot he 426-lawyer firm with offices in Houston and several other cities.

In the past two years, Lock Liddell has paid $30.5 million to settle lawsuits filed by investors who plowed money into enterprises run by Erxleben and Stearns, both of Austin. The deals turned out to be nothing more than elaborate Ponzi schemes.

In a Ponzi or pyramid scheme, investors typically are offered high rates of return. But new investments are used to pay off early investors until the scheme collapses.

The class-action lawsuits alleged the law firm lent its credibility and reputation to enable Erxleben and Stearns to commit securities fraud.

Today, representatives of the firm will participate in mediation of a separate federal lawsuit filed in New York by two foreign corporations that loaned $20 million to Stearns.

Stearns continually told investors that his law firm was the same one that represented Gov. Bush, according to court documents. Harriet Miers, who was co-managing partner of Lock Liddell, represented Bush. She left the law firm in January to become an assistant to President Bush.

Many in the Texas legal community are asking how a reputable firm ended up with two such disreputable clients.

The law firm denies it or the four lawyers named in the lawsuits aided in the criminal enterprises run by Stearns and Erxleben, and it now believes that the firm was used by the con men.

John McElhaney, a Locke Liddell partner from Dallas, said the firm settled the cases to avoid lengthy litigation. He said the firm has not changed its client intake procedures as a result of Erxleben and Stearns.

Austin lawyer Michael Shaunessy, who filed the two class-action lawsuits, said he believes the Locke Liddell lawyers ignored obvious signs that their clients were running scams.

"The lesson, if there is one, is that unfortunately we have members of the legal community who don't understand their ethical obligations," said Shaunessy.

Among the more sensational allegations to arise regarding Stearns is a charge that Locke Liddell used a firm's special trust account to funnel $12 million in investor money to Stearns, who used the funds to finance a lavish lifestyle that included a private jet. Law firms are required to have the accounts to hold client funds. Interest earned on the accounts is used to help fund civil legal services for the poor.

Linda Eads, an associate professor of law at Southern Methodist University, wrote in an ethics opinion prepared for Shaunessy that the use of the trust account caused "investors to feel assured by the involvement of the law firm in the transaction."

McElhaney of Locke Liddell and Sapp said Stearns asked that the transfers be handled through the trust account and that there was nothing illegal about the use of the firm's account.

Stearns was sentenced last July to 30 years in federal prison for defrauding investors of $40 million. Among his victims were 342 investors from Brady, the central Texas hometown of the beauty queen Stearns married in 1998. The Brady investors were swindled out of $4.5 million.

In August, Lock Liddell agreed to pay $8.5 million to settle the lawsuit filed by Brady residents and investors from California and Canada. The Brady investors recovered less than 70 cents on the dollar.

Locke Liddell denied any wrongdoing and said it settled the case to avoid lengthy litigation.

The law firm offered the same explanation in April 2000 when it agreed to pay $22 million to settle a lawsuit stemming from its representation of Erxleben. Erxleben, a former star placekicker for the University of Texas and the NFL's New Orleans Saints, is serving a seven-year sentence in federal prison for stealing $36 million through his foreign currency trading company, Austin Forex International.

Lawyers can be disbarred for violating professional ethics rules. One rule requires a lawyer to withdraw from representing a client "if the lawyer's services will be used by the client in materially furthering a course of criminal or fraudulent conduct."

The first lawsuit against Locke Liddell arose after state securities regulators in September 1998 seized the accounts of Austin Forex and put the company into receivership.

Houston attorney Janet Mortenson was named permanent receiver, charged with finding any assets that might be used to compensate investors. She became privy to notes and memos from the lawyers who had advised Erxleben.

Mortenson found a paper trail that she believed showed Erxleben's lawyers allowed him to sell unregistered securities, signed off on brochures and promotional materials that contained misrepresentations and knew about the company's growing losses for months before state regulators began investigating.

Mortenson and the investors sued Locke Liddell partners Dan Matheson, Jane Matheson and Curtis Ashmos. All three worked in the firm's Austin office.

According to the lawsuit, Dan Matheson began representing Austin Forex in April 1997. By March 1998, he knew the company had sustained losses of $7 million but was still taking in about $1 million a week in new investor funds, the lawsuit states.

It was not until June 1998, when losses had mounted to $18 million, that the lawyers advised Exlerben to stop taking in new money and report trading losses, according to the lawsuit.

"We denied those allegations consistently before and continue to deny them now," said Dan Matheson, who now works at Munsch Hardt Kopf and Harr.

Two other law firms paid settlements to investors in Erxleben's Austin Forex. Sheinfeld Maley and Kay, which went out of business in July, paid $8.5 million, and Kuperman, Orr, Mouer and Albers paid $800,000. The investors also recovered $775,000 from accounting firm PriceWaterhouseCoopers and $500,000 from Bradford Keene, a part owner of Austin Forex.

The Stearns case followed the same scenario, with Mortenson again being named receiver and gaining access to the legal files. She sued Locke Liddell and Phillip Wylie a partner in the firm's Dallas office.

Shaunessy, who investigated Wylie's representation of Stearns, said that Stearns exhibited questionable behavior from the time he walked into the law office in 1998. Stearns claimed to be worth $547 million, yet, within a few months, Wylie knew that Stearns had passed bad checks to an Austin drapery store and an interior decorator, and he was slow to pay the law firm's bills.

The firm's own background check of Stearns found he had no significant property or record of past business success. Another client informed the firm that Stearns had been convicted of a felony in Maryland, but the firm never asked Stearns about his criminal record, Shaunessy said.

According to the ethics report filed by Eads, Wylie learned in late 1998 and early 1999 that investors were angry about promises Stearns made and then broke. He also knew that Stearns was using funds from investors to purchase luxury items, such as a private jet, and that he was telling investors that his law firm was the same firm to represent Gov. Bush.

"Despite Wylie's knowledge of the foregoing facts, which should have raised many questions about Stearns, Wylie, according to his own statements, did no further investigation, and indeed became deeply involved in legitimizing Stearn's schemes," wrote Eads.

Wylie now practices law at Snell Brannian and Trent in Dallas. His lawyer, Tim Duffy, declined comment.

McElhaney said the settlements have been paid from the firm's malpractice insurance. He said the firm's clients and new lawyer recruits have been understanding.

"We are very sorry to have seen this happen, but it's not going to have a long-term adverse impact on us."

Harriet Miers Nominated to Supreme Court

By Damon McCullar

From the AP wire:

President Bush on Monday nominated White House counsel Harriet Miers to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court, reaching into his loyal inner circle for a pick that could reshape the nation's judiciary for years to come.

...

Democratic and Republican special interests groups were braced for a political brawl over the pick, Bush's second. But the lack of a judicial record may make it difficult for Democrats to find ground upon which to fight her nomination.

The President describes Ms. Miers as someone who strictly interprets the law. Does that mean strict constructionist? I don't think so, but she is a total wild card. An even bigger wild card than Chief Justice Roberts because he has no prior bench experience. This should make for interesting confirmation hearing for that reason alone. Ms. Miers was a chief architect in the lower court battles. Was she pivotal in developing the "Nuclear Option"? Does anyone know anything about her? Does anyone care?

Ray Nagin

By Jim Dallas

As you may know, embattled New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin supported President Bush in 2000 and was a Republican before switching parties shortly before filing his candidacy for mayor in 2002 (more or less because a Republican is unelectable in New Orleans). Nagin has since had sort of a mixed record with endorsements (backing Bobby Jindal for governor and John Kerry for President).

Given that the GOP has been pretty solicitous of (some would say desperate for) support from just about any person of color, one might imagine that the right-wing spin machine might have eased off of Nagin by now; the Hurricane is over, no need to deflect blame on to state and local officials anymore.

Which makes me even more perplexed by the latest e-mail from the NRA, which reads more like a political hit on Nagin than, you know, your typical paranoid "cold dead hands" banter:

The controversy over gun confiscations erupted when The New York Times reported that the New Orleans Superintendent of Police Eddie Compass directed that no civilians in New Orleans will be allowed to have guns and that "only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons." ABC News quoted New Orleans' Deputy Police Chief Warren Riley, saying, "No one will be able to be armed. We are going to take all the weapons."

This week--fast on the heels of the restraining order--Compass abruptly resigned his post. At the same time, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin's office was quick to distance itself from the statements made by Compass and Riley.

The one big question that remains to be answered is who actually issued the controversial confiscation order in the first place.

Under Nagin's leadership, the city's murder rate increased and there were frequent reports of corruption within the police department. In addition, during the region's wide-spread, post-Katrina violence, looting, and civil unrest, roughly 250 police officers deserted their posts. Amidst the anarchy, a television crew filmed police officers apparently participating in the looting of a store.

That last paragraph seems especially gratuitous. Granted, the NRA has every right to stand up to anyone who would take your guns away from you (and that's why I'm on their mailing list). But continuing the "Nagin/NOPD = anarchy" meme really doesn't seem to have much to do with the merits of the gun controversy.

I'm beginning to get the nagging sensation that there's more at work behind the sense than simple issue advocacy. The fact that I can't ever seem to tell whether the NRA is representing its members or the vast right-wing conspiracy is one reason why I can't stand the current NRA leadership. Of course, my grand scheme is to get more Democrats (like this guy) to join up so we can take over (our motto: "you can pry my gun -- and my social security check -- out of my cold dead hands").

Roy Blunt Elected New Majority Leader

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Though some duties are apparently to be shared with other Reps, Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO) has been elected the new Majority Leader by the Republican Caucus by a unanimous vote. Rep. Dreier of California may share some duties, but has not been selected as the actual leader, contrary to other reports.

The Family Research Council is happy and released this statement, and I would imagine they are quite thrilled that Drier likely will not have the influence to moderate the GOP's position on their favorite non-issue, the Federal Marriage Amendment.

"I am confident that House Whip Roy Blunt will continue Tom DeLay's efforts to move forward with pro-family public policies which drove turnout among values voters in the last election. Congressman Blunt has been a recipient of Family Research Council's 'True Blue Award' which is given to members of Congress who have consistently voted pro-life and pro-family.

"Family Research Council looks forward to working with Congressman Blunt in the coming days as Congress considers tax relief for charitable giving, an amendment protecting marriage, a fetal pain bill and a ban on human cloning."

Homosexual Man Chosen As Next Majority Leader?

By Damon McCullar

Update: Rep. Roy Blunt has been elected Majority Leader.

When it rains, it pours...

According to Blogactive.com the new "temporary" Republican Majority Leader is a homosexual.

Speaker of the House of Representatives, Dennis Hastert (R-IL) has picked Representative David Drier (R-CA), a gay man, as his choice for House Majority Leader. Regular blogACTIVE Confidential readers recall that David Drier was a recipient of a blogACTIVE Roy Cohn Award for being a gay man who worked against gay people. Now, in his newly visible role, provided the House elects him, David Dreier will be in a position to finally put the Federal Marriage Amendment, which he opposed, to bed. No reaction from radical right groups yet on Hastert's pick -- we're assuming that he didn't check in with the Family Research council's ok on this.

There is also a story that ran in LA Weekly about the same subject, There is an excerpt from the article after the jump.

I have zero problems with a homosexual man being in Congress, but with the Republicans current strategy of using homosexuals as a wedge in campaign politics, I wonder if change is in the air? Could it be that now that DeLay is out of power "temporarily" the Republican party is going to have a shift on it's policy toward homosexuals? One could only hope.

From the LA Weekly story metioned in the main post:

Rogers' campaign against Dreier got a major boost when it was taken up by Raw Story, the hot new liberal gadfly newsblog. Raw Story, which is edited out of Cambridge, Massachusetts, by 23-year-old John Byrne, who is also gay, last week published an interview with Dreier's Democratic opponent in 1998 and 2000, Dr. Janice Nelson, who said she was aware during her 2000 campaign that Dreier was living with his chief of staff, Brad Smith. "Brad was like an invisible presence," she said. "They really have the routine down slick."

Nelson, a professor of pathology, says she came forward when she read on Raw Story that Hustler, the Larry Flynt magazine, was working on an expos of Dreier's secret gay life. Mark Cromer, the mag's features editor in charge of its outing of Dreier, is a former reporter for a string of Valley newspapers in Dreier's district, including the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Pasadena Star-News. Cromer said his mags expose on Dreier, part of a package on sexual hypocrisy by Republican spear-carriers in the culture wars, will be published in November. And he accuses the papers in Dreier's district, all of which spout a conservative, anti-gay editorial line, of having a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy toward the congressman and his relationship with Smith. These papers are all owned by Media News Group (MNG), whose CEO, Dean Singleton, is a major contributor to Republican campaigns. Opinion pages editor Steve Scauzillo said he could not comment on the Dreier matter without the approval of MNG higher-ups.

DeLay Steps Down as Majority Leader

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Apologies for the incorrect headline earlier- Speaker instead of Majority Leader. I guess it's just that I didn't think of DeLay as much of a leader of anything and simply as a voice for corruption. -kt

From Quorum Report, Earle's statement (doc) and the indictment (doc).

From the Statesman:

"I have notified (House Speaker Dennis Hastert) that I will temporarily step aside from my position as majority leader pursuant to rules of the House Republican Conference and the actions of the Travis County District Attorney today," DeLay said in a statement.

...

An indictment does not force DeLay to resign as a member of Congress, but the GOP's rules demand that he resign his post as majority leader as he fights the charges. Congressional Republicans earlier tried to drop that requirement, citing Earle's investigation as a political vendetta, but they ultimately maintained the rule after withering criticism.

Under House Republican Conference rules, any GOP leader who is indicted for a felony that carries at least a two-year prison term must step down immediately.

"It's assumed to be immediate," said Sean Spicer, spokesman for the Republican Conference. "If you're indicted, you're indicted."

The rule applies to the speaker of the House, majority leader, whip, conference chair and chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, Spicer said.

I hope that there is some blowback to our own Rep. Lamar Smith for being part of the crew that tried, while a sitting member of the ethics committee, to force through those rule changes. Let's not forget that Smith gave $10,000 to DeLay's legal defense fund. Though maybe he'll need to pony up some more to his "good friend of his" in his hour of need.

John Colyandro and Jim Ellis, associates of DeLay who were indicted previously were re-indicted as part of the conspiracy charge. And fyi...

But a conspiracy charge falls under the criminal code, not the election statute that bans corporate money from being spent on a campaign. And Earle has the jurisdiction to prosecute DeLay for conspiring with others to circumvent state law.

Though we got DeLay, we didn't see anything happen to Craddick or his (lack of) leadership team. It's not too late, but it's quite unlikely that the following will come to pass. Then again, few people say DeLay being fingered even as late as a week ago.

Theoretically, prosecutors could ask another grand jury to consider charges between now and the Nov. 2 anniversary of the 2002 election, when a three-year statute of limitations expires. But the defense lawyers expect today to be the last chance for 2002 allegations.

But regardless of Craddick, the money laundering allegations tie Todd Baxter into all of this as he received those monies in his 2002 election. We already knocked out Stick here in Austin, now it's time for Baxter. And after all this, maybe having Jason Earle, son of Ronnie, challenge in Rep. Keel's open seat will trigger thoughts of Republican scandal in the minds of HD-47 voters.

Smokey Joe Says No To Katrina Victims

By Damon McCullar

I got this earlier in the week but haven't taken the time to post it. Looks like Joe Barton doesn't want to spend any money for New Orleans. Dave Harris, candidate for CD-06 had this to say in his press release:

Amongst a boisterous crowd of more than 100 people at last night's Tarrant County Executive Committee meeting, David Harris blasted Smokey Joe Barton who incredibly voted against funding relief for Katrina victims. Barton was one of only 11 Members of Congress to turn their back on our fellow Americans.

"JOE SAID YES TO HALLIBURTON, NO TO KATRINA SURVIVORS AND WE GET STUCK PAYING MORE FOR A GALLON OF GAS AND A GALLON OF MILK EVERY DAY BACK HERE IN TEXAS", said Harris.

Greeted by cheers, David continued asking the crowd to "FOLLOW ME" as he takes on this political polluter.

The Harris Campaign recently issued a call to action asking all constituents in the district to call Joe Barton's office:

We are asking that all the good people of TX CD 6 immediately call Joe Barton and demand an explanation of his no vote.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll460.xml

While many of us are working extra hours in shelters, in hospitals, and in our schools trying to help Texas take care of the displaced Katrina survivors, Barton put politics ahead of victims.

One constituent writes back:

"the receptionist told me that joe barton did not vote yes because he didn't know where the money was going. when i asked her why only 11 congressmen had such little faith in the process, she said the rest reacted in a knee jerk action to fix the problem without doing the 'dedicated research' that mr joe barton did."

SO JOE, 524 OTHER MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ARE WRONG?

Bush to Use Federal Money to Reimburse Churches

By Phillip Martin

During his address to the nation on Thursday night, President Bush said the following:

...The private fund-raising effort led by former Presidents Bush and Clinton has already received pledges of more than $100 million.

Some of that money is going to governors, to be used for immediate needs within their states. A portion will also be sent to local houses of worship to help reimburse them for the expense of helping others....

Personally, I think every single dime should go to Hurricane Katrina relief efforts, and no charity -- religious or otherwise -- should receive reimbursements. Charity is about giving and expecting nothing in return. That is what I learned growing up in my Catholic Church. If some churches are asking for some money back, or if this is simply a play to the religious right...

That all remains to be seen, I guess, but I sure hope that's not the case. Hopefully, these reimbursements will only be used to continue purchasing food and setting up shelters for evacuees. I really hope we aren't redirecting money from food, shelter, and clothing drives so that Lakewood Church can expand their parking garage.

I've been looking for stories discussing this, but haven't found any. If anyone sees one, post in the comments section and let me know.

Bush Takes Responsiblity for Katrina Failures

By Phillip Martin

In a stand up move today, President Bush stated that, "to the extent the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility." The Houston Chronicle article goes on to mention that the President will address the nation Thursday in Louisiana. The President went on to say that he hopes to examine the government's readiness for future disasters:

"Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels of government...

Are we capable of dealing with a severe attack? That's a very important question and it's in the national interest that we find out what went on so we can better respond."

The political reasons and ramifications of this announcement notwithstanding, I am pleased to see the President accept some responsibility. Realizing there is a problem is the first step in beginning to fix the problem, and that first step doesn't always occur with our elected officials.

How much of this is genuine and how much of it is merely posturing, we'll find out tomorrow night and in the coming weeks. Hopefully, promise will translate into actual policy, and Republicans and Democrats will work together to bring fast, focused relief to the victims of Hurricane Katrina, as well as find the best ways to bring efficient communication and coordination techniques to all agencies that work on disaster relief and homeland security efforts.

In the mean time, we can still do our parts by continuing to donate to the Red Cross and continuing to volunteer our time for those still struggling to find direction in their lives.

Micheal Brown, FEMA Director, Resigns

By Damon McCullar

From Reuters,

Federal Emergency Management Agency Director Michael Brown, under fire and recalled to Washington in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, resigned on Monday, senior administration officials said on Monday.

Under fire for a slow response to Hurricane Katrina, Brown was pulled out of Gulf Coast operations on Friday and recalled to Washington. President George W. Bush has been under pressure from Democrats to fire him.

Accusations also arose last week that Brown had exaggerated his background in disaster relief in his official biography and resume.

The officials would not give any details except to confirm that Brown, who has been FEMA's director since 2003, had resigned.

The resignation came three days after Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff removed Brown from federal relief efforts in the Gulf Coast and sent him back to Washington.

In announcing his decision, Chertoff said he wanted Brown to be in Washington to continue administering FEMA.

During a visit to Gulfport, Mississippi, Bush was asked about Brown's resignation. He told reporters he had not talked to Brown or to Chertoff but said he would speak with the Homeland Security chief on the Air Force One flight back to Washington.

So one of the Kings of Disaster is gone, how long until the rest are gone?

Micheal Brown Removed from Hurricane Katrina Relief Efforts

By Damon McCullar

From Reuters:

The director of Federal Emergency Management Agency, Michael Brown, who has been fiercely criticized over the relief efforts after Hurricane Katrina, will be pulled off relief operations in the Gulf Coast, two U.S. officials said on Friday.

They said Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff was bringing Brown back to Washington and putting Vice Admiral Thad Allen, chief of staff of the U.S. Coast Guard, in charge of operations on the ground.

One official familiar with the decision said Chertoff made the decision and was soon to make the announcement. Brown has been under heavy criticism for a slow emergency response to the hurricane, with some Democrats demanding he be fired.

A senior Homeland Security Department official said: "The secretary will announce that Mike Brown will return to Washington and will continue to be the administrator for FEMA nationally but Coast Guard Vice Adm. Thad Allen will take over operations on the ground."

Brown's removal from relief operations on the ground comes a week after Bush publicly applauded his efforts, saying: "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job. The FEMA Director is working 24 -- they're working 24 hours a day."

Chief Justice William Rehnquist Dies

By Damon McCullar

(Looks like Matt, Damon and I all jumped on this story, so we'll consolidate here. -KT)

Chief Justice William Rehnquist died Saturday at age 80. More to come.

Dennis Hastert Suggests Not Rebuilding New Orleans

By Andrew Dobbs

Earlier, I put up a post about Congress' lack of action in the face of Hurricane Katrina's devastation. Now, the Associated Press is reporting some comments from House Speaker Dennis Hastert that might just clear things up:

It makes no sense to spend billions of dollars to rebuild a city that's seven feet under sea level, House Speaker Dennis Hastert said of federal assistance for hurricane-devastated New Orleans.

"It looks like a lot of that place could be bulldozed," the Illinois Republican said in an interview Wednesday with the Daily Herald of Arlington Heights, Ill.

Hastert, in a transcript supplied by the newspaper, said there was no question that the people of New Orleans would rebuild their city, but noted that federal insurance and other federal aid was involved. "We ought to take a second look at it. But you know we build Los Angeles and San Francisco on top of earthquake fissures and they rebuild too. Stubbornness."

"Looks like it could be bulldozed" huh? Good to know that the people of this city are so loved by members of Congress.

Do The Math

By Andrew Dobbs

Something Frank Cafferty said on CNN piqued my curiosity, and I did a little research. Check this out.

March 20, 2005: "(Terri) Schiavo's feeding tube was disconnected about 1:45 p.m. Friday (March 19), George Felos, the attorney for her husband, told reporters."

March 20, 2005: "The House is to meet at 1 p.m. today and the Senate at 2 p.m." Congress had to be called into emergency session as they were on vacation.

That was then. This is now.

"Both the House and Senate will be back at work by tomorrow (September 2) to begin work on a package of federal disaster aid for areas of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Western Florida affected by Hurricane Katrina, the aide said."

The Hurricane, according to Wikipedia, hit Louisiana on Monday August 29 at 10 AM.

So for those playing along at home, Congress came into emergency session to address Terri Schiavo's feeding tube 23 hours and 15 minutes after it was removed. They will take four days just to get started on developing a relief package for Katrina.

Good to know that the "culture of life" is going strong...

Compassionate Conservatism

By Damon McCullar

I would have posted the under really freakin' weird, but we didn't have that option. Pat Roberson called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. From the AP:

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. - Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson called on Monday for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, calling him a ``terrific danger'' to the United States

Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition of America and a former presidential candidate, said on ``The 700 Club'' it was the United States' duty to stop Chavez from making Venezuela a ``launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism.''

...

``You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it,'' Robertson said. ``It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... and I don't think any oil shipments will stop.''

...

``We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability,'' Robertson said.

``We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator,'' he continued. ``It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.''

Mr. Robertson also blamed the 9/11 attacks on Gays and Lesbians in the United States in a statement that he says was taken out of context and later retracted.

Freedom of religion and expression is all well and good, but this is a little reckless. Also, these folks make up the "base" of the Republican party. If you aren't scared, you aren't paying attention.

How Low Can You Go

By Damon McCullar

Well, the August numbers are in and in spite of getting a lot of Republican sponsored legislation through Congress the American Research Group has new poll numbers that show 36% of Americans approve of the job he's doing as President, down from 42% a month ago. Only 33% think that the President is doing a good job with the economy, that's down from 38%. Now that it looks like Iraq will become and Islamic Republic I imagine that things won't get much better. Our current President has the worst approval ratings of any President since WWII. It's sad because it's true.

Report from Camp Casey

By John Pruett

Cindy Sheehan's departure from Camp Casey to visit her ailing mother in Los Angeles highlights a major dilemma facing the revitalized anti-war movement. Is Sheehan's leadership necessary for the progression and growth of the movement? Or, instead, will focus on Sheehan's personal demands give way to larger issues and questions surrounding the Iraq War? This partly depends on the media. It also depends on those opposed to the war taking a metaphorical step forward.

Forrest Wilder, a friend of mine and journalist for the Texas Observer, offers his views. I posted them in their entirety:

I journeyed to Crawford this past weekend to take in the "Cindy Sheehan spectacle..." at least that's how, I imagine, it's seen by viewers through their TV screens - a drama made-for-TV by PR consultants, media savvy activists, and duly reported on by a bored press corps decamped in podunk Texas amidst the doldrums of Bush's extended vacation. If only everyone could pay homage in person.

There's nothing extraordinary, of course, about Cindy Sheehan despite the celebritization of her and her cause by both proponents and detractors. The moment - and the movement - however are unusually piquant. Cindy Sheehan, insofar as she is a symbol, represents a deep well of anxiety over the War on Iraq and the direction of the country in general. Forget, for the moment, the proxy war being fought - will He or will He not meet with Her?. That is sidedressing. The significance of Camp Casey is that the argument over the war has a plotline, a battlefield, and things from here on out will probably not be the same. The antiwar movement in the U.S. has been pitifully quiescent for over a year even as polls showed that more and more Americans were becoming disaffected with the Iraq War. Now, the movement has found its lever; the question is, will it have the wherewithal to use it as Atlas would?

One frustration that I have with the mainstream media's reporting and the organizers' strategy is that "they" tend to make it Cindy, Cindy, Cindy 24/7. When I was there on Saturday there were reportedly 25 other members of military families and at least a dozen veterans. I heard about 10 of them speak and each was probably capable of speaking just as forcefully and eloquently as Cindy Sheehan. Ms. Sheehan certainly deserves credit for getting this thing going in Crawford, but it's foolish to make one person the figurehead of a movement that is composed of millions of people. Just taking the encampment in Crawford, there are any number of people who have loved ones in Iraq or have served in Iraq that are equal to the task of acting as a leader and spokesperson.

We are already seeing the first signs of Cindy burnout in the media. Part of this is fueled by the Right's attempt to discredit Cindy through guilt-by-association (she's consorting with communists) and ad hominem attacks (she's a flip-flopper, she's grandstanding, etc), and partly by the media's tendency to reduce all struggles to a neat narrative line that quickly exhausts itself (Cindy wants to see President. President won't meet with her. Stay tuned to see what happens next...[Yawn]).

So much of this debate about the war centers around patriotism: Who's more American? The antiwar folks calling for the troops to come home soon and safely? Or, the pro-war folks calling for the troops to come home safely AND as soon as possible? The terms of this debate are ridiculous and are hardly worth the effort. The pro-Bush people out protesting Cindy brought about twice as many flags as people. The antiwar people respond in kind with flags and home truths about the true meaning of patriotism being the willingness to question the government when it does wrong. I support the latter naturally, but it's all so tiresome. I don't advocate burning the flag in protest of Amerikkka or something, but doesn't it seem like a zero-sum game? I'm sure in consultation with my American history books I could find the answer to be clearly 'no'. In any case, I don't find it necessary to one-up the "patriots" who sing "God Bless America" with a more lively rendition of the same song, as happened on Saturday.

War issues aside, it is important that Cindy Sheehan be with her mother during her time of illness. I wish her mother a quick and full recovery.

Breaking the ethics truce

By Jim Dallas

Let me chime in agreeing completely with Greg and the editors of the New Republic: it's time to go on the attack on ethics, even if it exposes a few of our naughty incumbents, too:

The same status quo that guarantees Pelosi and Menendez their leadership positions effectively consigns House Democrats to minority status. In their defense, some Democrats have rejected this dubious bargain. Much of the credit for DeLay's current political trouble goes to a former Democratic representative named Chris Bell, who last year filed the complaint that led to DeLay's official admonishment. House Democratic campaign Chairman Rahm Emanuel has reportedly told colleagues he plans "to go after every ethically challenged Republican out there." But, far more often, rank-and-file Democrats have confused the party's interests with the interests of its leaders, a confusion that Republicans have mercilessly exploited.

At the height of the furor over DeLay this spring, an anonymous Republican aide told Roll Call that, "in the end, we're the most affected by [the ethical cloud over Congress]. ... We are in the majority, and we have a hell of a lot more to lose than they do." How many more years in the minority will it take before Democrats reach the same conclusion?

Don't ever believe politicians are perfect (though I agree with the gist of Greg's post - Chris Bell is clearly worthy of your vote!). We elect politicians to make decisions for us, and sometimes they make the wrong ones. I hate to break it to you, but please don't believe that a few elections are going to end poverty, keep girls from getting the cooties, stop the military from accidentally blowing up a few thousand foreigners (along with some of our own troops) every so often, or bring peace and social harmony to the earth. Because they're just as dumb as the rest of us.

But do, for goodness sakes, expect that your elected officials are spending their time in office looking out for you (regardless of whether they are right or wrong), rather than for themselves and their associates. This is a principle worth fighting for, even if it means losing a few Democratic reps to friendly fire.

Freeping as performance art

By Jim Dallas

The Internets are saying that counter-protestors went down to the Cindy Sheehan shendig and chanted "we don't care." And then went away.

Ahh, the triumph of the human spirit...

YDA Update

By Katie Naranjo

Both tickets are working very hard to get votes from delegates with shirts, volunteers and buttons. After meeting with Chris Galloway I was very impressed with his knowledge and plans for YDA to help local chapters.

However, training still continues with Rep. Mark Strama leading a training session to bring experience and knowledge to young democrats who plan to work in campaigning. The Democratic GAIN training has been focusing on campaign skills, young candidate training, and chapter building. For more information on GAIN training see http://www.democraticgain.org/

I would like to personally congratulate Erica Contreras for winning her election for Secretary of the Minority Caucus. I also want to wish Shondra Wygal good luck in her election for Vice-Chair of the Women’s caucus, which the vote will convene at 4pm. That is all for now, more updates will be coming.

Bob Novak

By Byron LaMasters

I just watched the Novak video of his Crossfire performance earlier today. In honor of his lovely exit from CNN, I thought that I would repost my flattering picture of Mr. Novak taken at the Democratic convention last year. Enjoy. Good riddance for CNN... it's about time.

Update at YDA by the Bay

By Katie Naranjo

Aug. 3rd
The YDA convention has started with a battle in the credentials committee over allotting full votes to various states. The battle is due to the tense campaigning by the Unity and Galloway tickets. Check out both groups to get updates. Personally, I am excited to see the contested election in YDA, especially since a fellow Texan is running Giovanni Garibay.

Aug. 4th
Currently, I am in the women’s caucus where we are discussing reaching out to young women voters in America. With the Republicans ahead in framing their argument with low taxes, small government and jobs; Democrats, especially young women, have to frame their arguments to reach a broad range of women. The main message is to spread the word about how and when to vote. College students rarely know that they can vote at their college library. Young women who are in the professional realm also are not being targeted by campaigns because they are vastly overlooked.

The statistics show that if women will actually get out to vote, they will on average more likely vote Democrat. Before approaching someone to vote Democrat, make sure they are equipped to vote (ie) registered voter.

Statistics show that female voters are reaching out to more issues then choice, job equity. The War in Iraq, the economy, and health care run the gamete of issues that women voters are concerned about. Women need to use peer-to-peer contact to create a base in which they can approach female voters on issues.

I am with Alex De Ocampo at the moment, presidential candidate for Team Unity, is there anything you would like to say to Texas? Alex: "I am running for YDA president and I am fighting for change. This organization can do better and we will do better. I ask for your support and thank you for your kindness. "

After meeting with Unity I am very impressed with the ideas, professionalism, and spirit they embody. More will come after the general meeting once I see Nancy Pelosi!!!!!!

Blogging YDA by the Bay

By Byron LaMasters

BORers Katie Naranjo and I are currently in San Francisco as Texas delegates to the Young Democrats of America National Convention. I had hoped that more BORers (Karl-Thomas?) would have been able to join us, but it's just the two of us. Fortunately, however, the Texas Young Democrats have a strong forty member delegation representing chapters from Austin, Dallas, El Paso, Houston and San Antonio. This afternoon, I attended a technology workshop with a panel including blogger Davey D and the founder of Craig's List among others.

I'd urge all of you to read the San Francisco Chronicle article from Monday on the convention. This is my first YDA convention (and third YDA National meeting) to attend, so I'm quite excited about being at the convention (not to mention in San Francisco).

I would be interested to know if anyone is blogging the YDA convention. To my knowledge, this convention is the largest Democratic convention since the DNC convention in Boston last July. We also happen to have contested elections, which is a sign of strength for the organization. The incumbent YDA President, Chris Gallaway is running for reelection on the Gallaway slate that includes Texas YD Giovanni Garibay as a candidate for the YDA male representative to the Democratic National Committee. The opposing slate is UNITY led by presidential candidate Alex De Ocampo.

I have friends involved in both campaigns, and since I'm serving on the campaigns committee as the south-central region representative, I've had the opportunity to work with a number of people in the region. To that end, I've endorsed the three candidates from the south-central region - Giovanni Garibay of Texas for DNC (Gallaway slate), Dwayne Bensing of Arkansas for VP of Programs (UNITY) and Kathy North of Oklahoma for VP of Development (UNITY).

Best of luck to all of the candidates, and if any BOR readers are here at the convention, let me know!

Stories in America

By John Pruett

Rose Aguilar is an independent journalist from San Francisco who embarked on a fascinating project several months ago. Following the 2004 General Elections, she decided to take a road trip across the Red States of Texas, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Alabama, Montana and Utah in order to better understand the culture and views of conservative America.

Stories in America is the product of Aguilar's efforts. The site includes a chronicle of her travels complete with anecdotes, pictures, and interviews. In the same vein as George Lakoff and Thomas Frank, her blog represents one of the latest attempts by liberal scholars and journalists to delve into the bizarre world of conservatism that we in Texas call home. It's definitely worth a look.

However, Aguilar's project causes me to pause. I remain baffled by the explosion of research on conservatism over the past several years. It's as if liberals had fallen asleep only to be re-awakened by a slap in the face (i.e. Bush & Co.).

Maybe those on the left continued dreaming of the '60s, denying that times had changed, and now they're suddenly faced with an enemy they didn't anticipate and do not understand. Come on people! The South is still basically the South, modern-day conservatives have been growing in strength since the 1950s, jingoism didn't end with the Cold War, and robber barons still hate social programs and steal from the poor. So perhaps our recent history is not so much a story of conservatism's success, but of liberalism's failure.

Nevertheless, it was not until conservative Republicans assumed overwhelming power over this nation's government that Democrats and progressives began questioning their overall strategy and searching for new methods. This searching and re-education is a good sign and I hope to see it continue.

I see you failed to meet your Hillary-bashing quota this week

By Jim Dallas

From the US News and World Report e-mail:

Meanwhile, friends of the Bush family remain unsettled by George Herbert Walker Bush's growing friendship with Bill Clinton. The two former presidents have conducted joint projects in recent months, especially to promote tsunami relief, and have traveled the world together. Confidants of both men say they have become quite close, which has raised particular concern in Bushworld. The fear is that the 41st president might be co-opted by Clinton (who defeated him in 1992) and won't be critical enough of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, the former president's wife, if Hillary runs for president in 2008 as expected. Some pals who have privately quizzed "41" recently say he cuts them short and says he has come to like Bill Clinton, that Clinton is deferential to him, and he'll decide how to handle criticism of Hillary if she does indeed run for president, but not before.

I believe it was Brian Mulroney that said it's nice to have friends in politics, but you have to have enemies. That might be true. But both Poppy Bush and Bill Clinton aren't in politics any more, so why care?

In other USN&WR news, they're running a story about the current Bush administration's cultivation of a supportive blogosphere:

Senate Democrats and Judiciary Committee minority staffers are miffed that conservative bloggers appear to have more information about Bush Supreme Court nominee John Roberts than they do.

"They've got material out there that we don't know about," complained Sen. Edward Kennedy, who's leading an effort to force the White House to turn over any documents it has on Roberts.

We love the smell of partisanship in the morning... but not if it means having to read Powerline or Little Green Footballs in order to be a fully-informed citizen.

It's a bird...! it's a plane....! it's... Bill Scranton!

By Jim Dallas

A friend tips me off to the re-emergence of William Scranton III as a contender in Pennsylvania politics -- and the inevitable discussion of transcendantal meditation and yogic flying sure to follow.

Look America, the Maharishi's only two contributions to Western civilization are getting the Beatles weird enough for them to cut the White Album; and getting Scranton weird enough to let Bob Casey beat him. Either way, it's weird, and getting weirder.

At any rate, a Pennsylvania GOP gubernatorial primary matchup pairing Scranton versus former Steeler Lynn Swann could be the most entertaining race of 2006. That isn't to say that Gov. Ed Rendell will cruise to re-election - far from it, either Scranton or Swann (or any other of the possibilities) could be credible. Nonetheless, there's always a race or two each cycle which generates funny stories, and a celebrity-driven race like this one (if it emerges) could be quite a hoot.

John Bolton Appointed to the UN

By Damon McCullar

The White House announced this morning that John Bolton will receive a recess appointment to the UN. This move bypasses the Senate and directly appoints him. He will serve for one year and a few months. When the new Congress convenes in early 2007, his appointment will expire and he will have to go through the confirmation process once again.

Conservative Legislative Group ALEC To Meet In Grapevine

By Vince Leibowitz

The ultra-conservative American Legislative Exchange Council will meet in Grapevine next week for its annual meeting with several high-profile Republicans--including two Texans--slated to address the group.

In addition to former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Texan Dick Armey (former House Majority Leader) and Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings--also a Texan--are slated to address the group.

According to its website, ALEC was founded, "morethan a quarter century ago, a small group of state legislators and conservative policy advocates met in Chicago to implement a vision: A bipartisan membership association for conservative state lawmakers who shared a common belief in limited government, free markets, federalism, and individual liberty..." eith the mission of "advancing the Jeffersonian principles of free markets, limited government, federalism and individual liberty among America's state legislators..."

You can check out the agenda for the annual meeting here. Note that some of the topics include "Disorder in the Courts—Litigating Public Policy," and "Charter Schools and Beyond."

No wonder they decided to hold it in Texas.

No word on what legislators from Texas will be attending the convention. In spite of the special session, I suspect quite a few Texans will be making the trip up to Grapevine.

Vince Leibowitz is County Chairman of the Democratic Party of Van Zandt County. He may be reached at Vince_Leibowitz@bluebottle.com.

Bush Picks John G. Roberts Jr. as Supreme Court Nominee

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

President Bush chose federal appeals court judge John G. Roberts Jr. on Tuesday as his first nominee for the Supreme Court, selecting a rock solid conservative whose nomination could trigger a tumultuous battle over the direction of the nation's highest court, senior administration officials said.

Here we go.

The Suspense Will Soon Be Over

By John Pruett

It's official. Tonight at 9pm ET (8pm CDT), President Bush will announce his choice for replacing Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. It appears that Alberto Gonzalez, Emilio Garza, etc. are no longer the media frontrunners for the position. Instead, most major news outlets are now eyeing Judge Edith Clement of the U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans as a possibility. We shall all know soon enough.

Considering that Chief Justice Rehnquist has decided to remain on the Court, Bush now has only one pick and, consequently, less latitude to appeal to both moderates and his radical Christian base. I would bet that Bush decides to side with the Christian Right, although one can argue that he'll choose a moderate to preserve O'Connor's legacy.

The bottom line is that President Bush owes the Christian Right big-time for his election victory and there'll be hell to pay if he doesn't pay up (figuratively of course). For these radical Christian interest groups, a socially conservative Supreme Court Justice will be the ultimate prize. Can Bush play to all sides without alienating his more radical supporters?

On a related note, the Family Research Council has announced a "Justice Sunday II" for August 14th in Tennessee. The event will be simultaneously broadcast to churches around the nation. It will include speakers such as Sen. Zell Miller (D-GA) and James Dobson of Focus on the Family. According to the flyer, speakers will address "How activist judges subvert the family, undermine religious freedom and threaten our nation's future." I had know idea the threat to America was so serious.

Mehlman to NAACP: I'm Clueless

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Please recommend this cross-post at dKos to keep the discussion going over there.

From the CNN.com transcript...

I certainly will, going forward, if either party engages in things which are racially polarizing unnecessarily -- for instance, a good example, in 1998, the Democrat Party put up ads in Missouri that said -- I mean, this is appalling -- that said, "Every time you don't vote, a church burns. Vote Democratic." That's an appalling example.

The NAACP unfortunately in the 2000 campaign likened the president to James Byrd, who was a racist killer in east Texas, who the president brought to justice.

...We need more racial reconciliation.

That would be great if James Byrd was a racist killer in east Texas. Unfortunately for Mr. "Who me, gay?" Mehlman, James Byrd wasn't a racist killer. He was the African American victim of a gruesome hate crime.

Brewer testified he kicked Byrd's ribs once to break up the fight and then sprayed the victim's face with black paint. Seconds later, Berry came up behind Byrd.

Brewer heard a click, then a swooshing sound as Berry's arm made a sweeping motion.

"Byrd had his hands up here," Brewer testified, motioning with hands to his face, "and I guess that's when Shawn cut his throat."

The testimony was a startling twist to a brutal story that has attracted global attention.

Prosecutors allege Byrd's murder was carried out to draw attention to the racist gang to which Brewer and King belonged.

While juries in two trials had heard the grisly details of Byrd's death -- chained by his ankles to a pickup and dragged to pieces along three miles of road -- not even law officers were aware Byrd's throat had been cut first.

Gray wasn't convinced Byrd's throat was slashed, saying there wasn't enough blood at the fight scene to confirm it happened. And the autopsy showed Byrd was alive and attempting to hold his head up as he was being dragged, which Gray said doesn't jibe with a victim whose throat has been slashed.

It was of course this case that lead to the passage of the James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes law in Texas, which includes protections based on 'sexual preference' as well, one of the last pieces of good legislation passed in 2001 when the Democrats still had control of the statehouse. Of course, President Bush opposed the bill in 1999 where it died in committee.

The cluelessness seems to extend from Mehlman to the top of the party as well, as Bush didn't seem all too interested in the case to get the facts right either.

"The three men who murdered James Byrd, guess what's going to happen to them?" Bush said, smiling. "They'll be put to death. A jury found them guilty. It will be hard to punish them any worse after they get put to death." In actuality, two of Byrd's three murderers -- John William King and Lawrence Russell Brewer -- have been sentenced to death, while the third, Shawn Allen Berry, was sentenced to life in prison, and will be eligible for parole after 40 years.

Reached over the weekend, members of the Byrd family said that they weren't surprised Bush got the details of the case wrong. Unlike other Texas public officials -- they cite local mayors, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, and President Clinton -- Bush was never remotely comforting to their family after Byrd's grisly murder, they say.

"I wasn't surprised that he didn't know," says one of Byrd's younger sisters, Betty Boatner, 46. "I wasn't surprised at all."

Bush "should have known" the details of the trial, says Stella Byrd, James Byrd Jr.'s mother. "But I wasn't surprised about his reaction." She says Bush showed no concern when her granddaughter talked to him in May 1999 to try to persuade Bush to support the James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Act, which would have increased punishment for criminals motivated by hatred of a victim's gender, religion, ethnic background or sexual orientation. "So I'm sure with that lack of interest, he didn't ask to see what was going on."

Slip of the tongue or just more words lacking actions from the GOP? Could there be a reason why African American voters have a problem getting over the trust barrier to listen to what your party is preaching?

Unnamed Source "Briefed" on Rove

By John Pruett

In today's NY Times, an unidentified source alleges that Novak first contacted Rove on July 8, 2003 with the Valerie Plame story, thus denouncing claims that Rove revealed her identity in an attempt to discredit her husband. However, I remain unconvinced.

First of all, who is this anonymous person who has been "officially briefed" about a private phone call between Novak and Rove? Who briefed this person? Was it Karl himself, or Bush, or Scott McClellan, or anyone in the Bush Administration for that matter? What were the motives of this person? Do other sources confirm the phone conversation in question and when it took place?

Secondly, the NY Times article ignores that Rove told CNN last year that he didn't know Plame's identity, yet the NY Times source claims that Rove learned her name and connection to Mr. Wilson from Novak. Did Rove know her name OR not know it? Which is correct?

Furthermore, even if he found out from Novak, then why did Rove push the story further by giving the information to Matt Cooper with Time magazine a few days later? At that point, Rove would not only be confirming a media rumor but also helping to spread Plame's identity to other reporters. To me that still counts as an attempt to publicly smear Wilson's credibility.

I, for one, feel that Karl Rove is the last person in the Bush Administration who deserves any slack, especially when that slack comes in the form of an uncorroborated anonymous source. In my opinion, Rove's history of dirty tricks, smear tactics, and general disdain for ethics and legality are alone enough to warrant a thorough investigation and a statement by Rove under oath.

As the NY Times article later states:

This is not the first time Mr. Rove has been linked to a leak reported by Mr. Novak. In 1992, Mr. Rove was fired from the Texas campaign to re-elect the first President Bush because of suspicions that he had leaked information to Mr. Novak about shortfalls in the Texas organization's fund-raising. Both Mr. Rove and Mr. Novak have denied that Mr. Rove had been the source.

It's great to see Democrats and other groups standing up and demanding that Rove be fired. The DCCC just released a video and online petition that you can sign. MoveOn.org also has an online petition. Bush needs to keep his word and get rid of anyone involved in the Plame affair. However, he probably realizes that firing Rove would effectively end his administration.

Libertarianism versus localism

By Jim Dallas

This statement by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Lake Jackson), got put up on a message board I read regularly. It reads, in part:

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support, and cosponsor, the Pledge Protection Act (HR 2028), which restricts federal court jurisdiction over the question of whether the phrase “under God” should be included in the pledge of allegiance. Local schools should determine for themselves whether or not students should say “under God” in the pledge. The case finding it is a violation of the First Amendment to include the words “under God” in the pledge is yet another example of federal judges abusing their power by usurping state and local governments’ authority over matters such as education. Congress has the constitutional authority to rein in the federal courts’ jurisdiction and the duty to preserve the states’ republican forms of governments. Since government by the federal judiciary undermines the states’ republican governments, Congress has a duty to rein in rogue federal judges. I am pleased to see Congress exercise its authority to protect the states from an out-of-control judiciary.

On its face, this turn would appear to be another fine libertarian moment from Dr. No. However, I think it's worth having a discussion about whether protecting local prerogative is really the appropriate way to protect individual freedom.

Whilie localism may have represented the original intent of the Constitution's framers (the First Amendment originally restrained only Congress, and several states maintained state churches well into the 1830s), this philosophy is chracterized by indifference towards local whims, which is not the same as a libertarian Constitutionally-mandated neutrality towards religion. If religious posturing is not an appropriate act of state, this ought to apply universally. And the last time I checked, one of the claims of libertarianism (or at least classical liberalism) was its aspiration towards universality.

Rep. Paul has a similar dilemma when faced with the issue of abortion. The libertarian pro-choice position is simple: recognizing that, irregardless of an unborn child's right to life, any law prohibiting abortion would, of necessity, be coercive and unconscionably destructive of a woman's liberty, dignity, and autonomy, not to mention that such an act would also, necessarily, treat women as ends and not means.

But Rep. Paul is pro-life. And there is also a simple pro-life position that a libertarian could take: that abortions deprive the unborn child of life; that not criminalizing abortions denies the unborn child's right to life; and that the pro-choice, generally, makes a mockery and sham out of life and liberty.

Either choice would be perfectly logical and would flow naturally from libertarian philosophy. And as a matter of fact, Ron Paul is pro-life: in a localist sort of way. While he has voted for some restrictions on abortion - and maintains a zero rating from NARAL - but also voted against other acts, warning of a "national police state."

I am at a loss to explain how fifty-one (the states and DC) different abortion bans would be any better (or worse) than one federal one, unless you impute localist values.

Of course, one can argue that by federalizing every issue, we are depriving the states of the freedom to choose. And this is undoubtedly so. But it seems to me that a political philosophy rooted in universal morality would tend to federalize those issues with the most moral content - which naturally tend to be those involving religion, crimes, and sundry social issues. Curiously, those are the issues which many Americans, including many libertarians, most doggedly hope will remain at the state level.

Personally, I'm quite concerned about the federalization of crime. But such objections beg the question - are we or are we not one moral community?

I am reminded of the words of Abraham Lincoln, whose most brilliant rhetorical moments often involved assaulting localist doctrines:

"A house divided against itself cannot stand."

I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.

I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided.

It will become all one thing or all the other.

Low definition

By Jim Dallas

While away on the blogger-exchange program, I made a fleeting reference to an editorial published by African American News and Issues during the week of July 4th, that read, in part:

Conversely, celebrating the 4th of July-- as a day of independence-- is adding insult to injury for descendents of slaves. However, the salient fact that made in America Africans are still struggling against institutionalized racism that denies us equality and justice as this great nation celebrates it’s 229th year as a free republic, is self explanatory as to why Independence Day insults Black America.

At the time I felt the editorial was a bit over the top, at the very least, and maybe a little bit angry.

Today, while doing some research, I came across the following definition in a reprint of Burn's New Law Dictionary - originally published in 1792, shortly after the Constitution was drafted - which has been digitized and placed on the Internet for posterity:

(vol. 2, p. 150, 2003 reprint)

Sometimes unpleasant facts have a way of staring you in the face. And sometimes, unpleasant facts have a way of beating you senseless. This is rather much the latter case.

Chief Justice O'Connor?

By Drew Clinton

The Washington Post reports that many in Congress are interested in a scenario in which Chief Justice Rehnquist would step down and be summarily replaced by the somewhat ex-Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Several senators mentioned the idea to her, said Sen. Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republican:"The response that I heard [from other senators] was that she said she was flattered, that she didn't say no," Mr. Specter said on CBS' "Face the Nation" "I think it would be quite a capping to her career if she served for a time, maybe a year or so."

Though this is very preliminary speculation, I'll be interested to see how this ordeal plays out over the next few weeks. I think that a O'Connor for Rehnquist replacement would afford our nation a sort of moderation that is unavailable otherwise. O'Connor is an independent and necessary ally on many impacting issues that have recently come before the court. Here's hoping that there is a possiblity of avoiding the installation of one or two Scalia clones. It would be nearly impossible for Republicans to recind their recent praise and deny O'Connor the Chief Justice position. Her appeal is likewise omnipresent in the Democratic camp:

Given the praise Justice O'Connor has received from liberals since her retirement announcement, she would be a lock to be confirmed as chief justice, said Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat. "I think it would be a very doable thing," he said.

This would allow the Senate to avoid a fiercely partisan, overly lengthy, and rhetoric driven confirmation process and reconcentrate their efforts on important legislation...Iraq, CAFTA, and Social Security to name a few.

Did he or didn't he? And is Rove laughing all the way to the bank?

By Jim Dallas

I'm getting IMs this morning from my Republican friends swearing that the new Newsweek article exhonorates Karl Rove and "proves" that the whole Plame investigation is just a big waste of time. Meanwhile, over at DailyKos, Hunter says it really is too early to tell whether Karl Rove lied.

But what raises my suspicion about all these new "revelations" is the fact that they all rely on Matt Cooper's notes, which were released because Matt Cooper's source permitted them to be released, thus sparing Cooper from being held in contempt of court. Judith Miller's source, however, did no such thing. Why?

We don't know whether the two reporters' source was the same person, but consider the possibility that they are. And suppose this source leaked to Miller before leaking to Cooper. And suppose this source realized after the fact that he could cover his tracks by letting the Cooper leak go public, since the leak happened at roughly the same time Robert Novak's column was published. And suppose it would further assist the source to let a female reporter go to jail to stir up public anger at the special prosecutor.

I know, I know, it's not good form to posit conspiracy theories, but it would not be a stretch to say that there were people in high places - be it Karl Rove or someone else - who were the reporters' sources for this. Moreover, I have no idea whether the above hypothetical actually happened or not. But I think it would be fair to say that much of the media, in their blustering, self-righteous Free Press ramblings about Judy Miller, are being extremely naive; and I have had a very strong hunch that from the get-go whoever this source was has played the media, and Matt Cooper and Judith Miller in particular, like an organ. Michael Kinsley gets this exactly correct:

The noble principle for which Times reporter Judith Miller sits in jail is the right of journalists to participate in efforts to stifle dissent, censor free speech, abuse power and then cover it all up.

I think the reasonable person ought to be a little skeptical of any one interpretation of the Newsweek story, or about taking any one statement or press account too seriously, lest it obscure the big picture. And the big picture is a very hazy one.

I Never Sausage A Place!

By Jim Dallas

For those seeking access to the nitty-gritty-naughty-dirty details of Congressional lawmaking, there have rarely been better times to be alive than now.

OpenCRS is putting a lot of current information on the Internet for the masses; meanwhile, the pay service LexisNexis is about midway through a massive project to put all the CIS Serials (including committee reports and such) from 1789 through the present online.

Sandra Day O'Connor is Leaving...Who Will Fill Her Shoes?

By Damon McCullar

Upon seeing this morning that Sandra Day O'Connor is retiring from the Supremes, I was wondering who Minority Leader Harry Reid would suggest to fill her shoes. I was really surprised to see that he had said that 4 of his fellow Republican Senators would meet with his stamp of approval.

U.S. Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid suggested on Tuesday that four of his Republican colleagues be considered by President Bush if a vacancy occurs on the U.S. Supreme Court. Seeking a possible consensus nominee, Reid recommended Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Mel Martinez of Florida, Mike DeWine of Ohio and Mike Crapo of Idaho. Asked if Bush should consider Cornyn, Reid shrugged and said, "I've told you (the ones) I think he should consider."

Well, get your combat boots on troopers. If you thought the appellate court nominee battle was rough, wait until the nomination hits the Senate Floor. I imagine Senators on both sides are already digging their battle trenches.

Sandra Day O'Connor to retire

By Jim Dallas

"Breaking" news from CNN.

Bush Approval Ratings Continue to Fall

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Here are the SUSA USA poll internals for the state of Texas. Key points...

George W. Bush

50% Approval 47% Disapproval

Females split 48-48.

Those 18-34 yrs. old go 46-51 against the President.

Blacks 16%-81%
Hispanics 41%-56%

Independents 38%-56%

Harris County 43%-54% !! (might be due to small sample pool)

Almost makes you wonder what Rick Perry's numbers look like then.

Justices Rule On First Round of Commandment Cases

By Andrew Dobbs

The first of two decisions expected today on the constitutionality of displaying the Ten Commandments in public buildings came down. The Washington Post is reporting that the Kentucky case, which involved the display of the Decalogue in two county courthouses was ruled to be unconstitutional. The majority opinion by Justice David Souter noted, in part, the "predominantly religious purpose" of the display.

No word yet on the Texas case, but many are suprised that the two decisions were split. Keep tuned to BOR for your Supreme Court news.

UPDATE: The ruling went the other way in the Texas case. The Court ruled 5-4 that the monument on the Capitol grounds did not violate the Constitution. The judgment in the other case was also 5-4, Sandra Day O'Connor provided the swing vote.

Conservatives Have No Sense of Decency

By Andrew Dobbs

All the media have been atitter with Howard Dean's faux pas and Dick Durbin's statements on the House floor regarding Gitmo, yet it seems that the really horrific rhetoric is coming from the Right. Exhibit A was outlined yesterday, calling Democrats anti-Christian.

Exhibit B: Karl Rove:

Karl Rove came to the heart of Manhattan last night to rhapsodize about the decline of liberalism in politics, saying Democrats responded weakly to Sept. 11 and had placed American troops in greater danger by criticizing their actions.

"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers," Mr. Rove, the senior political adviser to President Bush, said at a fund-raiser in Midtown for the Conservative Party of New York State. (...)

Told of Mr. Rove's remarks, Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, replied: "In New York, where everyone unified after 9/11, the last thing we need is somebody who seeks to divide us for political purposes."

Yeah, Rove, we were such wusses when it came to 9/11. Sure there were some elements of the rather far-Left that wanted to enter into quiet introspection, but there are some elements of the far-Right which claim that you flew the planes by remote control for some crazy conspiracy purpose. Both were wrong, and when the votes were cast on what we should do, every Congressional liberal but one voted to go to war. Wrap your mind around that-- Bernie Sanders, Sheila Jackson Lee, Dennis Kucinich-- they all voted to go to war. Rove repeats the blood-libel against liberals that we are weak against terror and it is shameful. He should either apologize or resign.

Exhibit C: The Truth About Hillary Clinton, a new rag from conservative imprint Sentinel by hack Ed Klein. Among its more vile accusations is that because Hillary Clinton is actually a "radical lesbian" she and Bill never had sex, so he raped her in order for them to conceive a child. I'm sure most of you have heard this before now, but now Rush Limbaugh and Peggy Noonan are arguing that the whole book is part of a Vast Left Wing Conspiracy. What a bunch of despicable people.

Exhibit D: "Adios, MoFo." Turns out our lovely governor felt the need to lob a 9th grade half-assed vulgarity at a Houston reporter for daring to ask about the details of the school finance plan Perry was about to foist upon us. Perry claims he was just joshing with his press secretary, but watch the video-- it is pretty clear that he was bitching about the reporter. Now, I say the full-fleshed version of that particular word quite frequently, but I've never done it on television. This ranks below the other three, but still betrays the right's vicious rhetoric.

In the end it is all about a lack of decency. The whole political culture is infused with hate, but the GOP adds in the lovely tactic of fear-mongering. I'll be the first to say that shrill Democratic rhetoric pisses me off. I find Daily Kos unreadable for the most part nowadays because it is just a non-stop hatefest it seems. But the GOP has the same shrillness and throws in a vicious dose of perdition and demagoguery.

Liberals call Bush a war-monger liar, conservatives called Clinton the same thing but also claimed that he was a murderer, a rapist, a Communist spy traitor and everything else under the sun. Liberals will whine on about the rather underwhelming Downing Street memo, but Republicans call Democrats Christian-hating Osama Lovers who want to burn flags. The fact of the matter is that the really atrcious stuff is coming from them, and unless we do something NOW, the rhetoric could turn into something far worse.

One War the GOP Thinks Dems Are Strong On: The "War on Christians"

By Andrew Dobbs

This came up on Monday, but I haven't had time to put it out there. Here's the quote from the Washington Post:

Business on the floor of the House was halted for 45 minutes yesterday after Rep. John N. Hostettler (R-Ind.) accused Democrats of "denigrating and demonizing Christians," prompting a furious protest from across the aisle.

The House was debating a Democratic amendment to the annual defense appropriations bill that would have required the Air Force Academy to develop a plan for preventing "coercive and abusive religious proselytizing."

Hostettler, speaking against the amendment, asserted that "the long war on Christianity in America continues today on the floor of the House of Representatives" and "continues unabated with aid and comfort to those who would eradicate any vestige of our Christian heritage being supplied by the usual suspects, the Democrats."

"Like a moth to a flame, Democrats can't help themselves when it comes to denigrating and demonizing Christians," he said.

Rep. David R. Obey (Wis.), ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, protested the statement, saying: "I move that the gentleman's words be taken down." (...)

Yesterday, Hostettler had a choice: to agree to withdraw his words, or to stick by them and face a ruling from the chair that he had violated rules against disparaging another member on the floor. If the member's words are taken down, it is considered a serious offense and the lawmaker would not be able to speak for the rest of the day.

Eventually, Hostettler rose and read a sentence that had been written out for him in large block letters by a young Republican floor aide: "Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the last sentence I spoke."

Nothing makes me sicker to my freaking stomach than hearing "Christian" politicians bellyaching about how much Christians are persecuted in the US. You want to see persecution of Christians? Why not swing by East Timor where Henry Kissinger facilitated and supported the liquidation of 200,000 Christians by the Muslim government of Indonesia. Then take a stop in the Sudan where George W. Bush has been content to occasionally lob rhetoric at the government he should be dropping bombs on for slaughtering 2 million Christians. Maybe make a stop in to visit our "ally" Saudi Arabia, whose leader the President holds hands with as the man continues to enforce laws that make it a crime to be a Christian. You could swing by the People's Republic of China after that, where the same government whose premier gets to cool his heels in Crawford breaks up house churches that seek to escape the stifling politics of official state churches. Not being able to threaten some underclassman cadet into joining your prayer group is hardly persecution.

I'll be the first to say that some liberals probably are too comfortable with bashing Christianity for my taste. I consider myself to be a Christian and I believe all the ins and outs of Christian dogma. But these pander bears like Hostettler who wave the Bible in order to rally votes around them are modern-day Pharisees more interested in legalism and personal comfort than the sanctity of their own faith. Church/state separation is the best thing to ever happen to Christianity-- the lack of official sponsorship for any church meant that they all had to compete for members. This made them far more responsive and much more interesting than the staid old churches of Europe. The result was a long-standing and vibrant evangelical movement that makes the US the most religious country in the entire Western world.

But Hostettler and others think that boo hooing that the very thing that makes their careers possible (don't see too many "Christian conservatives" over in European countries with state-sponsored religion) is the way to go. Do they not realize that without church state separation the two would become intermingled, and that if the church is a part of the state the people would have a right to control or restrict it? Do they not realize that "the people" in this country are represented by Congress, Legislatures, the President and Governors? The moment that the First Amendment were to go out the window would be the moment that government regulation of religion would begin, because whether they like it or not the state will always be more powerful in the short run than the Church. Hostettler and his allies are the mortal enemies of the Christian faith, and they ought to be ashamed of themselves.

If there is any war in this country against Christianity, its frontlines are unwittingly stocked with hordes of supposedly devout Christians tearing down the bastions that have protected the vibrancy of the faith in this country and the world. It is time for Republicans to stop using the message of Christ-- which is above, beyond and without politics one way or the other-- to cravenly advance their political gain. Otherwise, their judge might not be the voters, but someone far more serious.

Letter to the Editor

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

The following Letter to the Editor by me was printed in yesterday's Daily Texan and I was called by the San Antonio Express News letting me know that it will be run soon as well, which I just noticed, meant today.

In Wednesday's Nation Briefs, I found the results of Terri Schiavo's autopsy to be a bit ironic. The tests showed that she was not only irreversibly brain damaged but blind as well.

This goes to show that Republican "Doctor" of the Senate Bill Frist should have refrained from his expert diagnosis from the Senate floor where he questioned her vegetative state status by saying, "I question it based on a review of the video footage which I spent an hour or so looking at last night in my office. She certainly seems to respond to visual stimuli."

So if Frist can make the blind see, maybe he can try to raise the dead as well, bringing Terri back to life just in time for the next election.

Karl-Thomas Musselman Government junior

I like the headline that the SAEN gave it, "For Frist's Next Miracle.." Haha, thanks guys.

More on our two senators

By Jim Dallas

SurveyUSA has polls. Hutchison is among the nation's most popular senators with a 64-26 percent approval spread; Cornyn's approval remains in the abyss, at 40-36. That's actually a lower raw approval rating than Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania (although Sticky Rick's 45-44 spread is technically worse).

Could Cornyn be vulnerable to a strong challenge in 2008? Redistricted Congresspersons, I'm looking at YOU.

Hutchison added as a cosponsor to the anti-lynching resolution

By Jim Dallas

I had no idea that Senators could sign on as cosponsors after the fact, but Senator Hutchison has. The resolution passed last night by unanimous consent; as Kos explained, technically nobody voted against it. Which is good.

Senator Cornyn, however, remains on the Wall of Shame.

Jackson acquitted of all charges

By Jim Dallas

Our long national nightmare is over. Back to missing white females and shark attacks!

Link

Take My Retirement -- Please!

By Jim Dallas

Kevin Drum has an insightful post on the political reality of raising the Social Security retirement age.

You know, as an eager young goof-trooper, it's easy to say "aww, shucks, sure, I'll work until I'm seventy." Work, when your'e 23, is pretty cool stuff. It's what sets you apart from your younger friends, and it helps buy cool stuff (like food and rent).

Though, now that I think about it, I may really feel differently about this in forty years. So I suppose Old Man Drum is correct.

Cornyn for Supreme Court?

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Coming out of right field (because there is little that is left about John Cornyn) is this story that Texas Senator John Cornyn is simply "flattered" that people think he's make a good nominee for Supreme Court Justice.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, is flattered to be mentioned as a possible Supreme Court candidate and would consider the job if it were offered.

"You can never rule out something like that, but it is not something he is looking for or something he has asked for," spokesman Don Stewart said.

Stewart said Cornyn, a former Texas Supreme Court justice and state attorney general, likely will run for re-election in 2008.

The White House has kept quiet on its choices for the Supreme Court, which will have a vacancy if ailing Chief Justice William Rehnquist steps down. The short list often includes J. Michael Luttig, a Texan on the Richmond, Va.-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, another former Texas justice.

Among the Texans thought to be in a second tier of possible candidates are Cornyn and U.S. District Judge Ricardo Hinojosa.

Of course, picking a sitting Senator (slightly better than picking your nose) helps Bush's chances of getting his nominee through, gasp, the Senate Judiciary Committee which Cornyn, gasp, is a member of! Then again, picking Cornyn means that Governor "Don't you dare run against me" Perry would get to anoint appoint a replacement. And that little issue makes this story particularly juicy, as if the Texas Republican "which office should I run for" dance wasn't complicated enough.

Maybe KBH could become Governor, and then appoint herself back to the Senate if she realized it wasn't all that it's cracked up to be. At which point Perry could battle off Strayhorn in a special election for Guv. Oh, the possibilities are endless...

Katherine Harris to run for FL Senate

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Don't say you didn't see it coming, but the infamous Florida Bean counter responsible for being a major pain in the punch card is running for the Republican nomination for Florica Senate against incumbant first term Dem, Bill Nelson.

She would likely be a favorite to win the nomination, but of course, there are many Republicans that feel she may be a weaker polarizing choice against Nelson. But if she led the Republican ticket, it would be sure to galvanize the Florida Democrats who don't have much to be all that cheery about these days. Wait and see...

The Dots Are Now Connected

By Andrew Dobbs

One of the big questions I've had during all the DeLay scandals was how long it would take to finally reach George W. Bush.

Wait no longer.

The Texas Observer is reporting that criminal lobbyist, DeLay crony and Bush "Pioneer" Jack Abramoff strong armed the Coushatta Indian Tribe (the same tribe he bilked for $82 million) into donating $25,000 to Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform in return for a private meeting with Bush. Abramoff also got the tribe to donate $1 million at the same time to a nonprofit started by the lobbyist. Essentially, Grover Norquist used his corrupt friend Abramoff to turn the White House into a pay-for-play amusement park. Whether Bush knew about the situation or not is still up in the air, but there seems to be no denying that he was the bait for an elaborate scheme to fish for campaign cash.

From the Observer:

Four months after he took the oath of office in 2001, President George W. Bush was the attraction, and the White House the venue, for a fundraiser organized by the alleged perpetrator of the largest billing fraud in the history of corporate lobbying. (...) Abramoff was so closely tied to the Bush Administration that he could, and did, charge two of his clients $25,000 for a White House lunch date and a meeting with the President. From the same two clients he took to the White House in May 2001, Abramoff also obtained $2.5 million in contributions for a non-profit foundation he and his wife operated.

Abramoff’s White House guests were the chiefs of two of the six casino-rich Indian tribes he and his partner Mike Scanlon ultimately billed $82 million for services tribal leaders now claim were never performed or were improperly performed. Together the six tribes would make $10 million in political contributions, at Abramoff’s direction, almost all of it to Republican campaigns of his choosing. (...)

According to a source close to the tribal majority, Chairman Poncho recently “revisited that issue” of his visit to the White House. He had previously denied it because he thought he was responding to press inquiries that implied he had a one-on-one meeting with Bush. He now recalls that he in fact did go to the White House on May 9, 2001. Tribal attorney Kathryn Fowler Van Hoof went with him, although she did not get into the meeting with the President. That meeting lasted for about 15 minutes and was not a one-on-one meeting. At the meeting, Bush made some general comments about Indian policy but did not discuss Indian gaming. Abramoff was at the meeting—for which he charged the Coushatta Tribe $25,000. The change in Poncho’s position is odd in light of the fact that he and his spokespersons have maintained for more than a year that he did not meet with President Bush in May 2001.

Norquist has not responded to inquiries about using the White House as a fundraiser. It is, however, a regular ATR practice to invite state legislators and tribal leaders who have supported ATR anti-tax initiatives to the White House for a personal thank-you from the President. A source at ATR said no money is ever accepted from participants in these events. The $25,000 check from the Coushattas suggests that, at least in this instance, Norquist’s organization made an exception. The $75,000 collected from the Mississippi Choctaws and two corporate sponsors mentioned in Abramoff’s e-mail suggests there were other exceptions. Norquist recently wrote to the tribes who paid to attend White House meetings. His story regarding that event is also evolving. The contributions, he told tribal leaders in letters that went out in May, were in no way related to any White House event. That doesn’t square with the paper trail Abramoff and Norquist left behind, which makes it evident that they were selling access to the President.

The White House press office has not responded to our questions about other visits Jack Abramoff might have made to the White House or about Norquist using the official residence of the President to raise funds for Americans for Tax Reform. None of the political contributions Abramoff insisted the tribes make as yet have been returned.

Either President Bush is a dupe who didn't realize that his political allies were using him and abusing the White House in order to make money for themselves, or he has put the "people's house" up for the highest bidder. Either way, this scandal dwarfs any of the nonsense the GOP crowed about all during the Clinton years.

Bush needs to answer some questions, and Abramoff needs to go to jail.

Deep Throat Revealed!

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

It's W. Mark Felt. We think. Maybe. For now.

Update: It's him, WaPo and W&B confim it. Read.

Previously.... Most news outlets are putting it somewhere between top news story to something a couple notches down. The main reason being it is Mr. Felt that has said it is him, rather than the Washington Post or Woodward and Berstein. From the MSNBC story..

In 2003, Woodward and Bernstein reached an agreement to keep their Watergate papers at the University of Texas at Austin.

At the time, the pair said documents naming “Deep Throat” would be kept secure at an undisclosed location in Washington until the source’s death.

Bernstein issued a statement neither denying nor confirming Felt's claim. Bernstein stated he and Woodward would be keeping their pledge to reveal the source only once that person dies.

The Washington Post had no immediate comment on the report.

Who was the real Deep Throat was long a source of speculation and rumor.

Among those named over the years as Deep Throat were Assistant Attorney General Henry Peterson, deputy White House counsel Fred Fielding, and even ABC newswoman Diane Sawyer, who then worked in the White House press office. Ron Zeigler, Nixon’s press secretary, White House aide Steven Bull, speechwriters Ray Price and Pat Buchanan, and John Dean, the White House counsel who warned Nixon of “a cancer growing on the presidency,” also were considered candidates.

And some theorized Deep Throat wasn’t a single source at all but a composite figure.

The last time there was a flurry of focus on Felt was in 1999, when a high school senior in New York claimed that Bernstein's son let the secret slip at a summer camp.

At the time, Felt denied he was the man.

“I would have done better,” Felt told The Hartford Courant. “I would have been more effective. Deep Throat didn’t exactly bring the White House crashing down, did he?”

So is it him? Is this the finale, or do we have to wait a few more years once again? Your thoughts?

Justifying Abortion

By Jim Dallas

Nathan Newman has a post on the rhetoric of abortion which ought to provoke considerable thought about the first principles of the pro-choice movement.

As an aside, the "pro-choice" moniker was adopted in large part to put the focus on the libertarian rhetoric Newman criticizes. So I think there's very little doubt that Newman has at least correctly identified the dominant mode of anti-prohibitionist rhetoric, viz., that abortion is not good, but criminalization is and would be bad (or worse). Newman cites Howard Dean's statement last Sunday as Exhibit A:

I don't know anybody who thinks abortion is a good thing. I don't know anybody in either party who is pro-abortion. The issue is not whether we think abortion is a good thing. The issue is whether a woman has a right to make up her own mind about her health care

For what it's worth, I'm going to make a few remarks defending the libertarian perspective against Newman's critique.

First, I take issue at Newman's claim that the pro-choice perspective is amoral:

Abortion is not just some individual decision with no effects on broader society. That kind of rhetoric is a copout that is unconvincing. Allowing abortion is critical to equality for women and whether unwanted children are forced on parents is bound to have effects not just on those families but on our communities. Most abortion rights activists have not been libertarians who thought individual choices have no effect on broader society, but people who thought the availability of abortion causes profound and needed changes in that broader society: increasing women's ability to participate equally in the workplace, changing power relations between men and women within the family, and encouraging family planning so that children were wanted and not abused.

This is not to say that abortion does not raise moral dilemmas or should be encouraged indiscriminately, but those in favor of abortion rights have to argue that, overall, we have a better society because abortion is legal than if abortion was criminalized.

Abortion politics should not be a choice between moral injunctions from the rightwing and amoral libertarian platitudes from the pro-choice side. It should be a choice between two visions of creating a good society, with progressives arguing that their vision is the more profoundingly just and moral alternative.

I'd argue in response that there is a strong moral position in defending the autonomy and dignity of women, and that is precisely what the "amoral libetarian platitudes" of the keep-your-laws-off-my-body crowd amount to. Indeed, I'd argue that such strong claims are necessary to respond to the equally moralistic injunctions of the save-the-zygotes posse. When the other side is comparing you to Hitler and claiming that abortion is the worst moral crisis since slavery and the Holocaust, you really can't respond with blunt utilitarian claims about crime and the economy.

Of course, it would be unfair of me to characterize Newman's critique as being only that; clearly, Nathan Newman does have profound respect for womens' rights and their equal participation in society.

Let me draw an analogy. I was having a discussion with another law student yesterday about the death penalty, which she opposes strongly and I am, at best, lukewarm about (more against than for, but definitely mixed). In this discussion, she pointed to the well-documented disproporitionately large number of black men on death row and the inherent racism which can, and should, be logically inferred from this.

My argument, however, was that disparate impact is, quite frankly, a "racism problem", not a capital punishment problem per se.

Here's the analogy - if women need abortions to be equal in society, then I'd suggest we've got a much bigger sexism problem to deal with. Now, I suppose it could be argued that this isn't comparable - women have a monopoly on the baby business, and certainly there is considerable strain placed on women individually and as a class because of this. That said, I am still not convinced that abortion is the "great equalizer", and even if it were that this would be a per se justification for legal abortion by itself.

The libertarian position, however, affords an opportunity to subtly shoe-horn these concerns into an argument without really claiming they make all abortions A-OK. That is, in discussing personal autonomy, the issue of compassion towards women generally has to be discussed. The right-wing groups like Focus on the Fetus, err, Family has spent years attempting to humanize a clump of cells and dehumanize adult women as criminals.

A final issue I'd like to address is the issue of selectivity. The libertarian position, of course, does not claim that abortion is a "good thing." But that is not the same as claiming that all abortions are unjustified. Indeed, when Newman asks, "if abortion is never a good thing, then why should anyone have the option to have one," he is touching on this, albeit in a way which misses the subtle distinction between characterizing abortion generally and some abortions specifically.

For example, "war" is not a good thing and very few people hanker for Four More Wars. Yet, almost everybody aside from a few absolute-pacifists can think of a war that was worth fighting.

Certainly, conceding ground in cases where abortions are not justified but merely rationalized on some abstract principle is not exactly a good opening move. But in the larger picture, it may be a better way to piece together a pro-choice majority than trying to argue abortion is not a sin needing justification whatsoever.

At the very least, I think what Newman is proposing is a very long-term project, moving public opinion at a glacial pace. Given the fact that pro-criminalization politicians and activist-judicial nominees stand ready to crush reproductive rights at virtually any moment, I'm not sure it's a practical proposal.

"Killing Nine Lives to Create One"

By Byron LaMasters

It's nice to see a pro-life Democrat point out the sheer lunacy and hypocrisy of the arguments of those who oppose embryonic stem cell research. Since half of embryos of potential "snowflake babies" do not survive the "thawing" process, a consistent pro-lifer would argue that such process constituted "destruction of a human life in order to save a human life". Hmmm... that sounds familiar.

For pro-lifers conflicted on embryonic stem cell research, read this post on Greg's Opinion.

Forcing the Veto on Stem Cell Research

By Byron LaMasters

Good news from the U.S. House:

Ignoring President Bush's veto threat, the House voted Tuesday to loosen limits on embryonic stem cell research, approving a measure supporters said could speed cures for diseases but opponents viewed as akin to abortion.

Bush called the bill a mistake and said he would veto it. The House approved it by a 238-194 vote, well short of the two-thirds majority that would be needed to override a veto.

The bill has the votes in the senate, and when it passes the senate, the bill will force a veto. It's a shame that countries like South Korea will be taking the lead on the issue of embryonic stem cell research, but hopefully other states will follow California's lead in instituting broad statewide programs.

However, forcing Bush to veto a bill that would not save a single life will allow the America public see how Bush is beholden to the interests of the pro-life absolutist / theocratic wing of the Republican party over the bipartisan pro-science and research majority in Congress. The bill would only use embryonic stem cell lines that would be thrown out anyways, will force Bush to veto a popular issue and hopefully see his approval ratings drop further. Any bets on when he will dip below 40%?

On the Filibuster Compromise

By Byron LaMasters

While I don't like the compromise, it was probably the second best solution for Democrats (with the best solution being a defeat of the proposed rule, but from what I've read - Reid only had 49 or at best 50 votes, so Frist would have won).

My guess is that Reid signed off on this at the last minute, and then prepared to declare victory. I'm disappointed that three right-wing activist judges will be confirmed, but most importantly, senate tradition has been preserved, and that Democrats will have the option of filibustering a radical Supreme Court appointment. In addition, two more right-wing judges will either be defeated or withdrawn. Furthermore, this is a huge defeat for Bill Frist. He's already an anathema to Democrats of all stripes, and now the far-right James Dobson / theocrat wing of the Republican Party are hyperventilating over Frist's failure to unite the GOP caucus.

Reid's statement is great:

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) released the following statement Monday after 14 senators struck a deal to avert the nuclear option and allow votes on certain judicial nominees.

“There is good news for every American in this agreement. The so-called 'nuclear option' is off the table. This is a significant victory for our country, for democracy, and for all Americans. Checks and balances in our government have been preserved.

“The integrity of future Supreme Courts has been protected from the undue influences of a vocal, radical faction of the right that is completely out of step with mainstream America. That was the intent of the Republican 'nuclear option' from the beginning. Tonight, the Senate has worked its will on behalf of reason, responsibility and the greater good.

“Abuse of power will not be tolerated, and attempts to trample the Constitution and grab absolute control are over. We are a separate and equal branch of government. That is our Founding Fathers’ vision, and one we hold dear.

“I offered Senator Frist several options similar to this compromise, and while he was not able to agree, I am pleased that some responsible Republicans and my colleagues were able to put aside their differences and work from the center. I do not support several of the judges that have been agreed to because their views and records display judicial activism that jeopardize individual rights and freedoms. But other troublesome nominees have been turned down. And, most importantly, the U.S. Senate retains the checks and balances to ensure all voices are heard in our democracy.

“I am grateful to my colleagues who worked so hard to achieve this agreement. I am hopeful that we can quickly turn to work on the people’s business. We need to ensure our troops have the resources they need to fight in Iraq and that Americans are free from terrorism. We need to protect retiree’s pensions and long-term retirement security. We need to expand health care opportunities for all families. We need to address rising gasoline prices and energy independence. And we need to restore fiscal responsibility and rebuild our economy so that it lifts up all American workers. That is our reform agenda, the people’s reform agenda. Together, we can get the job done.”

The full text of the agreement is here.

Y'all Just Don't Get It

By Andrew Dobbs

Late last week I took on NARAL for their endorsement of Republican Senator Lincoln Chaffee in Rhode Island. Unfortunately, many people have no knowledge of what is going on there and declined to read my post terribly closely, so I need to respond to the criticisms here.

There are NO pro-life Democrats in this race. The only two Democrats running-- Matt Brown and Sheldon Whitehouse-- are both pro-abortion rights. Jim Langevin was considering the race, but dropped out when NARAL started gathering support for Brown in particular, but pro-abortion rights Democrats in general. So NARAL didn't stake out their independent position on their single issue by supporting a pro-abortion rights Republican over a pro-life Democrat, they supported a pro-abortion rights Republican over not one, but two abortion rights Democrats.

That is my problem. I don't expect NARAL, or the Sierra Club or the NAACP or any other left-liberal single issue organization to support Democrats universally-- they are independent of our party. Republicans likewise do not expect the NRA or the Chamber of Commerce to support them just because they are Republicans. But when there is an issue where the parties are dramatically opposed, it makes no sense to support a candidate who supports a minority view within his party when he'll simply turn around and vote for leadership opposed to that cause. NARAL's endorsement of Chaffee will go a long way to helping him defeat his pro-choice opponent, and thus usher in pro-life leadership in the Senate. If they had any political sense they would have waited for the Democratic primary and then supported the Democrat. But they screwed themselves over and stabbed the only party that cares about their issue in the back. It was an idiotic move on their part.

In PA, I expect NARAL to issue a "no endorsement." If the race in Texas is Kay Bailey Hutchison versus a pro-life Democrat (say, Charlie Stenholm, who is not expected to run), I would expect them to endorse KBH. Come to think of it, they can totally make this up if they very publicly endorse KBH in the GOP primary. Are you listening, NARAL? You do that, the GOP nominates the roundly disliked Perry for governor and we beat him in November. Now THAT would be good politics.

Judges, Filibusters and Conservativism

By Andrew Dobbs

It is very likely that May 24, 2005 will be a day that future generations of Americans will read about in their history classes (assuming they still teach history at that point, an increasingly unlikely prospect). The passage in their textbook will begin with the battle over the filibuster, saying that in from the 1910s to the 1970s opposition to the filibuster was a liberal litmus test. Liberals, a majority of the Congress from the 1930s until the 1970s, saw the act as a way that the Senate's right-wing, often anti-civil rights minority kept socially progressive bills from getting an "up-or-down vote." It will then say that with the divisions of power that began in the 1970s and continued until the 1990s the filibuster became less important and less of an issue for both sides. This consensus ruled until an absolute Republican majority came into power in 2003 and was strengthened by George W. Bush's reelection in 2004 and the minority Democrats (since the 1970s, realigned as an almost exclusively liberal party) began using the process to block judicial nominations to appeals courts. Republicans began threatening to end the practice, and on May 24, 2005 launched what had been termed the "nuclear option"-- the barring of the filibuster for judicial nominees. After Bush had all of his nominees to appeals courts approved on slim up or down votes, Republicans and others began wondering why the process would be needed at all, even for legislative priorities. In 2006, as minority Democrats began resisting Social Security privatization and regressive tax reforms, Republicans managed to end the filibuster for legislation thus ending the Senate's traditional role as a moderating force on the more reactionary elements of the House.

This is a tragedy, and a confusing development as well. The filibuster is a fundamentally conservative institution. The founders of the Senate and its reformers who helped to codify the current filibuster rule in the early part of the 20th century were fearful of government power. They knew that the natural instinct of humanity was towards self-interest and grasps for power and wealth, politicians being the worst culprits in this regard. Thus they divided the powers of government into three coequal branches with checks on one another's power. Still, they knew that the legislative branch was the most likely to become a hotbed of popular passion; close to the people, it could easily be consumed by mob rule. In order to quiet the passions of the heedless masses they divided the legislative branch into two chambers-- a House that would be directly elected and proportioned by population (and thus more susceptible to passionate masses) and a Senate that would be appointed by legislatures, two from each state, and far more deliberative. When establishing the rules of the Senate, the body's founders-- 10 of whom had been delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 4 of whom had signed the Declaration of Independence, including such luminaries as Rufus King, Richard Henry Lee, James Monroe and Samuel Johnston-- developed the idea of unlimited debate. Any member could continue debate indefinitely, thus allowing the body to easily thwart offensive or extreme pieces of legislation. The filibuster required legislation to be mainstream-- if a significant number of Senators were seriously opposed to a measure, it would be blocked. This process kept government power in check for generations, and is part and parcel of the founders' ideals of limited and divided government.

But now the conservatives want to get rid of an institution that promotes classically conservative values. The whole scenario seems odd until you consider the the recent history of American conservativism. American conservativism is a peculiar movement, in that it is essentially the morphing of two diametrically opposed traditions that almost everywhere else in the world form opposite sides of the political divide. Conservativism in the US is essentially the marriage of classical liberalism (which in Europe and elsewhere usually led to the formation of a Liberal Party) and traditionalism (which typically meant a Conservative Party that defended the church, the aristocracy and the crown abroad). The two have managed to work out a nice compact, wherein American conservatives recognize that virtue is the highest public good, but that virtue based on coercion is morally bankrupt. Therefore conservatives enforce strict political liberty and promote traditional values. The process has created a powerful political movement and a series of great leaders-- from Alexander Hamilton and John Calhoun until Robert Taft and Barry Goldwater.

But now the movement is in trouble. Since the late 1970s the traditionalist element of American conservativism has been ascendent. Where the two elements once provided a check on one another (traditionalism trumping the libertinism inherent in lassiez-faire thought, liberalism defeating the paternalistic impulses of traditionslists), the creeping moralism of traditionalists has spread further with each election. With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 the one thing that kept either side from trying too hard to grasp ultimate power-- the united front against communism abroad and leftism at home-- was interrupted. The moralists now had an opportunity to grasp the whole movement for themselves, and the beginning of the War on Terror in 2001 now created a new struggle based not so much on economics and politics (as was the battle against Communism), but rather religion. It became clear that religosity would now be a litmus test of conservativism. Essentially, the libertarian elements of conservativism are being choked off, creating America's first classically conservative party. No more are they interested in checking government power, but rather in promoting traditional social establishment-- the maintenance of class order, the expansion of federal power, the establisment of quasi-official religion and restrictions of discourse in the name of traditional ways of life. As the libertarian-right is further marginalized, the liberal movement in the US is reacting to the movement on the right. Now Democrats have become a traditionally liberal party-- promoting social experimentation, greater autonomy and political involvement and secularism. The divide now defines American politics.

Right wing movements abroad, which have always been predominantly traditionalist, have typically depended on the courts for the promotion of their policy. Iran provides one example (before Republicans start screaming, I'm not comparing the GOP to Iranian Islamists, just saying that Republicans belong on a significantly less extreme part of the traditionalist political spectrum), Francoist Spain another. The lifetime appointments and absolute authority of the courts harken to a more aristocratic and royalist past. Executive authority is of course another element of traditionally conservative government. The end of the judicial filibuster is simply the Senate prostrating itself in front of the power of a mighty executive-- the President-- in his quest to create a traditionalist consensus on our nation's highest courts. The Senate has a plurality of traditionalists, led by Bill Frist, that are moving in this direction even if they don't realize it. The Democrats make up the opposition liberals and a small number of typically American conservative Republicans in the mold of Goldwater and Taft (John McCain, Chuck Hagel, John Warner) make up the third element. Whether the American conservatives decide to listen to the liberal aspects of their philosophy or the traditionalist aspects of it remains to be seen, but their decision will swing tomorrow's action.

With all of this talk of the Senate and larger political movements, it must be remembered that Bush himself is simply doing what Presidents used to do, but have been to timid to do in the face of an increasingly powerful Congress over the course of the last 20-30 years-- appointing daring jurists who stand boldly for the president's ideology. The Supreme Court is a sad example of the timidity of both parties, but particularly Democrats, over the last two decades in the realm of court appointments. Where is the Oliver Wendell Holmes, the Earl Warren, the William O. Douglas or Abe Fortas? The best jurist on the court, despite my personal disagreements with his philosophy, is undeniably Antonin Scalia. If you reflexively disagree with me, I would challenge you to read his opinions (or even better, his dissents). They are magnificently written, tightly reasoned (from a philosophical position, originalism, that I tend to be skeptical of) and intellectually stimulating. They seek to lay down a broad vision of the constitution and a general philosophy of government. While Rhenquist and his compatriots find ways to narrow the streams of thought trickling down from the Court, Scalia seeks to flood the traditions of American government with a downpour of constitutional thought. Yet at one point the Court was full of men like Scalia (and as of yet they have all been men as O'Connor lacks the force and vision, while Ginsburg is closer, but still no cigar), particularly on the liberal side of the equation. Democrats have been gunshy of Congressional approval though, and Clinton chose to nominate bland and short-sighted, if technically qualified candidates. Reagan and Bush I made the same mistakes, though Reagan did nominate Bork and Scalia (both brilliant men that I disagree with) and Bush thought he would be doing well with Thomas, who simply lacks the intellectual power of Scalia. Bush seeks to remake American jurisprudence by putting brilliant, visionary, ideologically serious candidates on the Court. Democrats should do the same thing when they get the opportunity.

In the end, this is a tale of an ongoing tectonic shift in American politics. Party realignment has made dramatic shifts from the mid 1780s until the early 1800s, from the 1820s until the late 1850s, from 1890s until the 1920s and from the 1960s until the 1980s. We are now in the beginning of the latest restructuring, and this realignment has the curious result of taking American politics into a structure that looks remarkably like 19th century European or early 20th century Latin American politics. A nationalist, traditionalist, elitist, classically conservative party is emerging from the ashes of a long-standing conservative consensus; an internationalist, experimental, secular, liberal party has risen from the wreckage of a populist-progressive coalition. The debate is no longer whether government should be expanded or not, but rather if it should be used to strengthen the traditional bastions of the powerful, or to radically rearrange the structure of our society. Both are worrisome, and if May 24, 2005 goes down in history as it appears it will, it will be too late to unring the bell that tolls for the American way of life.

Exile on Main Street

By Jim Dallas

A few days ago, Slate's Timothy Noah wrote an essay denouncing what he perceived to be the new happy-to-be-exiled Democratic Party:

What's shocking about this new Democratic enthusiasm for retreat is that it is being expressed not on narrow special-interest issues, but on broad issues affecting the entire Democratic constituency: regaining a Senate majority, redistributing Social Security benefits, democratizing Senate procedures. It might be argued that the Democrats are merely imitating the winning strategy the Republicans used to regain the House in 1994: Spurn the glad-handing incremental victories favored by Newt Gingrich's predecessor as House Republican leader, Bob Michel, and instead propagandize your way to political victory. But congressional Democrats differ from congressional Republicans in three crucial ways. First, the Republicans, in becoming obstructionists, didn't change their positions on the issues, as Democrats are doing. Second, the Democrats haven't been shut out for many decades, as the House Republicans had been when they announced they were fed up with accommodation. The Democrats' obstructionism comes off seeming petulant and unearned. Third, Democrats, unlike Republicans, actually want to achieve something. Governmental paralysis, practically by definition, is agreeable to conservatives, but it's anathema to liberals, at least in the long run. Or rather, it should be.

Frankly, I'm all for enjoying minority status, and I'm not convinced by Noah's attempts to distinguish the 1980s House GOP from the 2005 House Democrats. They seem to be distinctions without a difference, and he doesn't really explain why any of them are really relevant, besides recycling conventional wisdom and, dare I say, GOP talking points.

If Democrats appear clunky playing the role of the blowhard, it's probably because we're not particularly experienced at it. What's missing is the fact that, while the GOP establishment for years remained, well, establishmentarian, the grassroots never quite were, and there was always a cranky-conservative-movement wing of the Congressional caucuses. Even before Goldwater. The difference that matters, I think, is that Democrats aren't very smooth when it comes to watering the grassroots.

Moreover, I think Noah overlooks the many positive aspects of being a blowhard.

Paradoxically, is that presents opportunities to form new proactive coalitions. It's a proven fact that it's easier to unite people by declaring what you're against than by stating what you're for; by bringing strange bedfellows together, oppositionalism should serve as a catalyst for laying out a post-New Deal grand strategy.

Moreover, this presents us with a natural opportunity to ditch principles that aren't working and adopt ones that will. This might seem opportunist or at best philosophically pragmatic, but the thing about pragmatism is that, by definition, it works. When the overlying principle is "no," it makes it a lot easier to re-shuffle the ideological deck while nobody is looking.

If nothing else, minority status ought to force us to get back in touch with real people in real communities. Inevitably, the majority "goes native"; indeed, there's a strong case to be made the GOP majority became captives of institutional interests years ago.

Finally, the blowhard isolates himself from tomorrow's outrage at today's excesses. It's possible, of course, that the GOP really knows what they are doing, and, in fact, we will all look back and praise mightily their righteous words and deeds. That said, such an outcome is highly improbable.

I should note, I think, that all of these rationales are long-term rationales. Being a blowhard is not a means of attaining power in the short-term, because nobody likes a downer. Exile is defensible on one ground and one ground only - that at some point in the future, we're going to stop being in exile. That at some point in the future, we're going to break out of the cocoon of the present and become a beautiful butterfly.

I suppose I would share Noah's concern, then, if I thought that the Blue State blues were terminal; however, insofar as this is a phase we're working through, it can be a very beneficial experience.

Priscilla Owen Rated Worst Justice by the Houston Bar Association

By Byron LaMasters

The Houston Bar Association rated the six (all Republican) Texas Supreme Court Justices (along with many other judges) that have served on the court since July 31, 2004. The Houston Chronicle reports (via Kuff):

The poll, which is completed every two years, asked HBA members to rate judges "outstanding," "acceptable" or "poor" in seven categories, including following the law, demonstrating impartiality, paying attention in court and using attorneys' time efficiently. It also assigned them an overall rating. The poll included federal, state, county and municipal judges.

About 1,200 lawyers, 11 percent of the association's membership, responded to the poll. Most judges were not rated by every attorney participating in the poll because lawyers were asked only to consider judges they have worked with directly.

"It doesn't necessarily mean that a judge is good or bad," said Rocky Robinson, a civil attorney and HBA president. "It is an indication of the attorneys' perceptions of the judges' performance in those categories based on their experience in front of the judges." [...]

Supreme Court of Texas

Judge	Outstanding	Acceptable	Poor
Scott A. Brister (422)	36.9	20.7	42.4
Nathan L. Hecht (327)	40.3	17.4	42.3
Wallace B. Jefferson (270)	53.4	29.7	16.9
Harriet O'Neill (334)	55	30.5	14.5
Priscilla R. Owen (350)	39.5	15.2	45.3
Dale Wainwright (316)	48.7	25.7	25.7

Of the six Texas Supreme Court Justices rated, Priscilla Owen had the highest "poor" rating, and the second lowest "outstanding" rating. Furthermore, Owen has the largest negative difference between respondents ranking her "poor" over "outstanding" with 5.8% more "poor" ratings than "outstanding".

The results are even more telling when the details are examined:

SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS PRISCILLA R. OWEN

Number of Attorneys Rating This Judge: 350

Question	Outstanding	Acceptable	Poor
Is attentive to oral argument?	45.8	20.3	33.9
Interacts constructively with counsel during oral arguments?	42.6	19.5	37.9
Opinions demonstrate well reasoned, clearly - written disposition of the case based on proper application of the law to the record?	38.4	15.3	46.3
Is impartial and open-minded with respect to determining the legal issues?	34.6	16.6	48.8
Overall rating?	39.5	15.2	45.3

Are these ratings from a non-partisan organization of lawyers who have worked directly with Justice Owen reflective of someone who deserves a promotion? I don't think so...

More at Kuff.

NARAL Screws Self Over, Stabs Dems in the Back

By Andrew Dobbs

Well, it's not every day that you see Kos taking on a liberal activist group like NARAL, but he makes an excellent point in his post today.

Earlier this year it appeared that Rhode Island Congressman Jim Langevin (D) would be running for the US Senate. Langevin, one of Congress' few disabled members (he is a quadripeligic), was leading Rhode Island Republican Lincoln Chaffee by several points and looked to beat him in 2006, adding yet another D to the Senate. But Langevin had one problem-- he is a pro-life Democrat and Chaffee is a pro-abortion rights Republican. What to do? NARAL, the National Abortion Rights Action League, sprang into action and ran Langevin out of the race by getting a bunch of out-of-staters to start raising money for potential primary opponents. Langevin dropped out in favor of two pro-abortion rights Democrats-- Secretary of State Matt Brown and former Congressman Sheldon Whitehouse. Neither are doing as well as Langevin in the statewide polls, but NARAL seemed to get what it wanted, a Democratic nominee who would fight for access to abortion.

Now, as my one-time roommate Ezra Klein points out, NARAL has greeted this opportunity to knock off a Republican by endorsing Lincoln Chaffee for reelection. Chaffee is indeed pro-choice, one of the country's last prominent liberal Republicans, but he is a Republican no less. The first vote he cast this year was for Bill "James Dobson is My Homeboy" Frist as Senate Majority Leader. Langevin's first vote was for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker. It seems as though NARAL could realize that their causes are better served by ANYONE other than Chaffee, and now that they have two Democrats on their side in the race, why wouldn't they wait to support the eventual nominee? It is truly confounding.

As a Democrat, I am angered and as someone who is pro-life I am appalled. Jim Langevin would be a phenomenal Senator, as his record in the House attests to, and would join Bob Casey (assuming he beats Santorum) as a new and exciting pro-life leader in our caucus. While they are unlikely to turn our party pro-life, they would send a clear message to anti-abortion voters who agree with us on other issues that it is okay to vote for us-- we aren't beholden to any special interest. Now NARAL has not only demonstrated to anyone paying attention that our party is hostile to pro-life candidates, but has abandoned us in favor of a Fristian Republican. It's a lose-lose situation for Democrats.

For those who support access to abortion NARAL is still the nation's primary advocate for their cause, but it lost a bit of credibility today. It is time for us to realize that all the petty differences in the world are meaningless-- in a partisan age, partisan politics must be played. Here's hoping Langevin shows them up by reentering the race, winning the nomination and taking out Chaffee (or possibly the right-winger that beats Chaffee in the primary). We need him in the US Senate.

Military Musical Chairs

By Jim Dallas

An old friend brings to my attention that the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) committee has made its recommendations about which bases to close. Looks like the Navy is taking the biggest hit, particularly in Texas.

Ft. Sam Houston in San Antonio is getting bigger, as is Ft. Bliss.

Texas stands to net 9,000 jobs overall; the closures in Corpus Christi and in Ralph Hall's district being offset by units being shifted from other states.

UPDATE: Still, a net gain in jobs does not make up for the many communities which are going to be sorely disrupted by the fifteen base closures scheduled for Texas. The Chris Bell campaign put out a PR to that effect:

The Pentagon today recommended closing a long list of military bases in Texas against zero in Oklahoma, bringing up yet another example of Rick Perry’s failed leadership.

“Texas and Oklahoma have two Republican senators and a congressional delegation dominated by Republicans. What does Oklahoma have that Texas doesn’t have? A Democratic Governor. Maybe we should get one of those,” said Jason Stanford, spokesman for the Chris Bell for Governor Exploratory Committee.

I'm not sure comparing the military presence in Texas to the military presence in Oklahoma is quite fair, but certainly what we got ain't the product of any great success on the part of Governor Perry. On the other hand, the 147th TANG is staying at Ellington Field, and I know Senator Hutchison's been fighting pretty hard for that.

Nuclear Text Messages

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

So, we keep waiting to know when the Senate goes Nuclear. I'm on the edge of my seat (though maybe I should hide under it to protect me from the fallout).

Sign up with the People for the American Way's text message alert, which will also give you the number of the Senate Offiers to call as soon as the trigger is pulled. That way you can be part of the instant response while the vote is open.

DeLay and Frist: Out of Control

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

It's not often that I pay much attention to DSCC emails, but today's gave noticed to a really powerful ad they've developed. Watch and donate here. I'm impressed to say the least, about ethics of all issues. Can we say campaign theme '06?

Well boys, I reckon this is it -- nukyular combat, toe to toe with the GOP

By Jim Dallas

Word is that Frist is threatening to go nuclear over Patricia Owen this week.

I agree with PandaJesse. Texas Supreme Patricia Owen is really not all that bad compared to, say, California Supreme Janice Rogers Brown. (That's not an endorsement, just a comparison.) I'd almost reckon that Frist's boastings about Judge Owen are almost an intelligent form of bluffing to encourage Senate Democrats to make the compromise.

Though it looks like Fightin' Harry Reid is in no mood to compromise. "Bring it on."

Update: It takes a special class of "bad" to be unfavorably compared to a judge Alberto Gonzales accused of "unconscionable judicial activism." I just cannot stand the thought of Janice Rogers Brown being a federal judge. Whereas Judge Owen has very strong opinions about what the law ought to be, Judge Brown seems to have extremely bizarre interpretations of twentieth century history (or in the words of Kieran Healey, " a heady and unstable mix of libertarian obiter dicta, Randian bromides, culture-war cliches and, um, Procol Harum lyrics. No, really.").

As Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, we're all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts. That's where I draw the line between the two nominees.

Meanwhile, in Ohio...

By Jim Dallas

It's often fairly easy to get down on the Texas lege; the number of questionable stunts pulled each and every session seems to be almost innumerable. But looking at the big picture, sometimes you have to hand it to the Ghost of Legislatures Past for putting together some fairly sensible laws.

One lege horror story this year which was frustrating for at least a few of our readers involved a House committee basically shunning a bill to eliminate the statute of limitations for child molestation. In another post, I argued that Texas's statute was already fairly generous to victims (with limitations running ten years after the victim's 18th birthday, which could in theory be as long as 28 years), and hence I was skeptical of abolishing it.

Nonetheless, the idea of abolishing the statute of limitations is a worthy idea that deserves consideration. Several commenters disagreed strongly with my skepticism, and I'd note that at least a few were no idle contrarians, as they've been toiling awfully hard in his pursuit of justice. But, even despite the indefensible shenangins of Reps. Keel, Hodge, et al., the status quo being defended could be a lot worse.

How much worse? Well, try Ohio. According to Joe-in-DC of Americablog, in Ohio limitations run in only two years. Let me repeat that: two years.

That's pretty awful, and you might've guessed that everyone'd be for changing it to a Texas-style law, at the minimum. And indeed, every one says that they are - in principle. As the Toledo Blade story linked to by Americablog Joe, the trouble arises over whether to allow a one-year "look back" window for the filing of civil suits by victims who, previously, had very little recourse:

The Toledo Catholic Diocese is stepping up its efforts to defeat a bill that would rewrite Ohio's statutes of limitations for victims of child sexual abuse.

Bishop Leonard Blair sent a letter to diocesan priests this week stating that Senate Bill 17 "should be of serious concern to all of us," and urged them to contact their state representatives to voice opposition to the legislation.

...

key provision of S.B. 17, which was passed 31-0 by the Ohio Senate in March, and this week was sent to a House committee, is to extend the statutes of limitation for filing lawsuits over allegations of child sexual abuse.

Ohio law now requires civil suits to be filed within two years after the victim turns 18. The current bill would lengthen the statutes to 20 years after turning 18.

The diocese and the victims' advocacy group SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests) are in agreement in calling for the statutes to be lengthened to 20 years after reaching adulthood.

Such a change in civil cases would match Ohio statutes for criminal law, which were extended in 1999.

But Bishop Blair and the state's other Catholic bishops strongly oppose an amendment that would set a one-year "look back" period during which victims could file civil suits over abuses that occurred as long as 35 years ago.

Although Ohio Catholics have an interest in wanting to avoid legal battles (and I think Joe in DC is a bit reductionist, unfairly to the Catholics, when he portrays this as merely being about covering up pedophile priest scandals), I think it is just to say that putting much-needed reform on hold for that reason is extremely unfair and unreasonable.

Rep. Terri Hodge's crazy ramblings aside, Texas does not have this problem. We have a decent (although reasonable people can disagree on whether or not it is the best possible) statute of limitations. And at least in theory, we can have a fairly civil discourse about the issue.

Greed, for lack of a better word, is good

By Jim Dallas

The Associated Press does a poll:

Most people say they are not willing to give up some of their promised Social Security benefits to save the poor from having their payments cut.

About 70 percent of people surveyed do believe President Bush's warning that Social Security is running out of money. But most also say they do not like the way the president is handling the issue, according to an AP-Ipsos poll...

The poll, conducted for the Associated Press by Ipsos-Public Affairs, found that 56 percent of respondents are not willing to give up some guaranteed benefits, while 40 percent said they would. Majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents were opposed to losing any benefits.

"If I were guaranteed that the poor would get what they're supposed to, that would be fine, but I'm not sure they would," said Margaret Normandin, 80, a Democrat from Laconia, N.H.

...

Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster, said persuading the middle class to give up benefits is a hard sell.

"The middle class feels like it's barely holding on," she said. "And Social Security is perceived to be the original middle-class support program."

...

When asked whom they trust more to handle Social Security, 48 percent of respondents said Democrats and 36 percent said Republicans. The president still faces strong opposition to his approach to Social Security, with 60 percent of those surveyed saying they disapprove.

The AP-Ipsos poll of 1,000 adults was taken May 2-4. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Last week, when the President gave his speech, we heard a lot of crowing about how he had finally changed the dynamic and forced the Democrats to choose between faux-progressivity and defending benefits for Republicans, or whatever.

In retrospect, can anyone think that such a claim is anything but ridiculous? It's a false choice, akin to asking middle America whether we'd prefer a kick in the nuts or a lead pipe to the kneecap. It's a false choice because it presumes that any solution must be revenue neutral - even when the entire "surplus" scheme engineered in 1983 came with the implicit promise of higher taxes on the wealthy.

Finally, the claim was and is ridiculous because, even as Americans have worked themselves into a panic over Social Security's solvency at some distant date, trust in President Bush in the immediate present has hit its own crisis point. Telling the American people that he wants to cut their benefits is not exactly the best way to sweeten that pot.

What Democrats must do is attack, because when you scratch the surface, the Republican plan continues to be the destruction of Social Security for the benefit of the rich and powerful. You can spin, but you can't hide.

To the extent that the people's own enlightened (or unenlightened) self-interest encourages people to grasp these key facts, and indeed support universality (in that weird sort of paradoxical Rawlsian way) the more, the better.

Filibuster Frist

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Princeton University is now around their 200th hour of filibustering at thier incredibly awesome idea, Filibuster Frist. Check out their page, live webcame, and extensive media coverage. If only we had the time here at UT, I'm sure this would have been a project our UDems would have liked to have done as well.

These Men Have A Plan, A Plan to Destroy Social Security...

By Jim Dallas

Bush and DeLay made the front page of the Houston Chronicle together last night. Meanwhile, Brad DeLong gives the Galveston Plan the golden raspberry. As does the H-Chron.

Someone please cut an ad. If you don't I will. And I know how to use Flash now so you all better be scared!

In other news, former Senator (and 2004 Dem VP nominee) John Edwards was in town last night. I missed because I was studying for exams, but I hear it was good!

Heber Taylor on the Galveston Plan

By Jim Dallas

Heber Taylor, Galveston County Daily News managing editor and voice of sweet reasonableness, wrote on Sunday:

As the hometown newspaper, we're sometimes asked what we think of this plan. We're open to changes in Social Security but don't think the Galveston Plan is the best model for change. The plan has two problems.

The first is that it benefits workers at the top of the pay scale more than it benefits those at the bottom. We'll admit that's a hotly contested conclusion. We've followed the debate. We've studied the arguments on both sides.

The conclusions that make the most sense are those drawn from a study conducted by the Government Accounting Office in 1999. In general, the study found that the alternate plan benefited higher-paid employees. The study found that low-income workers would fare better under Social Security.

Obviously, that's a problem that any attempt at reform should avoid.

The peple who most need an adequate guaranteed income are those at the bottom of the pay scale. Any effort to reform Social Security must take that truth as a starting point.

The second problem with the Galveston Plan is that a worker can opt out of the deal. Some county workers have done so. Over the years, we've talked to some who cashed in their chips, bought a new car and started looking for work elsewhere.

What do they have to show for their time with the county? Nothing. No Galveston Plan. No Social Security.

What happens when those workers retire? The burden of caring for them probably will fall back on the public. That burden is one of the things Social Security was designed to alleviate.

If you think about the analogy between Bush's proposal to reform Social Security and the Galveston Plan you'll come to one conclusion. The analogy is awfully superficial.

Bush wants to let workers invest some fraction of their contributions in the stock market. The county's alternate pln invests all of an employee's withholdings and county's contributions into conservative investments such as insurance annuities.

People who are looking at the Galveston Plan in hopes that it will shed light the President's proposal should look elsewhere for illumination.

Nonetheless, if President Bush wants to claim his plan is "like" the Galveston Plan, then I'm more than willing to make him "own it."

P.S. Incidentally, there seems to be a bit of cognitive dissonance about the Galveston Plan. Initially put forward of as proof that a privatized system could work, subsequent criticism has resulted in other privatizers backing off the claim and, indeed, blaming the "liberal media" for even suggesting the analogy. Did Dubya get the memo? Apparently not. He's not getting many of the memos these days.

(Also, George, we're putting the coversheets on all TPS reports. Did you get the memo about this? If you could just go ahead and make sure you do that from now on, that would be great. Uh, I'll go ahead and make sure you get another copy of that memo, ok?)

Dean-Style

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

From Washington Whispers for all of those interesting in the head of our Party...

Let's just state the obvious: New Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean is no Terry McAuliffe . Where the flashy former Clinton fundraiser was a gregarious ringmaster accustomed to the bling-bling of the highest non-publicly elected Democratic job around, Dean is almost a seminarian in his approach to the post. And, oddly, his style seems to fit with the party's bid to build its blue-collar base--just as McAuliffe's meshed with the DNC's need to raise gobs of money and go high tech.

What's so different? McAuliffe would limo around town, dropping in at the Palm to huddle with Washington big shots. The 2004 presidential hopeful, by contrast, takes the bus or subway, buying his own $1.35 ticket. Sometimes he bums rides from staffers or walks the four blocks to the Capitol for meetings. "Please Call Me Howard" never flies first class and always carries his own bags.

Other signs of the ex-guv's modest style: He eats at his desk, stays in a cheap D.C. hotel, and likes oxford shirts and penny loafers. Affectionately dubbed a "geek" by pals, he's often glued to his cellphone and loves E-mail. "His expertise is grass roots and his lifestyle is no different," says an associate. So far, Washington likes what it sees, surprised he's not the oddball that newsies pegged him as last year. Says an aide, smiling: "They're giving him a shot."

The battle is joined

By Jim Dallas

Noam Scheiber (via Amy Sullivan) - Democratic libertarianism bad!:

Far more interesting--and politically more consequential--is an emerging Democratic split between social libertarians, who emphasize privacy, and what I'll call communitarians, for lack of a better word. Like social conservatives, the communitarians believe the government has a role to play in Schiavo-like dilemmas. If they prevail, it could help the Democratic Party reclaim its popular majority.

William Galston - Democratic libertarianism good!:

Undermining the conservative vision of freedom is the essential first step for a liberal recovery. But no movement ever built a governing majority just by criticizing its adversaries. To regain the initiative, liberals must return to their historic mission of modernizing and promoting freedom.

To be sure, Scheiber and Galston are taking this from slightly different angles, and there's probably much they can agree on. That said, are you ready to RUMBLE!?!?

... and silly me, I forget to reference Greg's Opinion.

Filibuster Veterans for Truth

By Jim Dallas

The filibuster debate continues onward, with Mark Schmitt and Nathan Newman representing the pro- and anti- filibuster viewpoints in the blogosphee.

Meanwhile, the Alliance for Justice Action has launched a Schoolhouse Rock-style flash campaign to "Save Phil" (as in, Phil A. Buster). While public education on this topic is a great idea, I'm not sure the tone of the campaign is serious enough; it almost seems like a South Park-style parody.

Of course, one silly campaign deserves another (and note, this is my best crack at designing the most offensive attack ad possible, not at expressing my true feelings).

Public Dis-Service Announcement

By Jim Dallas

Amy Sullivan reminds us that in order to blame, the people need to know who to blame.

Repeat after me...

"The Republican politicians in Washington."

If it ain't fili-busted, don't fili-fix it.

By Jim Dallas

There seems to be some dissent in the blogosphere about Democrats vowing mutually-assured destruction as the Republicans mull going "nuclear" on the filibuster. Some ask, is the filibuster even worth fighting for?

The fili-doves includes Matt Yglesias and Nathan Newman; the hawk-ibusters include the sagacious Mark Schmitt. Kevin "Switzerland" Drum is sitting on the fence.

As for me, I suppose it's true that one could argue that the filibuster is anti-democratic; but then again, any body that is Constitutionally required to give Wyoming the same number as votes as California is not exactly a democratic institution. On the contrary, the Senate was expressly designed largely to impede progress and trample the will of the people (err, well, state legislatures elected by white property-owning men). When the powers that be decide to deal with bigger obstructions to democracy, such as the electoral college and gerrymandering, maybe then we can talk about nuking the filibuster under such pretenses.

Cornyn on Tape

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Think Progress has the video of Sen. Cornyn's Violence Against Judges remarks on the Senate Floor.

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em

By Jim Dallas

For the last week we've heard the word that right-wingers think that the polls that showed that Americans disapproved of the moralistic totalitarianism of the "save Terri" caucus were meaningless push polls, even though, frankly, they weren't.

Failing to convince anyone, LifeNews proceded to... commission Zogby to do their own poll, using loaded questions only tangentially related to the matter at hand, apparently designed to produce pre-determined results. Of course, Michelle Malkin says its "honest."

I'm sorry, but I'll change my opinion only when Zogby publishes, oh, the sample size and demographics (which as far as I can tell, they haven't). And stops using loaded language.

Moreover, Zogby just put out another poll:

On the Schiavo issue, DeLay consistently has stated that his constituents backed his decision to lead Congress into the dispute over whether to continue nourishment to the severely brain-damaged Florida woman.

But nearly 69 percent of people in the poll, including substantial majorities of Democrats and Republicans, said they opposed the government's intervention in the long-standing family battle.

Respondents in the Chronicle survey also were critical of DeLay's individual role. Nearly 58 percent disapproved of his decision to get Congress involved.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't believe Tom DeLay's Sugarlanders are any more "pro-death" than the average American constituency. Then again, they did elect Tom DeLay to Congress. But I digress; the more important point is, Zogby knows how to appease his clients, and this whole episode makes me skeptical of any poll results his firm puts out.

Counter-Cultural Ninjas

By Jim Dallas

Commenter Scoop Jackson Democrat on Gregsopinion wrote recently, in a colloquy:

Indeed, the more I thought about it, the more I realized that I am so troubled by MYDD, DAILY KOS, the Kossacks, the Deaniacs, ACT, MOVE.ORG and Michael Moore precisely because they remind me of the "Get Clean for Gene McCarthy" crowd in 1968, McGovern's Army in 1972 and the people that a man I used to despise named Spiro T. Agnew called the "Rad-Libs." He went even farther than that. Agnew, a true hate monger and a crook convicted of taking kick backs, called the Rad-Libs "nattering nabobs of negativism," a phrase that I believe that the frequently sneering and supercilious William Safire coined for him.

I've been reflecting on this for a few days, and I think I've realized a few things.

First, I think if you did a poll of people who volunteered for Howard Dean, and similarly, Kossacks, I think you'd find enough differences between our clique and the 60's "Rad Libs". To be sure, you'd also find similarities, and, particularly among the younger supporters, some genuine respect for post-civil rights radicalism. But, like myself, I think you'd find a lot of the younger bunch that didn't actually remember the 1960s may very well have a lot to learn. Nonetheless, this is a different bunch. The real hippies, after all, were for Kucinich. Moreover, the new-new left is a lot more pragmatic and classicly-minded than a lot of people give credit for.

I posted a couple of weeks ago about "protest culture", and about a week ago the American Prospect ran a critical essay on the "spirit of '68." Quoting that essay:

The idea’s salience arises from its respectable lineage in American political thought, which stretches back to Thomas Jefferson and John Dewey. Dewey believed democracy required a home in the local neighborhood where discussion and association took place. When members of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) gathered in Michigan in 1962 to write the famous “Port Huron Statement,” they outlined the demands of participatory democracy and invoked Dewey’s ideals. But they also invoked a jargon of authenticity taken from existentialist philosophy. While embracing “a democracy of individual participation,” they hoped to find “a meaning in life that is personally authentic.”

But there’s a problem with proclaiming both of those as goals: Authenticity of the self and actually living in a democratic community with other citizens who hold varying opinions are two very different -- if not, in fact, irreconcilable -- demands. In Chicago, the two ideals clashed, and authenticity won out. Protesters pitted themselves against the inauthentic masses -- the police, those who believed in the Vietnam War, the “pigs.” When this occurred, participatory democracy no longer supplemented representative democracy but replaced it; authenticity displaced the challenge of deliberating with other citizens who might disagree. To be authentic meant to give direct expression to desire rather than to work through a longer process of changing representative institutions. It focused on what George Cotkin, the historian of American existentialism, called “catharsis.”

The Washington Monthly article I linked to in my original post did not get as philosophical, but hit on the same point: that protest became symbolic and expressive rather than pragmatic and effective.

Which brings me back to the Dean campaign. To what extent did support, particularly towards the end, become more about making a personal statement (and from the campaign's view, about mass numbers) rather than about actually winning the election? To an extent, I think for a lot of us the means became the ends.

This phenomenon was not limited just to Perfect Stormers. The entire Democratic effort seems to have been focused on the wrong things. Rather than adopt a business-like attitude, as the GOP machine did, we focused so much on being authentic that critical gaps in the campaign emerged, which, ironically, resulted in the grassroots getting detached from their own communities, and in mobilization rather than persuasion.

The new-new left (or the counter-counter-counter-culture, since the Deanies and Kossacks and MoveOn are as much a response to the centrist politics and distancing-from-the-nutters of the Clinton-era as they are a continuation of the original counter-culture) is faced with the choices which the "Rad Libs" were faced with 40 years ago. How do we walk that thin line of being pragmatic and effective while at the same time not perceiving that we are "selling out"? Needless to say, the Rad Libs flunked that test pretty badly.

I don't know. But I encourage you all to think about this problem. As well as brush up on philosophy (do we need a new grand unified theory of everything? probably. is it possible? perhaps not.)

Terri Schiavo Dies

By Byron LaMasters

Thankfully, this national tragedy is now over, but it won't stop Tom DeLay from shameless hypocrisy and overarching hysteria on the issue. My thoughts and prayers are certainly with the entire Schiavo family, and I hope that our nation can benefit from this national incident. Please join Jim's request and fill out a living will. At the very least, speak with your loved ones, and make sure that they know what treatment that you wish to receive if you are incapacitated or otherwise unable to make such decisions.

Schiavo Protesters Force Elementary School Closing

By Byron LaMasters

Even though the Schiavo family asked protesters to go home on Easter, the Randall Terry militant pro-life crowd won't go away. Their antics have forced 600 elementary school kids from their school a block away from the hospice where Terri Schiavo is staying:

Students enrolled at the elementary school near the hospice where Terri Schiavo lives will be sent to other facilities this week, a move designed to keep the children away from the gauntlet of media and protesters covering the ongoing saga.

The 600 students at Cross Bayou Elementary School will be split among three neighboring schools, said Pinellas County schools spokesman Ron Stone. The school is located just west of the Woodside Hospice, where protesters and media have gathered since Terri Schiavo's feeding tube was removed March 18.

That was the school's last day of classes; it was closed last week for spring break. Many students were absent on the day the tube was pulled, something school officials attributed to the frenzy outside the hospice.

Meanwhile, another poll shows that Americans decidedly oppose the actions taken by Congress and the President in this matter.

Lock up your daughters and hide your bibles: the liberals are coming!

By Jim Dallas

Smarter people than myself, such as Ruy Teixeira and Chris Bowers have already blogged on this, but I've got a few comments following up the buzz over Christopher Hayes's article "How to Turn Your Red State Blue".

I would respectfully dissent from the thesis that the number of conservatives has actually gone up since the 1960s as the result of any kind of mass conversion. Rather, the amount of activity generated by conservatives and the number of "hard-core" ideologues has increased. This is important because it changes the inflection of the article.

Texas Party Self-ID and Ideological Self-ID
CBS/NYT polls pooled (based on data from Erikson, Wright, McIver)

(Approx. Pooled N = 4000 for Epoch 1976, 6000 for Epoch 1983, 9000 for Epoch 1990, and 8000 for Epoch 1997.)

The best numbers I have show basically no change in ideological composition in Texas since 1976 - and very little partisan change since 1983 - although in fairness, Texas has undergone massive demographic shifts in the last 30 years. However, other states show only modest shifts (Mississippi and Arkansas +5 more conservative; Alabama, Louisiana, and Georgia unchanged; much of the north and South Carolina several points less conservative). Moreover, Chris Bowers' own national numbers, from exit polls (a different source) show basically no underlying shifts.

(Moreover, Chris's numbers suggest that liberal and moderate voters made up Ronald Reagan's margin of victory in 1984; had Ronnie's electorate looked more like today's, we might have had President Walter Mondale. Indeed, the massive decrease in Republican support by self-identified liberals is one reason why the last election was close - and had we had fewer defections, there's a good chance that we'd have won.)

Simply put, conservatism isn't growing, despite the major efforts being expended to make it happen. Indeed, liberals have been amazingly successful, in part because there's a slight bias towards being an ideological conservative and an operational liberal.

What's happened has been that the number of conservatives who have been "activated" has gone up considerably. This may be in part simply because of partisan shifts - when people are not cross-pressured by conflicting ideological and party cues. And undoubtedly, mobilization has had something to do with it.

Of course, I am not suggesting that prosyletizing does not work. I think part of the reason why conservatism hasn't actually become the vast-majority ideology (as opposed to the dominant, plurality ideology, which it is) has been its own excesses, as well as (let's give credit where credit is due) to the DLC and Bill Clinton for making conservatism look less appealing by comparison to a vibrant moderation.

(Of course, our success in undermining the growth of conservatism is contingent upon the DLC being worth a damn - and that means they need to put forth new ideas instead of threaten Michael Moore with castration. If they won't lead, we will!)

Where I'm going with this is, will "converting" people to progressivism work? I don't know. My gut feeling is that in order to acheive the amount of change that is contemplated by Chris Bowers is probably not possible in the short term.

It may be true that conservatives outnumber liberals two-to-one, but its also true that moderates tend to vote with liberals more than with conservatives. Acheiving parity, of course, requires winning an overwhelming number of moderates, which is no easy task (Kerry, after all, came up a little short even with a 10 point lead among the mod-squad). Accordingly, any gains we get will be more than welcomed and Chris's goal of "growing liberalism and shrinking conservatism" is laudible. But they won't make the difference by themselves.

A better strategy is to re-vitalize the Democratic Party, energize those who would-be activists who are sitting at home watching the boob tube, and make sure that we get every moderate and liberal and "left of right-wing" voter to the polls. That's basically what the GOP did in its hey-day, which I believe is quickly passing.

Let me re-emphasize the point about energizing people. I think there's a lot of latent liberalism floating around in America, that has yet to be tapped into. That's why I've previously recommended voter education. Note how this is different from prosyletizing in that it seeks to capitalize on "soft-ideologues" instead of convert new ones, and I think it's a lot more effective. Consider - what's more effective for religious prosyletizers - tapping into "latent religion" (people who went to church when they were kids, but stopped going in their young adulthood), or trying to win an argument with a committed atheist? The surest way to "grow liberalism" is fire up liberals and moderates-who-are-really-liberals-but-don't-know-it-yet.

(And yes, of course there've been atheists who've found Jesus, but that's not the majority of the people packing the pews on Sunday. More to the point, I know there are some hard-rightists that come over, but it's rare, and usually among the young and flexible. When I grew up and switched to the good ol' liberal brand, it was from the position of being a moderate who grew up in a moderate-to-moderate-conservative family.)

A few books on point which I will finish reading and which I encourage you to start. Most obvious is Rick Perlstein's Before the Storm, which apparently the entire blogosphere has already read, but I've only gotten half-way through it.

Diagnose Me!

By Byron LaMasters

Have a medical problem and can't afford a doctor? Easy. Send a video to Senator/Doctor Bill Frist and you'll get his expert diagnosis.

John Edwards at UNC Law School

By Andrea Meyer

The former senator from North Carolina has a new job. John Edwards is the now the head of the UNC Law School's new Center on Poverty, Work and Opporuntity. Regardless of politics, the former senator has a reputation as an outstanding trial lawyer, and also has firsthand savvy of the implications of poverty, the lack of fortuity for many, and how this affects the future of America through its youth. I see this as a great opportunity for Edwards, as his talent and knowledge will certainly continue to have a positive impact on society and benefit others. As it is part-time, he will have plenty of time to care for and support Elizabeth through her illness and to spend with his younger children. This will hopefully be a positive experience for the Edwards family, and I wish him well in his new endeavor.

Read more here.....

Another City Race...

By Andrew Dobbs

So we've talked a lot on this blog about Austin races, and perhaps a little about San Antonio (but not enough, I'll start putting up some posts soon), but there is a big municipal race this year that I am always interested in- the mayoral election in New York City.

The New York Times reports that Bronx Borough President Fernando Ferrer is well ahead of the pack for the Democratic nomination for mayor, with Manhattan President C. Virginia Fields coming in second and several others- including Council Speaker Gifford Miller- pulling up the rear.

Ferrer also leads mayor Michael Bloomberg by several points, 14 in one poll, 7 in another. He caught some flak recently for claiming that the shooting of Amidou Diallo wasn't a crime and might lose some ground in the Democratic field for that one. Still, with a Texan running his campaign, we know that anything is possible.

Ferrer came in second place in the 2001 Democratic primary and has served in city government for years. He's a progressive thinker, though his website is short on any kind of specifics in terms of policy. The last 12 years have been very good to New York- going from squalor and crime to vibrancy and safety. Rudy Giuliani has a lot to do with that, and Michael Bloomberg has more or less just stayed out of the way of smarter people doing the heavy lifting. Ferrer needs to take the things that they have done right and add to them by putting a progressive spin on things. If he can keep New York prosperous and safe, he'll be a good mayor.

I'll post soon on San Antonio and I'll keep the dispatches on NYC to a bare minimum. Still, I figured everyone would be interested in this one...

Bush Flip-Flopped on Schiavo-like Cases

By Byron LaMasters

Funny how rally-the-base political opportunism forced Bush back to D.C. to sign a law in contradiction to a Texas law that he signed in 1999:

The federal law President Bush signed to prolong Terri Schiavo's life in Florida appears to conflict with a Texas law he signed as governor, attorneys familiar with the legislation said Monday.

The 1999 Advance Directives Act in Texas allows for a patient's surrogate to make end-of-life decisions and spells out how to proceed if a hospital or other health provider disagrees with a decision to maintain or halt life-sustaining treatment.

If a doctor refuses to honor a decision, the case goes before a medical committee. If the committee agrees with the doctor, the guardian or surrogate has 10 days to agree or seek treatment elsewhere.

Thomas Mayo, an associate law professor at Southern Methodist University who helped draft the Texas law, said that if the Schiavo case had happened in Texas, her husband would have been her surrogate decision-maker. Because both he and her doctors were in agreement, life support would have been discontinued.

Bush signed this law as Governor of Texas in 1999, but now he's against such a law for Terri Shiavo's family. The Bush campaign came up with a word for that in their campaign last year. Flip-flopping.

Ditto to what Jim Said

By Byron LaMasters

Congrats, Jim for getting a top ranked Kos Diary. Next time, be sure to post on BOR as well!

"Christian Statesman Targeted"

By Jim Dallas

Prayeralert.org asks you to pray for Tom DeLay. The Indianapolis Star writes:

Pray for Tom DeLay.

This is not my advice. This is an urgent alert issued on the Internet with the headline: "Rep. Tom DeLay Under Fire, Christian Statesman Targeted."

It is possible that DeLay needs your prayers because the GOP House majority leader is indeed taking incoming fire these days. It happens that this high-ranking lawmaker has a persistent problem with ethics. Three times in the last year he has been admonished for official misconduct. Then there is the long-running investigation back home in Texas that threatens DeLay with a criminal felony indictment for skirting the laws regulating campaign finance.

... but he is trying hard to save Terri Schiavo!

(Hat tip to BCho).

"The time has come to let Terri Schiavo die"

By Byron LaMasters

I could not say it better myself. I will simply say an Amen to this column. I would urge you all to read it.

I could not imagine the horror of living 15 years attached to a feeding tube without the ability to think or communicate for myself. Given the choice of a brainless PVS existence or death, I would choose to die - the choice that Terri Schiavo and her husband have made. That is much more humane than allowing someone (and their spouse) to suffer for years on end. I pray that their suffering is nearing its end.

Terri Schiavo Must Not Die

By Andrew Dobbs

[Ed. Note. Andrew has written a follow-up post changing his position on this issue. I would urge you to read it. - Byron]

I don't know if any of you have been keeping up with this case, but this is one that has been muddled by the various social issue special interest groups when this the law is clearly being ignored.

Terri Schiavo is a woman from Florida who had a massive heart attack in 1991, causing her heart to stop beating and depriving her brain of oxygen. This resulted in massive brain damage. Her husband argues that she is in a Persistent Vegitative State (PVS), her parents argue that this is not true. She is able to breathe on her own, but has to be fed through a tube. Her husband-- who has lived with another woman since 1995-- wants to remove the tube, commencing a two-week process of starvation and dehydration to end Terri's life. Her parents want no such thing. Law suits have been waged, and now Congress has been trying to pass a law to save her life. So what is the controversy?

First, diagnosing PVS isn't a cut and dry sort of thing. Because people with significant brain trauma typically have radically disrupted sleep cycles, it takes several hours of observation over the course of several weeks to establish a diagnosis of PVS. The doctors Schiavo's husband has hired observed her for about 45 minutes each. Furthermore, an MRI scan is standard in these sorts of things, as one would imagine. But shockingly, Schiavo has never had an MRI scan, and in fact has only had a CT scan (considered much less conclusive) almost 15 years ago. So the diagnosis is really not well established.

Secondly, there is ample evidence that Schiavo is in fact not in a PVS. PVS cases, by their very definition, have no awareness of the world around them- they are unable to respond to stimulii and do not recognize their surroundings. Schiavo is able to feel pain- she moans and grimaces when struck for various reflex tests- she also recognizes her family and smiles when they are around. If someone can feel pain it seems horrific to starve them to death.

Also, Terri has not received the treatment typically given in PVS cases. Some doctors who have examined her feel that physical therapy could dramatically improve her state. She'll never be the same, but perhaps she could regain some of the lost brain functions. Her husband has put her into a hospice that does not provide such care. In fact, a series of bed sores and other indications suggest that she might be facing neglect in the hospice. When there are indications that a person could get better, it seems cruel to simply end their life.

Finally, why wouldn't her husband simply divorce her and move on with his life? The answer lies in the fact that in the early 90s he was awarded a $750,000 malpractice settlement, with the money earmarked for her teatment. If he divorces her what is left of the money (as much as $450,000 of which has gone to legal fees in his fight against her parents) will go to her next of kin- her parents. However, if she dies he keeps the money. He claims that she said that she did not want to be kept alive with "artificial means." However, she is not on a respirator, only a feeding tube and there is no evidence that she claimed this other than Schiavo's testimony.

In the end, Terri Schiavo is being deprived of her life without due process. Her husband paid for a series of "expert witnesses" who will say anything for the right price or are well-known advocates of the "right to die" movement. The judge bought this testimony, despite a lack of scientific evidence, and now Terri Schiavo will begin starving to death over the course of the next several days. Something is wrong with a country that will let its most vulnerable citizens be put to death for no reason other than her husband wants to move on with a chunk of cash meant to treat her illness.

Republicans have taken the lead on this issue, but that is no reason not to start fighting for her as well. The Democratic Party is the party of the weak, the forgotten, the downtrodden and those who have faced grave injustice. We must stand up for Terri Schiavo if we want our party to mean anything in the future. Terri Schiavo must not die.

Andrew's Abortion Post

By Byron LaMasters

There are now 45 Comments on Andrew's post regarding his evolving views on the abortion issue. Several conservative/Republican blogs have picked up on Andrew's post leading hundreds of viewers to the post. Two female friends of mine have called me in the past day regarding their thoughts on Andrew's post on the issue. I hope that Andrew's post can serve as a starting point towards debate in the Democratic Party. I've said before that my position is unequivocal - I am 100% pro-choice and I believe that abortion is an issue not for me, but for the woman, her partner, her doctor and her God.

Having said that, I think that pro-life and pro-choice people ought to do more to work together to reduce abortion. I oppose anything that would punish woman for choosing abortion, but I think that steps should be made to encourage women with unwanted pregnancies to choose adoption (along with the obvious steps that should be taken to reduce unwanted pregnancies). I would like to see the Democratic Party be more serious about the belief that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare". Abortion is rarely an ideal solution, but I don't think that women should feel shame over making responsible reproductive decisions either.

I don't have much else to say on this, but this is a debate that needs further discussion. I would very much like to have a pro-choice woman's perspective on this debate, and if there is anyone out there who would like to contribute to this debate in the form of a guest post, please email me at: Byron AT BurntOrangeReport DOT com. Thanks =)

Gold Star

By Jim Dallas

Joe Lieberman voted against the bankruptcy-deform bill.

Good for him.

Kansas Yes, Colorado No

By Andrew Dobbs

So when should you kick out a chairman of a party? Dallas County is pondering that right now- though they can't really kick the Chair out- but this post (blessedly) isn't about that. I am not terribly familiar with the situation up there and I try my damndest to stay out of intraparty squabbles. This is a post about Colorado

While Chris Bell and Byron are right to suggest that we can learn from Kansas 2002, let's make sure we don't pay attention to Colorado 2005. Greg posted this bit of news from the Associated Press:

Chris Gates, at the helm of the Colorado Democratic Party when Democrats won a U.S. Senate seat and took control of the Legislature, has been voted out as chairman.

Democrats upset with the handling of Mike Miles' unsuccessful Senate campaign helped engineer the upset in Saturday's election by the Democratic State Central Committee. Gates said he will challenge his 187-184 loss to Pat Waak of Erie, who has called for more grassroots organizing and respect for candidates like Miles. (...)

Gates led Colorado Democrats last November, when then-Attorney General Ken Salazar, a moderate Democrat, defeated Republican beer executive Pete Coors for the open seat vacated by Republican Ben Nighthorse Campbell. That victory and the win in the 3rd Congressional District by Democrat John Salazar, Ken Salazar's brother, were hailed as among the few bright spots for the party that lost the presidency and lost ground in Congress.

Democrats also seized control of both chambers of the Colorado Legislature for the first time in about four decades. President Bush carried the GOP-leaning state, but his margin of victory narrowed slightly from 2000.

Those accomplishments left party insiders shocked by Gates' loss to Waak, who lost a bid for the 4th Congressional District seat in 2002. (...)

Miles, an El Paso County educator who opposed the Iraq war, said Gates urged donors not to give to his campaign after Salazar, who is more conservative, entered the race.

"He created a lot of obstacles," said Miles, who distributed a letter supporting Waak.

Gates said he didn't endorse Salazar but acknowledges that his apparent ouster as chairman "exposes a disagreement, a rift in the party that is very real."

Miles campaigned for two years and won top-line designation on the primary ballot after winning more votes at the state Democratic assembly. He garnered only about 27 percent of the vote in the primary.

His supporters, however, have maintained their loyalty and have met regularly since the primary election in August. Vicki Rottman of Denver said she and other supporters worked to elect Waak.

"People are ready for a change," Rottman said.

Wow. This is stunning. So the chairman was intelligent enough to realize that in a largely moderate/conservative state, the ultra-left wing loony who has never run for office before probably isn't as good of a chance to win as a moderate Democrat who has been elected statewide. And the supporters for the loony kicked him out of office, even after the Democrat (who, by the way, three-quarters of the party suppored in the end) was elected to the US Senate. Are they completely daft?

This is the problem with the leftward shift of our party in recent years. I'm all about progressivism, particularly on the state level. But 60% of something is better than 100% of nothing, and winning is the most important thing. We have too many people who think that the reason we lose is because we aren't left wing enough. We lose because we run boring, unintelligent, uninteresting candidates on one hand (Tony Sanchez) or psychotically out of touch left wingers on the other (Kerry, one could argue). We have to have candidates that fit the electorate's values, and we have to keep ourselves from eating our young.

Kansas is a great example of what is right. We ran a moderate Democrat when the Republican Party was split over social issues (read all about it in the better-than-expected What's The Matter With Kansas) and she won. We ran someone with some experience, intelligence and who represented mainstream values of her home state. Colorado is likely to turn out to be an example of what not to do- fight fights that you lost not once, but twice, and try and move the party away from the common ground in your state. Texas needs a Kathleen Sebelius or Ken Salazar, and I think we are headed that way right now.

Just my two cents. Oh, and in Dallas, I think that there are legitimate concerns from the activists and some legitimate arguments from the Chair. Still, the war is hurting our party and one side needs to back down. The activists aren't going anywhere it seems, particularly since this movement is firing them up right now. So I suspect that it would be a good idea for the Chair to resign. That way this energy can be translated into a grassroots movement to take back Dallas County in 2006 across the board. But that's beside the point and I could be completely wrong...

Now where would they get an idea like that?

By Jim Dallas

Indiana House Democrats disappear, breaking quorum.

P.S. Apparently, they haven't left the state, and the Indiana GOP did this before.

The GOP's Reframing Of The Debate

By Vince Leibowitz

I recieved an email today with a link to a Think Progressive that discusses conservative Political strategist Frank Luntz's 160-page "playbook" (download it here) which devotes a lot of discussion to reframing the debate on a myriad of issues.

Evidently, someone acquired a copy of the book and scanned it and made a PDF of it. It first surfaced on DailyKOS earlier this week, and was followed up with subsequent posts, both linking to Think Progressive's posts.

I haven't had the chance to read the entire thing yet, but I did find some interesting tidbits.

First, this little tidbit:

Taxation, Litigation, Innocation, Education. Remember those four words for they are at the core of your message, your policy and your response to the critics of corporate America. Here is the policy answer to the outsourcing challenge that offers a solution without selling out conservative free-market principles. The four words should be strung together, repeated often, with an adverb attached: too much taxation, too much litigation, not enough innovation, not enough education. That should be your mantra. Remember it. Fortunately, the four words rhyme, which means your audience will remember it as well.

God, I think I'm going to be sick.

I actually decided to Google the bolded phrase above and, in a Google news search, the State of the Union transcript actually came up first. Though Bush doesn't use all of that language or the exact same language, he follows the "adverb" rule:

Because of excessive litigation, everybody pays more for health care.

And, he used "innovation," but not exactly in the reccomended context:

In this century, the greatest environmental progress will come about not through endless lawsuits or command-and-control regulations, but through technology and innovation.

At any rate, the document, which is evidently entitled "The New American Lexicon," since that appears in the footers of several pages, covers just about everything a conservative should know when it comes to "reframing the debate." There are sections (which include "do"s and "don't"s to say) on ANWR, energy policy, tort reform (which should never be called that, according to the report), healthcare, Social Security privitization (which should be called "personalization" by Republicans, the report notes), the tax code and on and on and on.

There are even sample speeches in the document you can take, personalize, and deliver to the local Rotary Club!

While this is all very interesting, what I'd really like to get my hands on is a Texas version of a "playbook" like this, specifically the pages that deal with "tax relief" and "education reform." I'm sure some Texas consultant (probably Royal Massett) has written one. I'd also love to know the Texas GOP's "buzz words" they'll use when they have to justify leagalizing casino gambling as a means of funding education. Instead of saying "casino gambling" they'll probably say something like "speculative enterprise lyceums," or "recreational monetary venture facilities."

Note

By Jim Dallas

One thing I'm absolutely tired of is the perception that Democrats' "cultural problems" are issues which pertain specifically to the South, and modest changes will result in restored competitiveness throughout the entire South (as if it were a monolithic voting bloc!)

Look, about the only places in this great country where we might not be at risk of losing votes because of being identified with the cultural left are a few precincts in San Franscisco, New York, and Boston. This includes black precincts, white precincts, poor precincts, white precincts, holy-roller boxes and secular boxes. Just a small adjustment - a dozen votes in every precinct worth of adjustment - in message would have made the difference in Ohio, New Mexico, Nevada, and Iowa - and none of these states are in the South. And it was is those four states that John Kerry lost the presidency.

Yes, I think Mudcat Saunders has some good points; but I think the most apparent benefit of moderating on some cultural issues isn't that we'll start carrying Southern states. We won't: Southern conservatism runs a lot deeper than just "God, Gays, and Guns," and the assumption that we can win the South (outside of Florida, Virignia, and urban centers) just by appealing to economic populism is probably bunk.

The first sign we're doing something right will be that we'll be able to carry the rest of the country with substantial enough margins such that losing the South won't matter.

A more important concern than winning, though, is always the ultimate issue of morality. I very consciously used the term "risk" above because I think it accurately sums up my thinking: we take risks by standing up for what is right, but the risk itself doesn't justify inaction.

At any rate, "the South" is turning into a McGuffin: instead of thinking about maximizing our vote totals among those 12 or 13 voters per precinct that would have delivered us the White House; or even those places in the South which really are competitive now; we've fixated on an entire region of the country which is probably going to be rather hostile for the forseeable future. There's only so much good that "positioning" can do. In the end, the only effective way to return the South to the "D" column (on the national level) is community organization and shifting the entire national political discourse to the left, and not by treating this big amorphous monolithic South as just another special interest.

Kevin Drum has some thoughts here.

Also, read Ed Kilgore's take on this.

Yay! Gannon/Guckert/whatever is Back!

By Byron LaMasters

How cute. Gannon's website is back up ready to "battle the Left", while the Talon News website has taken a hiatus. Nothing like watching a few right-wingers give fuel to a story that would otherwise be dead or dying. Blogging Out Loud explains it in sexual terms, and of course, America Blog covers all the details.

Bet He Misses Stenholm Now...

By Andrew Dobbs

Saw this post on Kos today, about how Bush's Social Security package is starting to founder because of a complete unwillingness on the part of Democrats to back him up on the matter. Now, I have expressed an openness to the idea of Social Security choice in the past, and I still feel that way. But the opportunity to derail his administration like Republicans did to Clinton following his health care proposal is quite appealing.

The sad thing for Bush and those of us who would like to see a reformed Social Security system is that it needn't be this way. One of his top allies in the effort to change Social Security was Charlie Stenholm. A solid Democrat who was nonetheless a conservative, Stenholm could be counted on as someone who would work with both sides of the aisle. He was and is a good man and was a great congressman, but Tom DeLay targeted him and George W. Bush worked to defeat him, campaigning with his opponent even though Bush needed to campaign in the Panhandle like Kerry needed to campaign in Berkeley- he had no possible chance of losing there. Stenholm would have stood with Bush on Social Security reform and would have brought several other Democrats over with him. Now that Tom DeLay's lust for power has gotten rid of him, Bush might just be sunk.

The shortsightedness of this administration isn't just in its policy, but in its tactics. The desire for a single-party country with only a weak and meaningless opposition has rotted the soul of a party that used to boast men of vision and compassion. And with my party slowly selling its soul to the academic and European Left- a nihlistic group that sees America as the source of all the world's problems and sides with dictators over their own elected representatives- the GOP might just get their wish. America needs two strong parties that the people can trust, but this whole episode just goes to show that Bush has poisoned American politics in a way that we never could have foreseen.

Kelo v. New London Calling: Eminent Domain... F*** Yeah!

By Jim Dallas

There's nothing we love over here at Burnt Orange Report more than our rights to life, liberty, and property. Especially property. Especially if said property is the last bottle of beer in the cooler.

While I can't speak for my Burnt brethren, I've been following the Kelo case (1 | 2) with great interest, and not merely because it could potentially make everything I'm learning in Property about "public use" obsolete.

Oral arguments were yesterday, and the inimitable Dahlia Lithwick writes up the whole story in Slate. SCOTUSblog reports that the city of New London will probably win this one... big... and governments everywhere will have unbridled authority to turn your living room into a Wal-Mart.

But, thankfully, the American Prospect pitches an idea to use all of this awesome power for good instead of evil. At least until the administrating agency is captured by the pharmaceutical industry:

Unless the drug industry starts to negotiate significantly lower prices, it may find itself battling debt-strapped states for control over the manufacture of drugs. States already take land and other property in order to benefit the public by building things such as roads and schools. Now some legislators and officials are saying they should be able to take away a drug company’s intellectual property, its patent. They want to give these patents, which allow a company to manufacture a product, to competitors that agree to sell the drugs to the states at much lower prices.

Patents are the key to huge drug-company profits. The industry will fight vociferously to protect them. In West Virginia, where the issue came up last summer, industry lawyers warned a legislative advisory council away from proposing such action on patents, claiming it would be unconstitutional. With virtually unlimited resources, the drug companies could drag states through courts for years. Still, the specter of states compelling companies to license their patents to other firms terrifies the industry. And even the fight to do this would open the industry to further scrutiny on pricing policy. All of which, some officials hope, could make drug companies more willing to negotiate discounts.

I had this idea about a month ago, but I thought it was too crazy to even consider asking the Prof about (and after all, I'm supposed to be learning about real property, not intellectual property). Maybe my initial gut feeling was right -- it's so crazy, it might just work.

Remember, the number one top reason why drugs are so expensive is because the government aids and abets the monopolistic instincts of Big Pharma.

Goldilockboxes and the three bars

By Jim Dallas

Matt Yglesias:

Noam Scheiber observes that -- shockingly -- Charles Krauthammer's take on Social Security is shot-through with logical problems. On top of the problems in question, let's also note Krauthammer's commitment to the rightwing doctine of Currency Fictionalism:

Let's start with basics. The Social Security system has no trust fund. No lockbox. When you pay your payroll tax every year, the money is not converted into gold bars and shipped to some desert island, ready for retrieval when you turn 65.

By this standard, not only is my bond porfolio not real, my bank account isn't real, and, in fact, the cash in my pocket isn't real. The only "real" money, apparently, is stacks of gold bars. Now once upon a time, your U.S. currency was redeemable for gold bars and, thus, one might consider it real. Alternatively, perhaps U.S. currency in the gold standard days was a "mere I.O.U." Either way, we've been off the gold standard for some time now, and people would be alarmed to learn that this means their money is fake. Does the Post pay Krauthammer in dubloons? Do we need to revisit Krugman's "Goldbug Variations" from his good old days at Slate?

We know that Matt is a Harvard Man and a member of the coastal illuminati... etc., etc., but yes, Matt, you will. It was only four years ago, after all, that the Texas Republican Party endorsed abolishing the Federal Reserve and going back to the gold standard. You're going to have to explain this slowly and clearly, just so that reasonable people can understand just how insane that is. (The TxGOP has since moderated the language to "audits" of the Federal Reserve).

P.S. Gary Polland, who is a big whig and former county chair here in Houston, still adamantly supports returning the gold standard. Party like it's 1899!

Count Us In

By Jim Dallas

I think I speak for everyone here when I concur heartily with Kuff in endorsing the Count Every Vote Act.

(That said, we might not all agree in endorsing Senator Clinton in 2008; but this is now and that is then.)

Southern Strategy

By Vince Leibowitz

The New Orleans Times-Picayune has an interesting article regarding Democratic party strategy and the South.

In particular, the article focuses on the desire of some Democrats to "write off" much of the South entirely.

The article notes:

With Republicans having tightened their grip on the region in 2004, some Democrats openly advocate writing off the 11 states of the Old Confederacy as a lost cause. But others are busy hatching plans to regain a footing in a region the party dominated for much of the 20th century.

[...]

Hewing to the adage that success in life mostly involves just showing up, Dean believes that visibility in the South is the key. He said in his DNC acceptance speech that he plans to replicate the success of his own Internet-powered, grass-roots fund-raising efforts and will hardwire a network of activists throughout the South. He also said he plans to spend a lot more time below the Mason-Dixon line.

"People will vote for Democrats in Texas, in Utah, in West Virginia if we knock on their doors," Dean said. "I believe more people are aligned with the beliefs of the Democratic Party than they are with the beliefs of the Republican Party."

That's a curious conclusion to draw judging by the most recent presidential election. In 2004, President Bush expanded his margin of victory in every Southern state except North Carolina, the home state of Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards. According to one post-election analysis, Bush won 85 percent of all Southern counties and 90 percent of those that have white majorities.

I think Dean's right about alignment of beliefs, but the people don't know it. Clearly, since the South is ripe with poverty, unemployment, and with states generally regarded as being some of those usually considered "near the bottom," in areas like healthcare, education, and what not, the average voter should realize that his or her beliefs, wants and needs are most clearly aligned with or will most likely be met by the Democratic Party. However, the "3 Gs," (gays, guns, God--not necessarily in that order) tend to shift those people over to the R's column on election day. And, he's right about people voting Democrat "if we knock on their doors." During the last election cycle, heavily Republican Smith County had more than 3,000 new Democratic voters for president than in the previous cycle--likely thanks to serious "knock and drag," efforts by the Congressional campaign of Max Sandlin--which I believe clearly had a role in the number of "up ballot" Democratic votes cast.

As for Bush winning 85 percent of the Southern counties, those stats are a little skewed. I'm not sure how many counties Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Virginia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia, and the other Southern states have a piece, but Texas probably has at least one quarter--or perhaps more--of all the counties in the South within its borders. With this being the home state of Bush, it's no surprise that many of our counties went Bush. So, that "85 percent," stat is probably a little misleading. And, even in the President's home state, we had counties like Hays County which made tremendous gains and Rockwall County--a huge GOP stronghold which also made good gains in terms of numbers of new Democratic voters over 2000.

The article continues:

The news doesn't get any better for Democrats as they glance down the ballot. All five retiring Democratic senators from the South, including Louisiana's John Breaux, had their seats claimed by Republicans in 2004. And University of Maryland political scientist Thomas Schaller said even Democrats' once-solid grip on statehouses in the South has loosened. In state legislative races in the region last year, Democrats lost 36 House seats and 11 Senate seats, he said.

Schaller, a Democrat, said the party should fold its tent and abandon the South. That's essentially what Democratic nominee John Kerry did in the 2004 presidential contest, pulling campaign finances from every Southern state except Florida after Labor Day to boost his campaign operations in other parts of the country.

Though the "36 House seats and 11 State Senate seats," sounds pretty dire, Texas alone lost at least half that number of house seats in 2002, after redistricting. Plus, he's made no allowances for competitive races--like several we had in Texas but didn't result in Democratic victories. And, there is no mention that in the GOP stronghold of Texas, we actually gained more seats (one) in the House than we have in more than a decade. Schaller also doesn't evidently turn his eye to some statewide races in which Democrats were competitive (and perhaps more competitive than they were in recent years) even though they didn't win.

Too, in Texas, in races that could and should have been much closer like the Glaze/Hughes race in HD 5, where "independent voters" who would have voted for Bush but for downballot Dems like Sandlin, Nickerson or Hughes, we had the GOP sending out mailers coupling their GOP opponents with President Bush and intimating that if a voter was voting for Bush, they should also be voting for the other guys with their smiling faces right along his. If a marketing study were done on this, you'd better believe this does alter voting patterns.

As for "folding our tents and abandoning the South," that's a pretty dumb idea--and certainly not a way to regain control of statehouses, much less put Southern electoral votes in the Democratic column come November, 2008.

The entire reason the South is in the shape it is in is because the national party--though it didn't fold its tent, did evidently put up a big "out to lunch" sign, resulting in us being written off when it comes to national campaigns. Remember that national campaigns often generate the momentum necessary to win or make competitive down-ballot races. When Southern Democrats know that their vote in a Presidential election has no impact whatsoever, there is at least some desire among a select portion of the voting age populous not to bother to go to the polls at all. Too, keep in mind that (at least in my experience), most people who are going to vote for a Democrat for President in the South are going to vote a straight Democratic ticket.

More:

Schaller said the party should attempt to portray Republicans as the "Party of the South," in a negative sense. He would attempt to tar the GOP with the South's legacy of opposition to civil rights and remind voters elsewhere that some Southerners are still fighting over displaying the Confederate flag.

"Don't conservatives talk about Democrats as Northeastern liberals?" Schaller said.

Schaller said Democrats could make some inroads in the South if voting districts with black majorities were redrawn to make them more racially diverse. Some, he said, are 70 to 80 percent African-American, which virtually ensures minority representation from those areas in Congress but stifles black turnout for what are frequently uncontested races. With more than 90 percent of African-Americans voting for Democrats in many elections, Schaller said it takes a toll, albeit an indirect one, on Democrats running statewide.

I'm not sure how the "Party of the South" argument would really work, and I'm not sure it's worth a try, either. The good folks who go to the honky-tonk on Saturday and then sit in a Baptist church on Sunday morning are so easily brainwashed with "moral" issues (abortion, etc.) that we could do everything possible to point Republican hypocricies (and, by the way, using "the GOP voted against Civil Rights" as a "wedge issue" in the South is still about 15 years ahead of its time--the generation who wouldn't vote for Ron Kirk because he's black and Tony Sanchez because he was Latino is still alive) and still not come out ahead.

Until we're able to reframe the debate on abortion and the "Three G's," and discipline our candidates from the top down to deliver the party's message consistently in that regard, we could have some trouble. Reframing the debate--especially over abortion--is essential to our survival in the South. The debate has to shift from "baby killers" vs. "The Godly Saints of Christianity" to "government telling you what you can and cannot do with your own body" vs. "the people who think they know what's best for your uterus". And, this is where Democrats--especially in Texas and at all levels--fail miserably. Dozens of Democrat I've heard on the stump or in a debate have botched questions about this that they should have been able to answer better. Instead of answering with a "it is not the government's place to decide what's best for a woman, period," they go into long, drawn-out, spiels about "I'm a Christian and I don't believe in abortion but..." and end with either a "if we make them illegal we'll have people in back alleys with coat hangers" argument, or a "that's what the Supreme Court says we've got to do, and I'll uphold the law if I'm elected," type argument. Both are no-gos, period.

Too, far too many Democratic candidates want to get off the issue quickly and say something like, "What I want to focus on is all the kids without healthcare, etc.," while Republican candidates will use all of their alloted time talking about the evils of abortion. We look like we're running from a question where we should be standing our ground. It wouldn't hurt for us to point out that this isn't a "religious" issue, it's a constitutional issue.

Anyway, more from the TP:

The candidate doesn't have to come from the South, but in the words of North Carolina political consultant Mac McCorkle, "It sure helps."

McCorkle said Clinton was successful in the South--he captured five Southern states in his two campaigns--not simply because he hailed from Arkansas, but because he had his regional bona fides in order.

"He could sing 'Amazing Grace' without looking at the hymnal," McCorkle said. "The candidate has to look comfortable with the traditions and the culture of the South. If he does, people will give him room to maneuver even if he's not from there."

Makes sense, but I don't think that's all of it. I think message had more to do with it. And, inasmuch as I've become no fan of the DLC message of late (I guess I'm getting more liberal, if that's possible), I do think it was the message that put Clinton over the top. After all, though he may have been able to sing 100 hymns verse by vers sans a hymnal, Hillary, sadly, was no help to him here. She was bashed relentlessly, and not just for the infamous "cookies and tea" remark. And, likely as Teresa Heinz Kerry did to her husband, it cost Clinton votes. (Yes, no one likes to admit that a politician's spouse could cost him votes, but remember, sometimes voters do make up their minds based on strange things).

More from the article:

A key to Democratic acceptance, strategists say, is not alienating Southerners on social issues. At a conference in Atlanta in 2003 called "God, Guns and Guts," the Democratic Leadership Council counseled Democrats to embrace what it called "values centrism."

Will Marshall, president of the Leadership Council's think tank, said Republicans have been successful at framing issues such as gun control, abortion and affirmative action in a way that puts Democrats on the defensive. He said Democrats shouldn't avoid those issues, but rather change the terms of debate.

[HEY! I just said that!]

Democrats should acknowledge a constitutional right to bear arms, he said, but emphasize the need for responsibility in owning guns and the need for better enforcement of gun laws. And whatever you do, he said, don't be snooty.

What the hell is "values centrism?" Sounds like an herbal supplement you get at 7-11. Seriously, though, while some of that is perhaps appropriate (if we look at the country as a whole, the majority do fall in the "middle," and not necessarily on the far left or (we hope to God) on the far right. We've also done exactly what he said about guns. Clinton did it. It's already been done, and proven to work.

But, do we go so far as selling out everything our party stands for to be adopt an attitude of "values centrism?" I think not. The Republican Party is a prime example of why such selling-out is a bad, bad idea. A lot of rank-and-file, non-radical-right-wing Republicans I talk to recall a time a few decades ago when their party focused on things like budgets and stuff, and not the fire-and-brimstone, Pat Robertson-esque garbage they're focusing on now. Why did they change? Because they knew playing on religious values would get them more voters.

Should we change because we know it's going to get us more votes?

The jury's still out on that one. Do we sacrifice to be able to serve, and ultimately do more good in the long run? I mean, Clinton ran on the DLC platform, and still did more good (and promoted liberal ideas after getting in office) than Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, and perhaps even Carter combined. After all, a lot of Democrats in Texas already do this by necessity. You run to the right of the middle and go to Austin or DC and come back with a voting record that gets you hammered come November because, by God, you voted your consience, your party and what's really best for the people you represent.

Vince Leibowitz is County Chairman of the Democratic Party of Van Zandt County.

That Jeff Gannon thing...

By Byron LaMasters

I finally decided that I should at least make a mention of the story that has taken the lefty blogosphere by storm this past week. For those that haven’t followed the story, here’s the Cliff’s Notes version. Jeff Gannon, the "White House Correspondent" for the right-wing news website Talon News asked President Bush a loaded softball question at his press conference last month (... how can you reach out to Senate Democrats when they have divorced themselves from reality?). The question prompted Democratic bloggers to investigate as to who exactly is Jeff Gannon, and what the heck is Talon News?

Well, it turns out the Jeff Gannon’s real name was James Dale Guckert, Gannon is gay, owned the website hotmilitarystud.com among others, had profiles at several gay escort sites including an active one, and had dozens of nude pictures of himself taken for those profiles (details here). Also read the Washington Post story for an overview of the matter.

Among articles written by Gannon include an October 2004 article entitled; "Kerry could become first gay president" – designed to demonstrate John Kerry’s pro-GLBT record in a highly unflattering manner to the conservative readers of Talon News.

To me, there are two key issues at stake here...

First, is of the hypocrisy of Jeff Gannon / James Guckert. It’s utterly disgusting that a closeted gay man (gay escort at that) used anti-gay scare tactics to advocate for the election of President Bush. I have mixed feelings about public outings of closeted gay people, and of delving into the personal lives of public figures in general. Gay public officials and opinion leaders who choose to remain closeted, but who do not take anti-gay positions, or use anti-gay scare tactics should have their privacy respected. However, complete hypocrites like Jeff Gannon should and ought to be exposed for what they are – Uncle Tom’s and whores.

Second, and much more critically is the issue of how Jeff Gannon got access to the White House and to the president. On one level, I disagree to an extent with many others who have written on the topic. The fact that Gannon worked for a right-wing website, or wasn’t a true "reporter" doesn’t bother me too much on the surface. The media is evolving, and non-traditional sources of media are on the rise. I would one day like to see a media culture where the leaders of the blogosphere – both left and right – such as DailyKos, Atrios, PowerLineBlog and Instapundit would have the opportunity to ask questions of the president. The key issues should be balance, creditability and transparency. There should be relative ideological balance among people able to participate in presidential press conferences, those people should have creditability among their peers, and there should be full transparency to the public of who has access to the president. Unfortunately, there's much more to the story.

Not only did Jeff Gannon use a pseudonym, but he received press credentials before becoming a reporter for Talon News. This is where the Bush administration must be held accountable. Does a reporter using a pseudonym approach the level of creditability expected of reporters that cover the president? What security measures and background checks were in place? How did a man not affiliated with ANY news organization receive access to the president and the president’s spokesman? Were Jeff Gannon and Talon News involved with the leaking of the identity of Valerie Plame? Was there any relationship between the White House and Jeff Gannon – financial or otherwise? With the recent revelations that the Bush administration paid reporters to promote their agenda, it is certainly reasonable to conclude that there might have been some sort of arrangement between the White House and Jeff Gannon. Democrats in Congress and the mainstream media must demand answers to these questions.

From the Department of "Revenue Enhancement"

By Jim Dallas

President Bush, State of the Union address, two weeks ago:

We must not jeopardize our economic strength by increasing payroll taxes

Bush today (as reported by the AP):

Bush, meanwhile, said he has not ruled out raising taxes on those who earn more than $90,000 a year to help bolster Social Security's finances. Under the current system, payroll taxes are paid only on the first $90,000 in wages.

Actually, this is not a truly awfuk policy flip-flop, but it perplexes me; if the solution is to tax the rich, then why not, you know, tax the rich? The current general revenue budget deficit... which could be laregely closed by repealing the President's tax cuts for the top one percent... is probably the single biggest threat to Social Security's long-term future right now.

Liberals Need to Condemn Lynne Stewart

By Andrew Dobbs

Yesterday I got an email from a reader talking about one subject or another that I can no longer remember. I can't remember what it was because of something in the email itself- an image that said "Support Lynne Stewart." I knew that I couldn't take anything this person said seriously at that point.

For those of you not familiar with Lynne Stewart, this is a good non-ideological starting point. In short, she is an old school radical- communist, still talks nice about Stalin and Mao, etc.- and was an activist attorney for years. Her highest profile client was Sheik Omar Abdel Rachman, also known as the "Blind Sheik" and the mastermind behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombings as well as an attempt to blow up the UN building, an FBI building, 2 tunnels and a bridge in New York City. A high profile Egyptian terrorist, Rachman's organization the Islamic Group killed 62 tourists, many American, in Luxor, Egypt in 1997. In short- he's a really bad dude who wants to kill a lot of Americans.

Stewart was his attorney, which is fine. He was given the right to representation (though as a non-citizen he really isn't entitled to such a thing) and it is Stewart's job to make the state prove their case. Unfortunately, Stewart decided to do one better and to break the legal agreement she entered when becoming the terrorist mastermind's attorney and started secretly passing messages from the Sheik to his terrorist group in Egypt. One of these orders was to end the ceasefire they had declared towards the Egyptian government, meaning that she transmitted a call to war to terrorists. She also had her translator send messages from Rachman's group to the Sheik and praised groups that were perpetuating terror in the name of seeking the Sheik's release. In short, she supported, promoted and facilitated terrorism against the United States and its allies by a bunch of religious fanatic fascists.

Stewart was indicted on several charges of supporting terrorism and after taking the stand and calling for the violent overthrow of the American government during a trial that made it very clear that she was quite guilty, she was speedily convicted of the crimes. That's the good news.

The bad news is that now a bunch of far Left groups- the type that thought that 9/11 was something we deserved, that opposed the campaign in Afghanistan, you know the type- have started calling for her release and have actually tried to explain away or praise her work. One of those people appears to be the person who emailed me yesterday. Some Republicans are trying to stain our entire party with the inanities of a few people who typically don't support us anyways (because we are part of the corporate/capitalist/imperialist/blah blah blah system) by saying that we are the party of Lynne Stewart. Most notably the new NY State GOP Chair claimed this and has since been repudiated by several Democrats as well as the Republican governor of that state. In the end, they might succeed in making us out to be a terrorist sponsoring party if we don't speak up.

The answer? Liberals need to speak out against Lynne Stewart, in support of her conviction and against the GOP slanderers who would associate a woman as far to the Left of our party as neo Nazis are to the right of the GOP with the Democratic Party. Anyone- Left, Right or otherwise- who seeks to kill innocents to promote their worldview is evil and ought to be condemned, and anyone who facilitates that and supports that ought to be called out and taken to task for this crime. Lynne Stewart is a wacky woman to begin with and when you throw in support for terrorism we must speak out.

I'm proud to see the mainstream of our party standing with the mainstream of our country in condemning this woman and her actions. This isn't attorney client privelege- that exists to ensure that an attorney can effectively and confidently represent his or her client. This is an attorney abusing that sacred right in order to promote her criminal client's illegal activities. No different from a mob lawyer ordering hits from a jailed client, and the punishment should be at least as severe.

Please join with me in supporting Stewart's recent conviction and in condemning her criminal activities. Unless the Democratic Party is recognized for what it is- the only mainstream party left in this country- we will continue to lose.

Why Is No One Raising Hell About The Bush Budget?

By Vince Leibowitz

[This post has been updated. Click on "read more" link for updates.]

On Friday, the White House released a 233-page document detailing the impact of President Bush's budget cuts.

They released the list on Friday just in time for it to get lost in the weekend news cycles. Of course, the administration didn't really want to release the details of the cuts until someone asked, via Reuters:

The White House provided the list in response to a request from House of Representatives Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, an Iowa Republican.

The Bush budget cut $420 million in grants, training and other assistance programs that the Homeland Security Department issues for state and local governments.

[...]

Another $146 million would be cut from job training grants to states and local governments under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998. Bush has long argued the need for job training programs to meet the needs of a changing economy.

The OMB said the Workforce Investment Act needs comprehensive reforms because currently "governors have too little control and flexibility, and programs do not train workers for jobs in high-growth industries.

Bush would cut $145 million in funding for the Army Corps of Engineers, a civil construction program long cited by critics as a prime source of congressional pork.

The OMB said the Corps currently has a $50 billion backlog of authorized construction work.

A $497 million cut was made in federal assistance to the nation's airports for repairing runways and other facilities. The administration also said airports could make up some of the money through passenger fees.

Also in the budget was a $39 million cut in funds for taxpayer assistance, which the White House said could be absorbed because of increased efficiency.

A number of education programs were slated to get no funding at all in 2006, including the Even Start family literacy program and the Perkins loan program that gives money to colleges and universities to make low-interest loans available to needy students.

A program to help communities hire more police officers would be abolished under the budget as would a program that provides block grants to help improve the juvenile justice system.

According to the report itself (which is actually on the OMB Website, with--not surprisingly--no link from the press area of the White House Site) notes:

Terminations of Discretionary Programs in 2006 99 programs terminated in the 2006 Budget 59 of those terminations have been proposed in previous years $8.8 billion savings over 2005 Enacted

Major Program Reductions in 2006
55 programs have major reductions in the 2006 Budget
27 of those reductions have been proposed in previous years
$6.5 billion savings over 2005 Enacted

Major Reform Proposals
16 programs have major reform proposals
$4.7 billion savings in 2006 over 2005 Enacted
$2.9 billion in costs in 2006 over 2005 Enacted

Some of the actual cuts in the proposal are just downright stupid.

For example, the program plans to eleminate the Safe and Drug Free Schools State Grants Program. Instead, the administration proposes increasing funding for the National SDFS program, claiming this will "support projects with measurable outcomes and strong accountability mechanisms to help ensure that Federal funding in the area produces positive results."

The budget also eleminates HSRA Emergency Medical Services for Children grants, which sends money to states to help improve EMS care for kids.

Evidently, though, Bush decided our children ain't healing right or something, because he slashed the program:

The 2006 Budget proposes no funding for Emergency Medical Services for Children (EMSC)program at the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). The EMSC program has not demonstrated that its activities have led to improvements in the health outcomes of children and adolescents who have required emergency medical care. The objectives of this program can be achieved by States through programs funded by the much larger ($724 million in 2006) Maternal and Child Health Block Grant.

I'm sure emergency room physicians and pediatric ER nurses everywhere would disagree.

And, of course, it wouldn't be a Republican budget without trying to screw the poor out of housing. Bush slashed the HUD program Revitilization of Seriously Distressed Public Housing, claiming it had exceeded its goals and was too slow:

The 2006 Budget proposes to terminate the HOPE VI program. The

program has surpassed its primary goal to demolish 100,000 severely distressed public housing units by 2003. While the
program has achieved success in removing dangerous public housing, the 2005 PART analysis showed the program to be slow at completing construction and more costly than other programs that serve the same population. The Budget proposes to cancel 2005 funding for this program (and requests no further funding in 2006) and to redirect the dollars to more cost-effective alternatives such as Section 8 Tenant-based Rental Assistance.

I guess, since 1992 and 2005, no existing public housing structures have become "dangerous." That's nice to know. As for putting that money in Section 8, I've always thought Section 8 was a much more expensive option for housing the poor than actual public housing or subsidized apartment complexes. Guess I'm wrong again.

One cut in particular that really burns me up (no pun intended) is cuts to the Rural Fire Assistance program. I live in a rural area served by a rural VFD, as does everyone in Van Zandt County. Even the city volunteer departments are classified as such.

But, Bush says:

The 2006 Budget proposes to terminate the Rural Fire Assistance program. The program is duplicative of other fire assistance grant programs. The items and activities funded by these grants could be funded with existing Department of Homeland Security and Forest Service grant funding. Instead, the Department of the Interior will focus more of its fire preparedness resources on training and certification of local firefighters so that they are qualified to assist with fires on Federal lands.

The White House claims this program is duplicative because the Department of Homeland Security also has a similar program. If anyone in the Bush administration bothered to wander into a rural firehouse in the past decade, they wouldn't be cutting this program. Rural firefighters put their lives on the line just like paid big city firefighters do--with less equipment, old trucks, and the best training they can get/afford.

And, Bush wants to cut Community Oriented Policing (COPS) grant funding, a Clinton administration program to put 100,000 new police officers on the street, saying it's served its purpose (118,000 officers):

The 2006 Budget proposes to terminate the COPS Hiring Grant program as have previous Administration budgets. The program has accomplished its goals. The lack of demonstrated results as well as a crime rate at an historic low call into question continued funding for the program. The Budget proposes to cancel funding for this program and to redirect the dollars to other higher priority programs.

What a load! Community policing is not a high priority program for this administration? Again, come to a town or county that has benefitted from these programs, Mr. President. Furthermore, given the fact that 9/11 has happened and his administration has previously said all local police agencies share in the homeland security burden, is it really wise to cut this program? This program is a drop in the budgetary bucket.

The budget also cut a Department of Labor program, Reintegration of Youthful Offenders, which helped offenders under 35 get job training. It replaces the permanent program with a four-year program.

What is so dumb about this cut is that in the very document explaining the reason why the program is cut...

The 2006 Budget proposes to terminate earmarked funding for the Reintegration of Youthful Offenders program, and better serve this population through the President’s Prisoner Re-entry Initiative. Proposed in the 2004 State of the Union address and the 2005 Budget, this four-year initiative will offer a range of job training, housing, and mentoring services and harness the experience of faith-based and community organizations. The 2006 Budget includes $75 million in new funding for the President’s Prisoner Re-entry Initiative to address the problems faced by ex-offenders in a more effective way, through services provided by the Departments of Labor, Housing and Urban Development, and Justice.

...it expounds on the very need for such a program:

More than 600,000 offenders are released from prisons each year and face multiple barriers upon their return to society, including inadequate job skills and housing. Approximately two-thirds of prisoners are re-arrested within three years of their release, and half return to prison during that same period.

Perhaps they wouldn't return to prison if they had adequate job skills and housing? Duh!

These are just a few of the program eleminations. I could go on for hours about the rest of the eleminations--not to mention the cuts.

I know the privitization of Social Security is taking up a lot of media attention, but I think this is deserving of some, too.

I've noticed mentions in magazines, editorials, and on blogs of late that Bush is trying to eleminate all of the good things of Roosvelt's New Deal and Johnson's Great Society.

For those of you among us who also remember the 1990s and the Clinton Administration, Clinton fought for the enaction of a number of important programs like COPS. Granted, they may not have been as groundbreaking as New Deal or Great Society programs, but they are just as important to the welfare of our country.

Essentially, the Bush administration is attempting a wholesale slaughter of major programs enacted by during three of the most domestic-policy progressive Democratic administrations in American history.

And what are we going to do about this?

Of course, we can't expect our Governor or either of our U.S. Senators to raise hell about this. They're all Bush Republicans. But, I'd think at least a few State Senators and State Reps--especially those in communities which benefitted from the very programs Bush is trying to cut--would have something to say about this. Hopefully, over the course of the next few weeks, they will.

Update: Via AP, here is a comprehensive list of budget cuts:

TERMINATED:

- Agriculture Department

AMS Biotechnology Program

Forest Service Economic Action Program

High Cost Energy Grants

NRCS Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations

Research and Extension Grant Earmarks and Low Priority Programs

- Commerce Department

Advanced Technology Program

Emergency Steel Guarantee Loan Program

Public Telecommunications Facilities, Planning and Construction Program

- Education Department

Comprehensive School Reform

Educational Technology State Grants

Even Start

(High School Program Terminations:)

Vocational Education State Grants

Vocational Education National Activities

Tech Prep State Grants

Upward Bound

Talent Search

GEAR UP

Smaller Learning Communities

Perkins Loans: Capital Contributions and Loan Cancellations

Regional Education Laboratories

Safe and Drug Free Schools State Grants

(Small Elementary and Secondary Education Programs:)

Javits Gifted and Talented Education

National Writing Project

School Leadership

Dropout Prevention Program

Close Up Fellowships

Ready to Teach

Parental Information and Resource Centers

Alcohol Abuse Reduction

Foundations for Learning

Mental Health Integration in Schools

Community Technology Centers

Exchanges with Historic Whaling and Trading Partners

Foreign Language Assistance

Excellence in Economic Education

Arts in Education

Women's Educational Equity

Elementary and Secondary School Counseling

Civic Education

Star Schools

(Smaller Higher Education Programs:)

Higher Education Demos for Students w/Disabilities

Underground Railroad Program

Interest Subsidy Grants

(Small Job Training and Adult Education Programs:)

Occupational and Employment Information

Tech-prep Demonstration

Literacy Programs for Prisoners

State Grants for Incarcerated Youth

(Small Postsecondary Student Financial Assistance Programs:)

LEAP

Byrd Scholarships

B.J. Stupak Olympic Scholarships

Thurgood Marshall Legal Opportunity

(Small Vocational Rehabilitation Programs:)

Vocational Rehabilitation Recreational Programs

Vocational Rehab (VR) Migrant and Seasonal Workers

Projects with Industry

Supported Employment

Teacher Quality Enhancement Program

- Energy Department

Hydropower Program

Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization

Nuclear Energy Research Initiative

Oil and Gas Programs

- Health and Human Services Department

ACF Community Service Programs

ACF Early Learning Opportunities Fund

CDC Congressional Earmarks

CDC Preventive Health and Health Services Block Grant

CDC Youth Media Campaign

Direct Service Worker Delivery Grants

HRSA Emergency Medical Services for Children

HRSA Health Facilities Construction Congressional Earmarks

HRSA Healthy Community Access Program

HRSA State Planning Grant Program

HRSA Trauma Care

HRSA Traumatic Brain Injury

HRSA Universal Newborn Hearing Screening

Real Choice Systems Change Grants

- Housing and Urban Development Department

HOPE VI

- Interior Department

BLM Jobs-in-the-Woods Program

LWCF State Recreation Grants (NPS)

National Park Service Statutory Aid

Rural Fire Assistance (BLM, NPS, FWS, BIA)

- Justice Department

Byrne Discretionary Grants

Byrne Justice Assistance Grants

COPS Hiring Grants

COPS Interoperable Communications Technology Grants

COPS Law Enforcement Technology Grants

Juvenile Accountability Block Grants

National Drug Intelligence Center

Other State/Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program Terminations

State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP)

- Labor Department

Migrant and Seasonal Farm Worker Training Program

Reintegration of Youthful Offenders

- Transportation Department

National Defense Tank Vessel Construction Program

Railroad Rehabilitation Infrastructure Financing Loan Program

- Enviromental Protection Agency

Unrequested Projects

Water Quality Cooperative Agreements

- National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Hubble Space Telescope Robotic Servicing Mission

- Other Agencies

National Veterans Business Development Corporation

Postal Service: Revenue Forgone Appropriation

SBA: Microloan Program

SBA: Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) Participating Securities Program
MAJOR REDUCTIONS:

- Agriculture Department

Federal (In-House) Research

Forest Service Capital Improve and Maintenance

Forest Service Wildland Fire Management (incl. supp. and emergency funding)

Biomass Research and Development

Broadband

CCC - Bioenergy

CCC - Market Access Program

Farm Bill Programs (EQIP

Farm Bill Programs (CSP)

Farm Bill Programs (WHIP)

Farm Bill Program (Farm and Ranchland Protection)

Farm Bill Programs (Ag. Management Assistance)

IFAS

Renewable Energy

Rural Firefighter Grants

Rural Strategic Investment Program

Rural Business Investment Program

Value-added Grants

Watershed Rehabilitation

NRCS Conservation Operations

NRCS Resource Conservation and Development Program

Water and Wastewater Grants and Loans

- Commerce Department

Manufacturing Extension Partnership

- Education Department

Adult Education State Grants

State Grants for Innovation

- Energy Department

Environmental Management

- Health and Human Services Department

HRSA Children's Hospitals GME Payment Program

HRSA Health Professions

HRSA Rural Health

SAMHSA Programs of Regional and National Significance

State, Local & Hospital Bioterrorism Preparedness Grants

- Housing and Urban Development Department

Housing for Persons with Disabilities

Native American Housing Block Grant

Public Housing Capital Fund

- Interior Department

Bureau of Indian Affairs School Construction

National Heritage Area Grants

Payments in Lieu of Taxes

USGS, Mineral Resources Program

- Justice Department

Federal Bureau of Prisons Construction Program

High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program

Juvenile Justice Law Enforcement Assistance Programs

- Labor Department

International Labor Affairs Bureau

Office of Disability Employment Policy

Workforce Investment Act Pilots and Demonstrations

- State Department

Assistance for the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union

- Transportation Department

FAA - Facilities and Equipment

FAA - Airport Improvement Program (Oblim)

FRA - Next Generation High Speed Rail

- Treasury Department

Internal Revenue Service - Taxpayer Service

- Environmental Protection Agency

Alaska Native Villages

Clean Water State Revolving Fund

- National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Aeronautics: Vehicle Systems Program

Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter

- Other Agencies

Archives: National Historical Publications & Records Commission

U.S. Institute of Peace, Construction of New Building
MAJOR REFORMS

Agriculture: Rural Telephone Bank

Commerce: Economic and Community Development Programs

Homeland Security: State and Local Homeland Security Grants

Homeland Security: Transportation Security Administration, Recover Aviation Security Screening Costs Through Fees

Labor: Job Training Reform, Consolidate Grants Program

Transportation: Amtrak

Army Corps of Engineers (Civil Works): Performance Guidelines for Funding Construction Projects

U.S. Agency for International Development and Department of Agriculture: International Food Aid

Vince Leibowitz is County Chairman of the Democratic Party of Van Zandt County.

Now I'm Excited

By Vince Leibowitz

I must admit, I was among the skeptics who didn't really think it would make a difference who ended up as Chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

And, though Howard Dean still has a lot to prove, as a county chairman, I was very excited to read about Howard Dean's Plan for the DNC.

If you are a Democrat and don't get at least a little excited reading this, you may need to check your pulse:

1. Show up! Democrats should never concede a single state, a single district, or a single voter to the Republicans. We must be active and compete in all 50 states and work with the state parties to build a true national party.

2. The success of the national party depends directly on the success of the state parties — we must better integrate our operations by:

* Having the DNC pay the salary of each state party executive director to help ensure that the state parties have adequate funds.
* Collectively building and sharing supporter lists between the national and state parties.
* Recruiting, training, and encouraging candidates to run for office at every level — building tomorrow's farm team from the ground up.
* Actively grow local Democratic committees and communities by working with neighborhood activists who can reach out in their communities and enable the grassroots to support state and local candidates.
* Maintaining a permanent campaign in every state. We need to establish an ongoing, active presence, which does not have to be recreated every four years for four months.

3. Set core principles that define the Democratic Party and what we stand for and take a bottom-up approach to the development of the Party's message;

4. Use cutting-edge Internet and other technologies to fundraise, organize, and communicate with our supporters;

5. Strengthen our political institutions and leadership institutes to promote our leaders and our ideas — these organizations must work together in a coordinated and integrated fashion to elect Democrats at every level, so that we can take this country back.

I am particularly interested in this one:

Collectively building and sharing supporter lists between the national and state parties.

Does this mean that the Texas Democratic Party can now get the fund-raising list from the DNC they used to raise something like $19 million dollars (may be wrong about that figure) from Texas?

If so, this would represent a major shift in DNC policy going back at least two decades. If I were Charles Soechting, I'd call the DNC Monday morning and ask for a copy of that list.

Also, I wonder if this means that county parties can get the list of DNC contributors in their counties? Just for the fun of it, I think I'll call the DNC Monday morning and ask for this list.

I am slightly confused as to why Dean didn't specifically include any language mentioning county parties, the true backbone of the Party. He mentioned "community activists," and maybe it all means the same thing.

Also, just thinking out loud here, since Dean is now the DNC Chairman, does this mean he would headline a major fund-raiser like, for free? I'll ask when I call Monday. It'd be great if East Texas Democrats could have a huge multi-county fund-raiser in a place like Tyler and split the proceeds.

I may have to whip out the old Rolodex and get with some of my East Texas contacts to see if they'd like to do something like that--Dean or no Dean. In fact, the more I think about it, the cooler the idea sounds.

I'd better stop this post because I'm already thinking about locations and designing logos in my head. Damn you, Howard Dean for getting me even more excited about being a Democrat!

Dean New Chairman, DNC Wants Blogger Support

By Vince Leibowitz

I guess all the regular contributors are taking a much-needed rest, digging through capitol waste baskets for their next scoops, or just otherwise occupied. (Perhaps they are at the DNC meeting?)

So, since it's Saturday and I obviously don't have anything else to do until later, I'll pick up a little slack by announcing:

Howard Dean is the new Chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

I'll comment no more on this except to say I eagerly await the fulfilment of his campaign promises.

But, I do think it is cool that the DNC is now actively soliciting support from Bloggers, via this link. I guess if every blogger who supported Dean's presidential run were to contribute, the DNC would make a pretty penny today.

While you can give to the DNC if you want, I'll instead encourage everyone to help out here in the home state first, by giving to Take Back Texas or the Texas Democratic Party.

Or, visit your local party's website. Most county parties in Texas now have a links where they can accept contributions on line, too.

Why not celebrate a day on which grassroots activism has taken the center stage by giving at the local level?

I'm quite confident that Byron, Andrew, Karl-T or Jim will post a far suprior post to one I could write on Dean and his new position, so I'll be eagerly awaiting that.

I would, however, like to know the vote breakdown. Perhaps one of those guys will have that information.

A Tale of Two Connecticut Yankees

By Jim Dallas

The Senior Senator.

The Junior Senator.

Liberty for Some

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

It's one of the most concise posts I've seen over at dKos and it sets up a really good contrast when talking about "Liberty".

How does Bush square this:

Two weeks ago, I stood on the steps of this Capitol and renewed the commitment of our Nation to the guiding ideal of liberty for all. This evening I will set forth policies to advance that ideal at home and around the world.

To this?

Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be re-defined by activist judges. For the good of families, children, and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage.

"Liberty for all". Unless you're gay.

SOTU Liveblogging

By Byron LaMasters

Nate liveblogged it over at his blog, Common Sense. Liveblogging.org has a full list of other bloggers that liveblogged the speech. I frankly didn't give a shit about what Bush had to say, so I found other ways to entertain myself tonight. I'll catch the details on the Daily Show.

Update: The Red State also Liveblogged the speech.

Ideology, Schmideology

By Andrew Dobbs

Today Howard Dean sewed up his election for chairman of the Democratic National Committee, and frankly I'm disappointed. Two years ago it would have been among the happiest days of my life, but now I can't say that. And I have a good idea why. My old arguments to my quite Left wing friends in support of the admittedly more-moderate-than-he-looks Dean was "it isn't the man- it's the message and the movement." In other words, it isn't important who the candidate is, it is important the message he is spreading (make the Democratic Party more Leftist) and the movement of people he has attracted.

Now that argument has turned on its head, or perhaps I have turned on mine. His message is mistaken and his movement is destructive, and I think that there is a good chance Democrats will suffer as a result. I am not giving up hope yet, but without some signs in the right direction soon, I'll have no other choice.

His message is my primary problem. It seems that Dean and his college of sycophants believe that the reason Republicans win is because they are wholly, universally and unwaveringly committed to a far-Right philosophy and Democrats aren't similarly committed to a Left wing alternative. This is the source of Deaniac bellyaching about Frost's Bush-friendly commercials, their constant mouthing of Paul Wellstone's "Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party" quip, the origin of their hostility to "DINOs" of all varieties. His supporters wish to play amateur political consultants, and they are very bad at it.

They are bad at it because they are completely wrong. They are incredibly wrong about the GOP. The GOP is the master of adapting their message to the place where they are running with enough in common everywhere for national candidates to rally around. In the Mountain West they run Barry Goldwater libertarian-conservative types- not terribly interested in social issues, more interested in a hands-off approach. In the South they tend to run religious right types. in the Northeast they run moderate to liberal Republicans. They pick their battles and shift their message accordingly.

In places with strong Unions they run labor-friendly Republicans (Rudy Giuliani), and in places with weak unions they run labor-not-so-friendly Republicans (Dick Armey). In places with mostly pro-choice people, they run mostly pro-choice candidates (Mitt Romney), and in places with mostly anti-choice people they run mostly anti-choice candidates (Roy Moore). In places with a lot of environmentally friendly people, they run environment friendly candidates (Chris Shays, Christine Todd Whitman), and in places where people don't like hippie tree-huggers they run people who hate the Earth (Tom DeLay). In places where people are cool with gays, they run candidates cool with gays (Arnold Schwarzenegger) and in places with people who aren't into gays, they run gay bashing candidates (Bob Dornan, for example). In other words, they are flexible.

Furthermore, they have some serious ideological strain in their own party- much like ours. Business conservatives and social conservatives don't tend to get along. Business conservatives want cheap labor, so they like the status quo with immigration, social conservatives don't like immigrants so they don't like the status quo. It is a brewing battle that might just blow up in their face in the next 4 years. Social conservatives don't like vice, while virtually every big vice- booze, cigarrettes, gambling, corporate porn- has an even bigger lobby that gives lots of money to the GOP. That is a source of strain here in Texas. So the GOP is hardly the picture of ideological rigor that the Deaniacs fancy it as.

The issue isn't ideology- Democrats need not move to the Left (as the soon to be crowned King Howard III would say), nor to the Right (as the disgraced Duke Tim would argue). The issue is organization, structure and money- three things Dean has little to no valuable experience in and which my guy, Frost, had in spades. The GOP has a strong state organization in EVERY SINGLE STATE. Don't believe me? Name a state with a weak GOP. Illinois? Short term hiccups because of some personality problems. Massachusetts? They have a GOP governor. California? Ditto. In fact, there is only one state- New Jersey- without at least one Republican elected statewide. There are several, including Texas, that don't have any Democrats. The Republicans have a great national organization, Democrats don't and that is the problem, not that we are too liberal or too conservative.

If ideology were our problem, Dean would be perfect for the job. With a distressingly large army of nihlistic Bush-hating Leftists he could push our party to the Left better than almost anyone. But as it stands, his record is not good at handling our real problems- resources, organization and strategy.

In his presidential campaign Dean burned through $40 million bucks like Paris Hilton tears through overpriced god-awful skanky couture. In fact, we might want to see if that is where the cash went, because god knows it didn't go to winning votes- he could only eek out a win in a state he had been elected to statewide office in 7 times. $40 million bucks and nothing to show for it- even the Cowboys can do better than that (well, actually...).

In that same bid he managed to get more volunteers and more organization than any other campaign in Iowa by several orders of magnitude. Yet in the comparably simple task of winning Iowa (as opposed to the 49 other states and District of Columbia), he couldn't close the deal. He had more money, more people and better support from more important figures (Tom Harkin, Al Gore, AFSCME and SEIU etc.) than anyone else and he came in a rather distant 3rd. If he can't use an unprecedented and unparalleled organization to convince a plurality of 100,000 committed Democrats to rally around his cause, what makes us think he can get a majority of 100,000,000 mostly hostile people to do the same?

And in terms of strategy, his campaign was very good at this from time to time. Unfortunately it had nothing to do with Dean. Before Joe Trippi, Howard Dean was an anonymous candidate with no money, little organization and a Kucinich of a chance of winning. After Trippi came on, the emails started rolling in, the cash was flowing and his name was on everyone's lips. Save for peaking too soon things might have worked out differntly. But Dean is obviously not the genius, Joe Trippi is. And Trippi endorsed the now former-candidate Simon Rosenberg.

Furthermore, when Dean decided to keep his campaign list annoyed (or enraptured, as the true believer caucus seems to have done) and form Democracy for America, his candidate selection process was nothing if not senseless. David Van Os got his support- who had absolutely no chance of winning. But so did some candidates who had absolutely no chance of losing. In fact, the only real strategic consideration that seems to have been taken into consideration was paying back people who supported him in his race for the Presidency. As a result an insignificant minority won and almost all of them would have won anyways. The rest recieved little more than a mention on his website and few small donations from supporters who couldn't possibly contribute to all of the list of Dean's Dozen. Ask Katy Hubener how well his endorsement did- she lost and Dean's support made little to no difference. Strategy is clearly not Gov. Dean's strong suit.

In the end Dean is uninspiring, but not quite distressing. What he says to the people on the inside is different from what he says when the cameras are rolling. Not contradictory, nothing controversial, just his rhetoric is toned down and his proposals are a bit more specific. More money to state parties, funding much of their core staff, etc. Many of these ideas are worth listening to and I hope that they work out for the best. Indeed, it seems that his followers are a bit snowed over- Dean is hardly the Wellstone-esque crusader for ideological purity, the dot-com-age William Jennings Bryan that they envision him. Rather, he is a typical urban pol done good. He knows how to fire up a crowd in the front and cut a deal in the back. He knows just what words will rally the masses to his standard even as he rubs shoulders with the CEOs and millionaires in back. This isn't an indictment, quite the contrary, but it is a much-needed dose of reality for his starry-eyed cadre of communicants. Don't get your panties in a wad over the good governor.

In the end, our party does need to do what the GOP has done- learn how to create a viable national message that can be adapted to the ideological proclivities of particular constituencies and disseminate it with 50 states' worth of first class organization. Texas should have pro-life candidates, Minnesota probably shouldn't. Alabama should have candidates who are less than vocal for their support of gay marriage, California probably shouldn't. Candidates in Mississippi don't need to be 100% union all the time, candidates in Ohio a bit more so. You have to compromise because without 218 Congressmen you don't have shit, without 51 Senators you don't have shit and without 270 electoral votes you don't have shit. We have to build a national coalition and being extremist just won't do it. What will unite us is a message that we are the party of the American Dream- if you work hard, play by the rules and want a better life tomorrow than today and a better world for your kids than this one, you can have it, and we can help. It should be disseminated by neighbors, co-workers and members of your church. It should be on the radio and on the TV, in people's yards and on their cars' bumpers. It should be unavoidable and undeniable until everyone interested in the continued magnificence of this country stands up and asks to be counted with the Democratic Party.

If Howard Dean can manage to achieve that he will go down as the best DNC Chair in history. I'm willing to give him the chance, and I pray that he does.

Liveblogging the SOTU

By Nathan Nance

I'm planning on liveblogging the State of the Union Address tomorrow over at my blog, Common Sense. Come on over, it'll be fun. I'll pop some popcorn and bring some licorice. Really, it'll be great.

From what I understand, the speech will be divided evenly between foreign and domestic policy. That should make it interesting since I'm more of a domestic policy wonk, and not a foreign policy specialist.

For those of you who were thinking of skipping it, I have a way to make it fun: a drinking game! The rules are very simple.

If he says "freedom", take a shot of tequila

If he says "liberty", take a shot of vodka

If he actually uses the phrase "freedom is on the march" and then smirks and pauses for applause, eat the worm

If he says "ownership society", sip you beer

If he says "personalized accounts", hit the Jack Daniels

This way, everybody can enjoy the SOTU... and Jenna won't have to yawn during the speech. I should probably put in a disclaimer that this game should not be attempted by anyone, since it is almost sure that he will use each of these phrases several dozen times in the 40-minute speech. You'll get alcohol poisoning before he's done talking about his privatization scheme.

Well, good.

By Jim Dallas

Ward Churchill is taking a demotion (why not more?).

Granted, we're all here for academic freedom. But there's a fine line between controversy and idiocy. And if making it clear that we don't tolerate idiots involves partaking in the kabuki dance of disassociation, then, let's boogie down.

One of my favorite professors at UT is Bob Jensen. You may not like Bob, but he's a nice guy. He's controversial to a hilt, but he doesn't say things just to upset people.

(And Prof. Churchill makes Bob look like Captain America by comparison.)

Back to the Future

By Jim Dallas

The ACS blog has a thorough post on Dr. Thomas Woods' "politically incorrect" (which is to say revisionist, at best) history of America.

Some times I have to thank the blog gods for timely coincidences; in this case, I must be thankful for Amitai Etzioni's post this week on collective guilt:

Etzioni, the grand old man of communitarianism, writes:

Communal responsibility is based on the fact that we are born into a community and share its history, memories, identity, achievements, and failures. We are not simply individual human beings, who can retreat behind a Rawlsian "veil of ignorance," secure in our universal rights and historical innocence. We are also members of specific families and communities. We cannot help but share their burdens, just as we share in their treasures; their responsibilities as well as their privileges. Thus, an American inherits both the proud memory of the Boston Tea Party and the agony of slavery; both the marvelous work of the Framers of the Constitution and the slaughter of Native Americans; the vigilant protection of freedom--from Greece to Korea--and the killing of innocent children, women, and other civilians in My Lai. The memory of slavery is particularly telling. Abolished some 134 years ago, before the ancestors of most contemporary Americans had even immigrated, slavery is still part of the American past; we cannot erase or ignore it. Most important, our aggrieved past commands us all to act, not merely the sons and daughters of plantation owners. We are all co-responsible for that which our community has perpetrated and condoned, for both past sins of commission and omission.

It needs to be stressed that Etzioni (who is Jewish) explicitly notes that he is not arguing in favor of "blood guilt." What's he's arguing is that, just as our children (as well as new immigrants) inherit our national debt in perpetuity, or our environmental catastrophes, so to do they inherit moral obligations, by virtue of being members of a collectivity, regardless of their race or religion.

Dealing with these obligations requires some maturity; Etzioni has some suggestions about that:

● First, it cautions not to look for easy scapegoats. While not denying, or diminishing their importance, one can never blame select power elites ("the Nazis did it, not the Germans"), objective conditions ("it happened because of runaway inflation, massive unemployment"), or even third parties ("Hitler was caused by the humiliating armistice imposed on Germany at the end of World War I") for the dark moments in one's communal past. I am not suggesting that external forces and objective conditions do not play a role in a nation's history; but they do not exempt one from sharing the responsibility for one's community and its course of action.

● Second, remember the past. Each generation of parents is obligated to recount the formative events of the past to its children. In the United States, we still mourn the circumstances, savagery, and massive bloodshed of the Civil War. Without drawing any parallels, it is a credit to Germany that as a community–albeit not every single German–it has learned to do the same concerning the history of the Nazi era.

And yet neo-Confederates and their sympathizers are ignoring both of these points, seeking out scapegoats and obfuscating our rememberance of the past.

Were it true that slavery was (as Woods apparently claims) not a cruel institution; were it true that the legacy of racism was not a stain on our history; were it true that America didn't have a history that involved the killing of labor organizers, were it true that our nation hadn't a history of imperialist aggression - were all these things true, perhaps history wouldn't be such a painful thing to read. All glory, and no shame, the way it ought to be.

I would hope, though, that we'd be big enough such that we'd engage history head on, instead of tuning out what we don't want to hear.

Malfunction

By Jim Dallas

CNN on the string of costly government info-tech boondoggles.

I've been involved in a couple minor-league, private sector boondoggles. They're not fun, and usually attributable to poor planning.

Newtonians

By Jim Dallas

Newt Gingrich is blogging trying to get together Newt Meet-ups.

And darn it, I find this at once both fascinating and highly worrisome, speaking as a Democrat.

On the other hand, I'd really like to see the Republicans go back to the 1990s, when they were making sense. That would be good for America.

Rosenberg, Dean Pick up DNC Votes

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

While many more DNC votes will likely be made public after this weekend (and while Frost is busy makeing the Dean v. Frost race about ideology again instead of reform), Rosenberg and Dean make their final round of DNC endorsements.

First, Dean picks up the endorsement of former DNC Chair candidate Harold Ickes, the best indicator of what the Clintons may be thinking...

While Ickes would not comment on the Clintons' preferences, he is a close ally and would not be endorsing Dean against their strong objections. No one was immediately available in Sen. Clinton's office to comment.

Ickes said Dean "has a real ability to communicate with people in leadership, but also to grass-roots and average Americans. He understands the need for party building."

Ickes' endorsement comes at a critical time in the chairman's race and gives Dean almost 50 of the more than 215 votes he would need to win the post.

Also, Dean picked up just under 20 more DNC votes today, many from California, but a mix as before.

Steven K. Alari - California DNC Committeeman and DNC Executive Committee Member

Jeremy Bernard - DNC Member-at-Large

Rachel Binah - California DNC Committeewoman, Former Chair of the Environmental Caucus, California Democratic Party

Mary Ellen Early - California DNC Committeewoman

Ed Espinoza - California DNC Committeeman

Jimmie Farris - Tennessee DNC Committeewoman

Hon. Mike Fitzgerald - DNC Member, Chair of National Association of Democratic State Treasurers

Alice Huffman - California DNC Committeewoman and Chair of 2004 Democratic National Convention

Hon. Pete Jorgensen - Wyoming DNC Committeeman

Johnnie Patton - Mississippi DNC Committeewoman

Alexandra Gallardo Rooker - California DNC Committeewoman, Vice-Chair of the California State Democratic Party and Vice President CWA Local 9400

Aleita J. Huguenin - California DNC Committeewoman

John A. Perez - California DNC Committeeman and UFCW Local 324 Political Director

Garry S. Shay - California DNC Committeeman

Smith Bagley - Former DNC Finance Vice-Chair

Hon. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.)

Hon. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.)

Debra DeLee - Former Chair of the DNC and CEO of 1996 Democratic National Convention

Hon. Grace Napolitano (D-Calif.)

Notice the Labor tags on a couple of those endorsements. Could be indicative of where labor is going, or at least that Dean is making sure he isn't getting left out with that crowd.

Also, Rosenberg announces 4 DNC votes, bumping him up in the "DNC Votes Not From My Home State" category. DNC Members Mark Bryant (MO), Gloria Nieto (At-Large, NM), and Moretta Bosley and Jo Etta Wickliffe (KY) are behind him now. (The Simon for Chair website is down so I have no link.)

Jimbo's first official 2006 endorsement.

By Jim Dallas

It's January and I'm already getting letters from the very senior Senator from Massachusetts.

Rest assured, Senator Kennedy, I support your re-election! I just don't have any money right now.

A County Chair's Words

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

The following comment was left by the County Chair of Taylor County (Abilene) on an older post of mine about how grassroots Democrats in SD 24, one of the more Republican districts, are organizing on their own to Change the Equation. They also happened to all endorse Howard Dean.

Karl's article says the vote for Dean for DNC at the SD24 county chairs' meeting earlier this month was "unofficial" and many of us weren't "rabid Deniacs" last summer.

I was there, and it was unanimous. I don't know what it takes for something to be "official."

And I don't know what our feelings last summer have to do with our choice for DNC chair now.

I think use of the term "rabid Deniacs" plays into the hands of the Republican opposition, which has said some very desperate things to discredit Gov. Dean. Like about the "scream" speech. Those who check into it can see he was trying to speak above the roar of his ecstatic volunteers, and the mike the networks used was unidirectional, capturing only his words and not the background noise.

That said, I wouldn't mind being called a "rabid Deniac" last summer or now, even though I was as loyal to Kerry after his nomination as anyone else.

-Dave Haigler
Taylor County Democratic Chair
Abilene, Texas

At the time I didn't have duplicate confirmation of the vote that was taken to endorse Dean being something that was public or not, so I went on the cautious side with my language. And my use of the "rabid Deaniac" statement was not to be degrading but to further highlight the point that since such an endorsement was coming from a region where many of the chairs were for other candidates and not "drinking the Dean kool-aid" like I was, their endorsement is all the more telling of the opinion of those on the ground in Texas.

Because it isn't news if a DFT poll says Dean supporters support Dean or if Texas DNC members support Frost... (I'm comprimising with you Byron) But I think it is news when there are multiple signs of the everyday Democrat and county level Party folk speaking up for Dean. If the MoveOn.org vote in the state shows the same thing, there is only so far you can run with the "well, that's not a surprise" meme until you have to deal with the possibility that maybe, just maybe, the majority of the "Democratic National Committee of Millions of Democrats" are on the same page.

Young Democrats, You Control 3 DNC Votes

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

If you are a member of a Young Democrats chapter, you can vote for DNC chair in the Young Democrats of America online Poll, which will determine where the 3 votes we control go for DNC chair.

So all you University Democrats at UT-Austin and otherwise, head on over and make your voice heard. Unlike DNC members from Texas not paying attention to the wishes of the grassroots of the State Democratic Party, you can make a difference this time.

Vote in the Poll Here.

Byron, since it's a rigged poll, I wouldn't expect you to vote in it. :)

Also, if you are in Arizona, your State Chair actually wants your imput on how to vote. So you can go vote here as well!

More DNC votes for Dean

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Though I'm sure Byron will end up in Frost's camp at some point, giving him one of few precious blogger endorsements, Dean announces today at least 6 more actual voting members of the DNC. (Plus the endorsement of Mame Reiley, Chair of the DNC Women's Caucus and DNC member from Virginia yesterday.)

Passing over (former) fellow Congressman Frost would be Congressman Elijah Cummings of Maryland, immediate past chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, who endorsed Dean (and is having a public breakfast with him on February 24, for those of you in Maryland).

Next would be Joel Ferguson — Vice Chair DNC Black Caucus, which I find interesting considering Yvonne Gates, chair of the DNC Black Caucus, endorsed Dean as well this past week. Makes you wonder if something is up in the Black Caucus...and also where some of Webb's votes will go after he's falls out of the voting, and if the one Texas DNC black caucus member who held off from endorsing Frost because of the Black Caucus doing it's own thing means anything...

Other voting members include...

Patricia Ford — DNC Member-At-Large, Former International Exec VP SEIU

Hon. Joe Moore — Chair of the National Democratic Municipal Officials Conference (DNC member)

Gus Bickford — Massachusetts DNC National Committeeman

Patsy Arceneaux — Louisiana DNC National Committeewoman

And in the world of non-voting but important people endorsements (you know, the kind that Rosenberg has a lot of) are...

Bill Lynch — Former DNC Vice-Chair and Deputy Campaign Manager for the Kerry-Edwards campaign

Michael A. Brown — DNC National Finance Vice-Chair

LaFrost?

By Byron LaMasters

Hotline provided the Cliff's Notes version of my interview with Martin Frost for those of you not interested in reading the entire thing:

LaMasters Questions LaFrost

Frost had a Q&A with Burnt Orange Report blogger Byron LaMasters. For more click here, but for now, here are excerpts:

• Frost: "Here's how I'm different: I am the only candidate for DNC chair who has actually accomplished these goals -- reforming, funding and successfully managing a national party committee, investing national resources in state and local party structures, organizing at every level of politics, and most importantly devising creative strategies to win for Democrats in the most difficult areas of the country."
• On whether the party needs "sweeping changes" or "just some tinkering around the edges": "The party needs major structural, strategic and communications reforms."
• On IA and NH retaining 1st-in-the-nation status: "This is a serious issue that requires fairness from the new Chair."
• On Washington Monthly's Sullivan's article "Fire the Consultants": "I can say that I agree with it's general point, and, as I will explain briefly, have been putting it into practice for my entire political career."
• Frost: "One final point: If agreeing with President Bush on some issues disqualifies you to be DNC chair, then Howard Dean and I are both wasting our time (as are the rest of the candidates in the field, I imagine)" (1/27).

Martin Frost Q&A

By Byron LaMasters

Here are the questions by Texas bloggers for Martin Frost in his campaign for DNC Chair. I must credit Charles Kuffner of Off the Kuff for his help specifically with several questions, and all of the Texas Tuesdays patron blogs for their input. I'm personally impressed with the depth in which Martin Frost answered each of the questions. It's certainly worth a look, even if you support another candidate for DNC. I would like to personally thank Martin Frost, and his campaign staff for taking the time and effort to address many of the questions and concerns of bloggers.

[To prevent any confusion, I submitted these questions via email to the Frost campaign last Thursday to which I received a response today. There was also a seperate conference call with bloggers / BlogPAC and Martin Frost tonight where other questions were asked. This post does not include those questions, although there was some overlap.]

Feel free to repost any of this, just credit the Burnt Orange Report (BL = Byron LaMasters, MF = Martin Frost):

MF: Thank you for these questions. They are an important opportunity to communicate with Democrats and other progressives throughout the country.

The Q&A after the jump...

BL: Why are you running for DNC Chair? What distinguishes you from the other candidates in the field?

MF: All of the candidates agree that the Democratic Party needs to undergo fundamental reforms. I strongly believe that the next Chair must pursue a 50-state party-building and campaign strategy, focus the DNC around winning elections (instead of its own internal politics), make long-term political plans and invest in local and state races, and energize traditional Democratic constituencies while at the same time bringing in new voters. To accomplish these goals, from Day One the DNC must be professionally managed and accountable to the Chair personally. That is the only way to ensure it can afford to become the modern, integrated and nationwide party structure we need to defeat the GOP. The DNC must fund and build professional state parties in every state; empower local and state Democrats to carry forth our message and convince their neighbors to join us; and create a Strategic Communications and Research Center to provide Democrats with unbiased, scientific and long-range message guidance. Finally, the Democratic Party must challenge this dishonest, corrupt and elitist Republican Government at every opportunity, and we must organize, organize, organize.

Here's how I'm different: I am the only candidate for DNC Chair who has actually accomplished these goals – reforming, funding and successfully managing a national party committee, investing national resources in state and local party structures, organizing at every level of politics, and most importantly, devising creative strategies to win for Democrats in the most difficult areas of the country.

Taking over the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee after Newt Gingrich’s “revolutionaries” took the House of Representatives in the 1994 elections, I completely revamped the committee – shifting our focus to organizing, and pioneering new programs like the DCCC’s first investment in minority turnout; expanding the playing field by aggressively targeting Republicans in even the toughest territory; investing in state and local parties; running localized campaigns; and creating new fundraising methods that shattered all prior records. As a result, Democrats netted 14 Congressional seats in my two cycles as DCCC Chair – and drove Newt Gingrich out of Congress.

Additionally, my political experience is unmatched in this race. My personal experience in the nuts-and-bolts of campaigns and party politics dates back to the voter registration program I ran in 1972 for Democrats in North Texas – a program that registered 50,000 new voters by knocking on the door of every minority household in the county twice. Since then, I’ve been a successful candidate who has won in a Red State while defending core Democratic values like civil rights and a woman’s right to the privacy of her own health care decisions. I’ve had to be a disciplined national spokesperson, taking on Republicans on TV in Washington, and then campaigning for Democrats in tough races in their home districts in every region of the country. And I’ve had to be a political party leader at home – where I began a serious commitment to my state and county parties decades ago, long before it became a fashionable campaign promise.

BL: How does your experience as chair of the DCCC prepare you for the job of DNC Chair? What skill sets do you bring to the job that other candidates lack?

MF: In addition to what I've written above, I'd add a couple of other points.

First, at the DCCC I proved I know how to successfully reform and manage a major national political party organization, and that I know what it takes to succeed on the only scale that matters -- against the GOP. (That is experience that no one else in this campaign has.)

I learned how to make the hard decisions -- like firing consultants, distinguishing between promising new ideas that can help win elections and expensive gimmicks that simply make you feel good, stretching a budget to make long-term investments, saying "no" to a candidate you like so that you can say "yes" to someone the Party needs to win.

This is crucial because today's DNC is a huge political operation that can and should raise and spend hundreds of millions of dollars during the next chair's term. Democrats deserve a DNC Chair who can hit the ground running and manage an operation of that size -- making the hard decisions to effectively and efficiently deploy resources to win now (in 2005 and 2006), and to invest for the long-term (by focusing, for instance, on the down-ballot races in 2006 that will determine which party has stronger gubernatorial candidates in 2010). Democrats who invest in our Party deserve to know that their money will not be wasted.

Second, I know the importance of challenging conventional wisdom, rethinking the "way it's always been done," and embracing new ideas and bringing in new talent. When I took over the DCCC, Democrats were out of power in Congress for the first time in 40 years. Almost every "smart" Democratic operative and political pundit -- including some of my predecessors -- advised me to hunker down and just try to survive. Newt Gingrich and his "revolution" were on the ascendancy, the old ways of operating were no longer available to us, and others didn't see that we had any other options.

Well, I did. So, I completely revamped the committee: changing our strategy to emphasize energizing base Democrats as well as reaching out to swing voters, adjusting our targeting to challenge Republicans in even the most GOP-trending states, investing in new fundraising methods, expanding the field staff, and creating new programs to directly spend national resources on grassroots efforts.

And because it paid off -- we netted 14 seats and drove Newt Gingrich from Congress -- ever since then, I've never had to heed the voices of conventional wisdom when they claim that Democrats can't win or that "we don't do things that way."

Third, I proved I can take on the nastiest Republicans in Washington on national TV -- and can also campaign for Democrats in tough races in their own homes districts in every part of the nation.

Fourth -- and this is related to the third point -- I learned that a Party Chair must never become the dominant story himself or herself. Your job is to help other Democrats win, and that means ensuring they get the spotlight when they need it. So you have to be willing (and able) to step aside and put other Democrats in the spotlight -- sometimes because they have special credibility, and sometimes because that's one of the ways you help them win.

BL: What did you learn from your race against Pete Sessions? How will that experience make you a better chair than any of the other candidates?

MF: It reinforced for me two principles that I have long held -- and that will guide me as DNC Chair.

First, no matter the odds, it is worth it to stand and fight. As many will recall, Tom Delay and Karl Rove had lost so many fights to us in Texas that when they finally won mid-decade redistricting in 2003, they didn't mess around, putting me in a 65% Republican district.

Instead of walking way after 26 good years in Congress fighting for Democratic values, I raised more than $4 million -- with significant help from the online community -- and built an unprecedented grassroots operation. We organized every precinct, contacted Democrats in some of the most GOP-dominated precincts in Texas -- many of whom hadn't heard from a Democrat in years -- and more than doubled Hispanic turnout. The result: We held my Republican opponent, Congressman Pete Sessions to only 54% (11 points below the district's GOP performance), and turned out enough Democrats to elect four Democratic officials in Dallas County. (News accounts focused on our history-making election of Lupe Valdez as Sheriff, but overlooked the fact that Democrats had not elected a county-wide official in the prior 20 years.)

The second principle is this: Democrats should never cede any issue to Republicans, and should never be afraid to challenge them on their so-called “home turf.” In my race, our research found a vulnerability -- Sessions was one of only a few Members to vote against airline security -- and we hit him hard, pointing out that he was so far out of the mainstream that he'd opposed even other Republicans (like Bush, McCain, etc.). Not only did it throw him on the defensive, it gave tremendous energy to our grassroots program when Democrats in North Texas saw that a Democrat was challenging a Republican on security.

BL Do you believe that the Democratic Party is in need of sweeping changes in terms of message and strategy, or just some tinkering around the edges? In either case, how do you plan to bring about the changes you envision?

MF: The party needs major structural, strategic and communications reforms. We need a National Political Audit of all electoral races in the country – so that we can take a rigorous and long-term look at all of the Democratic Party’s priorities and ensure we are letting no opportunity slip by. We need to build a modern, integrated and truly nationwide party structure, one that connects voters in every community to Democratic officials and candidates at all level – from county officials and state legislators, to Members of Congress and Senators, to Governors and Presidential candidates. We need to build a DNC Strategic Communications and Research Center, which can provide all Democrats with research-driven, scientifically tested guidance on message strategy, and which can devise strategies to effect fundamental changes in the rhetorical and issue frameworks of political discourse.

To accomplish all these goals, the DNC must empower, fund and professionalize state party operations. It must utilize all the tools of the new politics to empower, organize and communicate. It must invest in technology and testing. It must be willing to challenge conventional wisdom about Party operations. And it must submit every bit of its infrastructure and planning to a simple test: How does this help Democrats win elections – now and over the long-term?

BL: What role do you see the blogosphere and netroots as playing in the Democratic party. What would you do to utilize the netroots as chair of the DNC?

MF: I view it a core component of the progressive community and the Democratic Party – a critical communications vehicle for 21st century politics and a vital resource full of energy, ideas, volunteers, donors and voters.

I want to ensure that you can become more involved in the DNC – in organizing as well as in working with us on message development, message delivery and rapid response. We need a strategy and structure to fully incorporate into our communications strategies the power the blogosphere.

Also, we need the netroots to be seamlessly integrated in our grassroots organizing efforts. This is a network with enormous potential to impact the delivery of campaign messages and to build the type of “neighbor-to-neighbor” campaigns that Democrats historically excelled in – and that worked in some places this year (like in the Iowa Caucuses, and in the general election in Dallas County).

To do this, the DNC must engage in an ongoing, substantive and two-way conversation with you. That includes everything from regular conference calls to special online events. Structurally, we should regularly review and re-evaluate the performance of our technology systems and resources (just as we do other committee resources). At the staff level, Internet organizing and technology staff must participate in strategic political and communications decisions.

As we build and professionalize State Parties, we must make it as central to their operations as are traditional departments like Finance, Communication and Research. That requires that the DNC make it a priority, and provide resources, tools, staffing and training. The DNC may also need to release its hold on information and technology so that local and state Democrats can make use of them. I see this as an important way to reverse the long-term decline that has sapped many local and state party organizations of their organizational (and thus political) strength.

The Democratic Party has made great strides in the past year or so, but it’s clear that there is much more that we can do. As folks who have worked with me can tell you, I’ve never won any awards for hipness, but I’ve always looked for new and better ways of practicing politics – because my overriding goal is simply to win for Democrats. That is why I find the power of the new politics so exciting.

BL: What experience do you have with Internet organizing? Should Internet organizing be an integral strategy of the DNC? If so, how would you implement such a strategy?

MF: I believe I covered this question in Answer 6 (above), but let me add one point of emphasis:

For my entire career in politics, I have believed that organizing is crucial to winning elections for the Democratic Party. Today, it is clear that Internet organizing is vital to our future success. The days of turning over campaign strategy to media consultants have long passed. I’ve always run grassroots-heavy campaigns – as the thousands who have volunteered on my races can tell you – because I never bought into the myth that TV could replace the power of personal communication in politics. (That is why I reformed the post-1994 DCCC to focus on organizing; it’s also why my final campaign spent more of its $4 million budget on organizing and turnout than it did on TV advertising – despite the enormous per-point cost of the Dallas-Fort Worth TV market).

BL: What is your position on the order of the Democratic Presidential primary races? Should Iowa and New Hampshire retain their "first in the nation status", or should there be reform?

MF: This is a serious issue that requires fairness from the new Chair. There is a substantive and competent commission working on this issue, and because I do not want to unfairly affect their work, I will withhold judgment until hearing from them.

BL: Obviously, you're an expert on the redistricting issue. Do you support national redistricting reforms? What are your thoughts on the idea of a nonpartisan/bipartisan redistricting commissions being pushed by members of both parties (i.e. Democrats in Florida, Republicans in California)? Furthermore, as DNC Chair what strategy would you implement to tackle 2010 congressional redistricting now?

MF: Your first question is a crucial strategic one that I prefer not to discuss in public – i.e., with our Republican opponents – at this time. As to your second question: Throughout my career in politics, I’ve always devoted whatever resources and power I have to advancing Democrats through redistricting, and it will be a top priority at the DNC. I will ensure that we have a comprehensive long-term strategy for post-2010 redistricting -- a strategy that starts now by seriously targeting the key state races (legislative, gubernatorial and down-ballot) that will determine control of the process in each state in 2011 and 2012, and by beginning the legal preparation needed for an enterprise of this magnitude.

BL: You are now advocating a 50-state strategy, yet in previous blog Interviews you said:

"We cannot afford to swing wildly at every pitch hoping for a homerun. We need to pick our pitches carefully, hit singles and doubles and run bases aggressively."

Did you change your mind? What is your strategy for finding and funding viable candidates in unfriendly territory? Do you believe Texans in general and Texas Democrats in particular would have been better served by a "254-county strategy" in 2004? Why or why not?

MF: This question gets to the nub of the problem with the DNC over the past several years. State leaders like me have had to design strategies to fit their resources. Because the DNC did not make significant investments in non-presidential states, Democrats in places like Texas were forced to fend for themselves with the limited resources they were able to raise on their own, and as a result had to limit their investments.

So, yes, Texas Democrats and Texans in general would have absolutely been better served by a “254-county” strategy. And I don’t know of anyone in America who has spent more time, effort and personal political capital than I have on fights with the DNC for more resources for my state.

Of course, no matter how many times the DNC told us “no,” I never gave up on Texas Democrats. Instead, I worked extraordinarily hard to personally raise national money for campaigns and state and local parties in Texas. But as one Congressman – and even as the DCCC Chair -- I was never in position to fund an entire statewide operation in a place as large as Texas, where a statewide race costs tens and tens of millions of dollars.

Frankly, that is one of the reasons I want to be DNC Chair: So I can finally use the DNC to make the investments in state and local party-building for which I’ve been fighting. Again, my record at the DCCC is illustrative. While we never had the resources available to the DNC today, I adopted a strategy of expanding the playing field and challenging Republicans everywhere possible. We ran races in states that never came close to making the map used by the DNC and Presidential campaign (despite my best efforts to convince them to forgo their presidential-only targeting).

In closing on this point, I want to make sure I don’t mislead anyone. Even the DNC lacks infinite resources. And any honest strategist will tell you that the baseball analogy cited in your question – picking your pitches carefully – applies to every resource allocation decision you make. If you have fewer resources (as we did in Texas), then you can only afford to seriously invest in fewer races. If you have the DNC’s resources, then you can swing at more pitches – but if you flail about wildly, you’ll probably just end up wasting a lot of money as you strike out. (For more on this point, see Answer 11 (below)).

But unlike everyone else in this race, I’ve had years of experience in strategically managing the resources of a large political party committee. So when I’m Chair, the DNC will make smart and significant investments in building strong party structures and in supporting campaigns at all levels – especially with an eye toward down-ballot candidates whose short-term success determines the strength of our farm team and the long-term success of our Party. After years on the outside of the DNC looking in, I’m eager to get inside and start making these reforms.

BL: Have you read Amy Sullivan's article in the Washington Monthly entitled Fire the Consultants? What is your response to what she says?

MF: Not until you asked about it. But now that I have, I can say I agree with it’s general point, and, as I will explain briefly, have been putting it into practice for my entire political career.

My overriding political goal is simply winning – because that’s the only way you achieve the power you need to stand up for the people you represent. So I never have rewarded poor performance by consultants, and I never will. When I took over the DCCC, we cleaned house and opened up the consulting process to new blood (including at least one person named in the Sullivan piece as a potential next-generation strategic genius.) It was a difficult and contentious process, but when you personally understand the nuts-and-bolts of campaigns and party politics, you are not dependent on consultants to make the tough decisions.

While I was DCCC Chair, we maintained a very clear and very bright line between the committee staff whom we paid to service campaigns, and the outside consultants whom the campaigns paid. We had no situation like that described in the Sullivan piece. In short, I would not allow any consultants to rich skimming off the committee and its donors (or even simply by pocketing a percentage of the TV buy, which is an arrangement I did not allow at the DCCC).

Also, when you fund State Parties sufficiently (a key reform in my Plan to Win), then they can hire and keep experienced, talented staff – which makes the Party less dependent on consultants. And by establishing research-driven Strategic Communications and Research Center at the DNC (another key reform I’m proposing) we will ensure Democrats have unbiased, scientifically tested guidance for developing message strategy.

One final point – which relates to the discussion in Question 10: It is long past time that the Democratic Party make a concerted effort to bring the scientific method into electoral politics to help target limited resources toward the most effective means of delivering our message and votes. It happens in the marketplace everyday, and Republicans have been conducting well-thought-out experiments in areas like voter turnout to learn more about what works in each election. We should be doing the same – and applying it to all our practices, from traditional methods like door-to-door canvassing, to relatively new political tools like online organizing.

BL: Some Democrats have criticized you in recent days for running advertisements in your 2004 campaign featuring prominent Republicans, including President Bush (i.e. DailyKos.com, MyDD.com, annatopia.com/archives.html, etc.). Why did you run such ads, and what would you say to Democrats who feel that you did not emphasize the fact that you were a Democrat in your past campaign?

MF: First, I’d refer you to my answer to Question 3 (above), which also largely addresses this question.

And I’d add this: Instead of retiring last year after Tom DeLay had illegally redrawn my district to make it 65% Republican, I fought back (just as I’d fought him and the White House throughout 2003 as they tried to redo redistricting). The ads you referenced put my GOP opponent on the defensive on the key campaign issue of homeland security, and helped energize many of Democrats who turned out to vote – scoring historic victories for Dallas County Democratic candidates. I’ve always believed in challenging Republicans where they think they are strongest.

Now, this is a hotly contested campaign for DNC Chair, and I understand that my opponents and their supporters are trying to win. So I’d simply urge Democrats to look past the misleading attacks and to look up the facts of my commitment to Democratic Party principles and my record of winning for Democrats.

For instance, take a look at my most recent vote ratings from some groups with whom I’ve been extraordinarily proud to work -- while at the same time beating back repeated multi-million-dollar GOP challenges in Texas: AFL-CIO 93%, Hispanic Leadership Agenda 83%, Human Rights Campaign 88%, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 92%, League of Conservation Voters 85%, NAACP 95%, NARAL Pro Choice America 100%.

One final point: If agreeing with President Bush on some issues disqualifies you to be DNC Chair, then Howard Dean and I are both wasting our time (as are the rest of the candidates in the field, I imagine). As Gov. Dean said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week”: “…there's some agreement that I have with the President. I daresay other Democrats find some common ground with the President."

I’ve run and won as a Democrat for nearly 30 years; everyone in my area of North Texas knows that very well, and so do Republicans from Tom DeLay and Karl Rove, to the local precinct chairs in Dallas County. I spent 4 years traveling the country to rebuild the DCCC after the Gingrich revolution and in the run-up to impeachment – some of the most difficult times for Democrats in modern political history, And I invested my own time and effort to support my State Party for the past 30 years – especially when the DNC effectively pulled out of Texas.

Simply put, I’d put my credentials as effective partisan fighter for Democrats up against anyone’s. If that weren’t the case, I wouldn’t have spent the past 30 years working to successfully build Democratic Party structures and elect Democrats in some of the toughest territory – and I wouldn’t be campaigning to spend every day of the next four years reforming the DNC to win elections at all levels and in every state.

BL: To follow-up, as a DNC Chair, you will be the spokesman for the Democratic Party. Some critics believe that you would be an ineffective spokesman, because on television interviews clips could easily be run of your ads stating your support of President Bush on various issues. While they would certainly be taken out of context, some people feel that such clips could minimize your effectiveness in the typical role as the "attack-dog" party spokesman. What would you say to those critics?

MF: I’ve done national television interviews for more than a decade against some of the nastiest Republicans in Washington, so I’d welcome a softball question like you describe. Just as I’m sure Howard Dean would welcome any interviewer posing a similar softball question to him and running a clip of him talking about the “things we can support the President on.”

Nonetheless, here’s an example of the type of approach I’d likely take to an interviewer who posed these critics’ hypothetical question: “Time and again, the dishonest, corrupt and elitist Republican Government of George W. Bush and Tom DeLay has made Americans less safe– on everything from sending our troops to war without the body armor they need, to opposing the Department of Homeland Security and the 911 Commission, to trying to steal every American’s Social Security. But believe it or not, there are Republicans in power in Washington who do even done more than George W. Bush to weaken America’s security. Pete Sessions is one of them. So is Senator Rick Santorum – who is trying to help Wall Street brokers by taking your Social Security.”

As I said before, I believe that the best way to beat Republicans is to challenge them aggressively and consistently – no matter what they or the media throw at you.

Strange turn of events

By Nathan Nance

It's actually kind of funny because Jim posted on Social Security today, and I'm writing about the DNC chair race.

Jerome has the latest round-up of the race and all accounts put Dean squarely in the front-runner seat. There seem to be three distinct groups, Dean supporters, Anybody But Dean supporters, and then everybody else. The largest group is the everybody elses, but I think they'll vote for one of the other two groups once it gets down to the wire.

I'm not totally discounting Fowler and Rosenberg, but the dynamic of the race seems to follow Dean and those inside the DNC who would rather have anybody but him. If you haven't read it already, this Newsweek piece basically describes how that group has been searching desperately for a candidate to run against Dean, even though that group's front-runner seems to be Martin Frost. I think the problem with Frost is that anyone inside the DNC who wants to see substantive reforms and a focus on netroots won't be attracted to him and he can't appeal to Dean/Fowler/Rosenberg voters to gain a majority.

I don't think it really means anything that Frost has the support of people in his home state. If he didn't, that would be an important marker that his candidacy was in vain. But I think that most Democrats, even those inside the DNC, want real, substantive changes. That leaves us with the Dean/Fowler/Rosenberg axis with Dean being the most popular.

A quick sidenote: If this race were soley between Fowler, Rosenberg and Frost, do you think Newsweek would be covering this race? I think several of us here at BOR have made the point that Dean brings lots of celebrity and media attention to this race and to the position that the others just can't match.

Nate is sports/news clerk at the Waco Tribune-Herald and writer/editor of Common Sense a Texas-based Democratic Web log. He can be reached at nate_nance@yahoo.com.

DNC Chair: Does It Really Matter?

By Vince Leibowitz

I got a call this afternoon from one of the high-school aged Democrats in Van Zandt County asking me about, of all things, the race for Chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee. It seems this young man wanted to write on the subject for a current political events paper for high school government class.

This call got me to thinking very seriously about the DNC race when I was asked, "Does it really matter who wins the DNC race? Will it really change the way the party does business at all levels?"

I'm afraid the 18-year-old political novice who asked this question of me may have hit the nail right on the head: Does it really matter?

I know it sounds stupid that any Democratic activist and County Chairman such as myself would even spend time pondering this question. But, what's even more frightening to me is that the answer may be--at least in part--a resounding 'no.'

Yes, to a great extent, it matters whether or not Martin Frost or Howard Dean or whoever is named Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. After all, the DNC is the national party. It sets the policy and should drive the trend.

But, to your average party activist--and perhaps to some party leadership--it makes no difference who is at the top because I have yet to see any evidence that there will be true and substantive change within our party just because there is a different man (or woman) at the helm of the ship.

Mind you, this is in spite of the fact that, for the past few years, "grassroots activism" has become the buzzword of the Democratic Party. It's such a buzzword everyone wants to call their campaign a "grassroots" effort. And everyone is building their local party with "grassroots" support. And the "netroots" are all-important, too.

So, then, if growing the party from the grassroots is so vital, why are all of the announced candidates of the political establishment and not of the "grassroots" body politic?

A good question, no doubt. And, there are some obvious answers. First of all, you've got to be known, be a proven leader, be proven fund-raiser, and have existing relationships within the party to expect to get anything accomplished. That understandable and legitimate.

But does it have to be that way? Is there not a way for us to have our cake and eat it, too? Can we not have the marquee politician and the backroom political junkie working hand-in-hand at the DNC to help us rebuild?

To give you an example of what I mean, let me say this: Every time I think of the current DNC chairman, I think of seeing his name on a fund-raising letter. I think "that's someone Democrats know and will send money to." Think about it: An average Democrat gets a letter from Martin Frost or Howard Dean or any number of the candidates and it's going to have instant name recognition. Charities use the same principal. Remember the National World War II Memorial fund-drive? I must have recieved half a dozen letters from Academy Award-winning actor Tom Hanks asking me to send in $15. But was Tom Hanks the one running the day-to-day operations of the Memorial association? I think not. He's an actor.

Granted, it makes more sense to have a politician running a political party than an actor running a veterans' memorial, but does it--really? How many politicians--or even of the current candidates for DNC--really, truly know how to get in the trenches and run a campaign--not a race, mind you, but a campaign? Or a party?

How about Frost? How about Dean? Granted they've both run races, but who ran their campaigns? I dare say Martin Frost wasn't sitting in a back room somewhere with a database printout ID'ing potential donors. And I dare say Howard Dean wasn't sitting in a back room somewhere personally organizing and developing a strategy to attract Internet voters. Do these guys understand how to address the problems facing the Democratic Party in Lamar County, Texas or Dade County, Florida or Wayne County, Iowa?

And, why would they? As candidates and politicians, they've got better and more important things to do: They're the candidates, they drive the message and develop the policy, not organize the fund-raising, rallies and GOTV. That's what staff is for. The pols themselves may go out and glad-hand for the money, or make personal appearances for the money, but believe me, they aren't the ones running the data, sending out the mailers and wondering what in the heck a "carrier route saturation" is or how much radio advertising costs in Des Moines, Iowa.

I have no doubt that Martin Frost or Howard Dean could reform healthcare, fix Social Security, or combat terrorism. But I remain unconvinced that they are what the Democratic Party needs right now in the way of leadership. As DCCC Chair, Frost has proved he has what it takes to rake in the cash and win back House seats. As a candidate, Dean proved he had personality to unite the masses and the wisdom to try new and unconventional ideas. But being party chairman isn't just about raking in the cash, uniting the masses, and winning seats. It's about the Democratic Party fulfilling its promise and living up to its name. Winning seats isn't enough anymore. A unified party with a clear, concise message making a return to its roots among the rank-and-file citizenry is a must. We've got to rebuild our party in the people's image. And by that, I mean a return to our liberal, New Deal, Great Society roots, not a continuation of the stuck-on-high-center Republican-lite brand seemingly favored by many politicians.

So, does it matter who is at the head of the party, as long as it's a good and big name that will bring in the cash? No...and, yes.

No, because any marquee politician can perform that task adequately and perhaps very well. Yes, because it takes a special person--a special Chairman--to change the way the party does business.

So, as we bloggers tumble head-over-heels trying to predict the next Chairman of the DNC, let's consider the following:

If we're seeking change from the grassroots, don't we need more "grassroots" people on the DNC and in party leadership as opposed to ex-chairmen, ex-politicians, and current politicians?

If we're to truly change our party and rise out from the hole we're in, don't we need both a chairman who's a "marquee" fund-raiser and seasoned political junkie who knows how to oil and grease every nook and cranny of the political machine from behind the scenes?

If we're to truly change, should it not come from the bottom up and not the top down, anyway?

It we are to be successful at winning elections, don't we need a DNC--and a chairman--that looks outside the beltway and realizes the need for an operating strategy that involves everyone from the DNC down to the precinct chairs?

If we are to truly grow "from the roots," then do we not need a chairman who will pay as much attention and place as much importance on the Democratic Party in the most red county in the most red state as they do on the bluest counties in the bluest states? Don't we need a chairman to whom the voters and leaders of Van Zandt, or Travis, or Dallas or Smith County Texas mean as much as the voters and leaders of counties in blue states?

I haven't decided who to support for Party Chairman. I believe both Howard Dean and Martin Frost have some of the qualities I think a Chairman needs, but I'm not sure I'd be truly happy with either one.

But I do know this: whomever our party chairman is needs to realize that the red states and red counties need as much attention as the blue ones. After all, in the blue areas, they're growing their parties. In the red areas, we're building--or rebuilding--ours.

Whomever the new Chairman happens to be, they will have their work cut out for them. And, hopefully, after a couple of years on the job, we will be able to answer the question, "Does it really matter who is DNC Chairman?" And, hopefully, we'll be able to answer it by saying "Oh, yes. Yes, it does."

Vince Leibowitz is County Chairman of the Democratic Party of Van Zandt County.

To Infinity And Beyond

By Jim Dallas

Jesse tells us why Don Luskin is the "stupidest man alive" (according to Brad DeLong).

Actually, my qualm is this. If you assume this crazy infinite-horizon thing is the way to measure Social Security's financial situation, then is a $10.4 trillion deficit really that bad?

(Incidentally, what's the per annum cost: 10.4 trillion divided by infinity? That's, uhh, zero, isn't it?)

But for context, $10.4 trillion is the size of the U.S. gross domestic product. If we could commit five percent of GDP for twenty years to save Social Security FOREVER, would it be that bad?

And considering that our current budget deficit is nearly 5 percent of GDP already...and could easily be closed with a little common sprinkled into the pages of our tax code...

(Incidentally, that last off-the-cuff mathematical statement was economically wrong-headed; because GDP grows considerably faster than inflation - something like a percent or two annually - by the twentieth year $520 billion would be a lot less than 5 percent of GDP).

Needless to say, the point of this exercise is to point out that even a big scary like $10.4 trillion is neither big, nor scary, nor indicative of any rational reason to muck around with a Social Security system that is running a slight fever, but otherwise fit as a fiddle.

More Dean Endorsements

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Following in the tradition of endorsements that actually matter, Blog for America has the latest series of inside baseball endorsements. Worried about Dean becoming the frontrunner and crashing again? I wouldn't, because this time around, there isn't much the media can actually do and the spotlight is so far removed from the race in comparison to the primaries.

This group includes voting members of the DNC, former chairs of the DNC, congressional members and an array of prominent Democratic leaders.

Supporters include:

Reverend Willie Barrow, DNC Member-at-Large

Don Beyer, Former Lt. Gov. of Virginia and Chairman, Kerry-Edwards Virginia Victory '04

Alma Arrington Brown, philanthropist and wife of former DNC Chair Ron Brown

Joseph Cari, Jr., Former DNC National Finance Chair

Yolanda Caraway, DNC Member-at-Large

Martha Dixon, Arkansas DNC Committeewoman

Bob Farmer, Former DNC Treasurer and Finance Chair of the Kerry-Edwards campaign

Hon. Yvonne A. Gates, Chair of the DNC Black Caucus

Steve Grossman, Former DNC National Chair

Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-Ill.)

Ben Johnson, DNC Deputy Chair

Wanda Lockridge, Chair of the District of Columbia State Committee

Hon. Gloria Molina, DNC Vice-Chair

Minyon Moore, DNC Member-at-Large

Mirian Saez, DNC Member-at-Large

Hon. Diane Watson (D-Calif.), DNC Member-at-Large

David Wilhelm, Former DNC National Chair

Looks like some new support from the "black and brown" category as well as past DNC chairs. In addition, that vote from California may be indicative of what supposedly is next week's endorsement of the California delegation of 'a particular candidate'.

Pop Quiz

By Jim Dallas

Do you support:

Our Troops?
Combatting Terrorism?
Our Veterans?
Higher Wages for American Workers?
Little Children?
Lowering the Cost of Prescription Drugs?
Election Reform?
Fiscal Responsibility?
Reducing the Number of Abortions?

If you answered "yes" to any of these questions, then we have an agenda for you!

Update: [Byron] It's online at the Senate Democratic website here. You can become a "citizen cosponsor" here.

Dean Sweeps Texas Polls

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

I told you something big was coming on Monday here at the Burnt Orange Report. The following was released from Democracy for Texas just now. Major points bolded. I have class so I will add my thoughts later.

I’m writing to you today to let you know about the results of two polls conducted by Democracy for Texas, the largest progressive grassroots organization in Texas, with over 40,000 members. These polls sought feedback from the grassroots on their preference for DNC chair.

We first polled DFT members. Not surprisingly, Governor Howard Dean won this vote in a landslide with 90% of the vote of those responding. I say “not surprisingly” because our organization is an outgrowth of the Dean campaign. In fact, the majority of our members are people who were never involved in politics before, but were so inspired by Governor Dean and his message that they became, and continue to be, active.

We decided that a more objective measure of grassroots support would be polling all people who were eligible to attend the State Democratic Convention in Houston last June, who would reflect a wider range of opinions. We sent emails to all of them who provided email addresses and we now have results from the respondents. They are compelling.

Howard Dean 69%
Martin Frost 25%
Others 6%

Many of those who provided comments mentioned Governor Dean’s commitment to a 50-state strategy (before it was fashionable), and his campaigning for Richard Morrison and David Van Os. Others talked about his amazing fund-raising ability. Some talked about the number of new voters, particularly young people, he brought into the Party. Still others said they were not Dean supporters during the primaries, but were impressed with the hard work he did on behalf of the national ticket and candidates across the country, including many “Dean Dozen” candidates who won in red states.

And there were many who talked about how the training in Austin last year subsidized by Dean’s PAC, Democracy for America, helped them organize, get out the vote, and win races in Texas.

The vote is yours, but we feel it’s important for you to know what your constituents are thinking.

Thank you for your service to the Democratic Party. Our steering committee looks forward to seeing you in D.C. in February.

Sincerely,
Fran Vincent
Executive Director

The answers you seek

By Nathan Nance

DFA was helpful enough to provide a transcript of Gov. Dean's interview on This Week with George Stephanopoulos on their blog.

I thought he did a good job presenting his ideas and showing where he wants to take the party. My favorite part of the interview is where he discusses what we could do to start winning:

Look, Newt Gingrich—who I'd agree agree with almost nothing about in terms of policy—but Newt Gingrich decided that he was going to try to take back the Congress by drawing a clear distinction between Democrats and Republicans. And he succeeded. Before that, the minority in the House—Republicans—were really kind of around the edges of what the Democrats were doing and they weren't getting anywhere. I think we've got to draw a clear distinction.

We have different moral values than what the Republicans say they have. They say their moral values are about making sure gay people don't get ahead and making sure that women can't make up their mind about their own kind of health care. I say our moral values are feeding hungry children, having job opportunities and educational opportunities for every single American, and restoring a foreign policy which is not just based on a very strong military—which I'm very proud of—but also strong moral authority, which this president has abdicated in the world.

To me, that's the path to electoral victory. Drawing clear distinctions betwween where Republicans stand, and where we stand. Republicans stand for making rich people richer and for ruining the environment. They can come up with all the rhetoric in the world to say they're not but the policies they put forth show that is exactly where they stand. It should be our job as the opposition party to show that to the people and tell them how we're going to fix it.

I think Howard Dean is one of the few people running for chair who really understands this. Couple that with the other things we've discussed in the past (you're going to have to do your own searching) and I think Dean is just the best choice for DNC chair. Just one of the things to keep in mind as Feb. 12 approaches.

Nate is a sports/news clerk at the Waco Tribune-Herald and writer/editor of Common Sense a Texas-based Democratic Web log. He can be reached at nate_nance@yahoo.com.

DNC California Round-Up

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

There seems to have been a lot of on the ground reporting out of the California Western DNC Caucus this weekend so here are all the links we could find.

MyDD.com

Live from Sacramento
The Most Detailed Report
Add-on Observations

Adriel Hampton blog: writer for this SF Examiner DNC article

Bob Brigham, BlogPAC consultant, on the race for chairman of the Democratic National Committee: “With Howard Dean we will get a movement, with Simon Rosenberg we'll get an empire, with Martin Frost we'll get an exodus, with Donnie Fowler we'll get a monarchy and with Tim Roemer we'll get a Republican.”

Daily Kos

100% Dean Endorsements at DNC/CDC Meeting

"Some of you in the DNC may see us as barbarians at the gate. Some of us see ourselves as the cavalry. The truth is, we are fresh horses."

Swing State Project

Caucus Update 1
Caucus Update 2
Caucus Update 3
Caucus Update 4

If you find anything else out there, leave links in the comments. I encourage you to read through these, or at least glance over them and pick out the parts that are of interest to you.

Maybe we'll get some answers

By Nathan Nance

In answer to Byron's earlier post, I'll let the good doctor speak for himself. He's appearing on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos Sunday morning. That's 9 a.m. on KVUE in Austin.

Bush, the Great Crusader

By Jim Dallas

As the old proverb goes, one is a fluke and two is a trend. Looks like we got a trend - even conservative pundits are expressing skepticism of Bush's new liberation theology (perhaps manifesting the traditional conservative's (i.e. Edmund Burke's) skepticism of anything bold or revolutionary-sounding).

Peggy Noonan (via Greg Wythe):

The inaugural address itself was startling. It left me with a bad feeling, and reluctant dislike. Rhetorically, it veered from high-class boilerplate to strong and simple sentences, but it was not pedestrian. George W. Bush's second inaugural will no doubt prove historic because it carried a punch, asserting an agenda so sweeping that an observer quipped that by the end he would not have been surprised if the president had announced we were going to colonize Mars.

A short and self-conscious preamble led quickly to the meat of the speech: the president's evolving thoughts on freedom in the world. Those thoughts seemed marked by deep moral seriousness and no moral modesty.

No one will remember what the president said about domestic policy, which was the subject of the last third of the text. This may prove to have been a miscalculation.

It was a foreign-policy speech. To the extent our foreign policy is marked by a division that has been (crudely but serviceably) defined as a division between moralists and realists--the moralists taken with a romantic longing to carry democracy and justice to foreign fields, the realists motivated by what might be called cynicism and an acknowledgment of the limits of governmental power--President Bush sided strongly with the moralists, which was not a surprise. But he did it in a way that left this Bush supporter yearning for something she does not normally yearn for, and that is: nuance.

The administration's approach to history is at odds with what has been described by a communications adviser to the president as the "reality-based community." A dumb phrase, but not a dumb thought: He meant that the administration sees history as dynamic and changeable, not static and impervious to redirection or improvement. That is the Bush administration way, and it happens to be realistic: History is dynamic and changeable. On the other hand, some things are constant, such as human imperfection, injustice, misery and bad government.

This world is not heaven.

The president's speech seemed rather heavenish. It was a God-drenched speech. This president, who has been accused of giving too much attention to religious imagery and religious thought, has not let the criticism enter him. God was invoked relentlessly. "The Author of Liberty." "God moves and chooses as He wills. We have confidence because freedom is the permanent hope of mankind . . . the longing of the soul."

Peter Robinson:

Aw, gee. He’s our guy, I like him, and his performance since 9/11 has proven brave, steadfast, and completely admirable. But this speech? It was well-written — in places actually beautiful — and well-delivered. (I dissent from Jonah Goldberg and others who fault Bush for his delivery on the ground that they’re forgetting to multiply his score by the degree of difficulty. Just try standing outdoors, in freezing weather, using a sound system that echoes, and then delivering a speech to an audience that consists of more or less the entire planet. Denny Hastert couldn’t even administer the oath of office to the vice president without misspeaking. Bush delivered his entire text without a flaw.) But the speech was in almost no way that of a conservative. To the contrary. It amounted to a thoroughgoing exaltation of the state.

Bush has just announced that we must remake the entire third world in order to feel safe in our own homes, and he has done so without sounding a single note of reluctance or hesitation. This overturns the nation’s fundamental stance toward foreign policy since its inception. Washington warned of "foreign entanglements." The second President Adams asserted that "we go not abroad in search of monsters to destroy." During the Cold War, even Republican presidents made it clear that we played our large role upon the world stage only to defend ourselves and our allies, seeking to changed the world by our example rather than by force. Maybe I'm misreading Bush — I'm writing this based on my notes, and without having had time to study the text — but sheesh.

On domestic policy, a "broader definition of liberty?" Citing as useful precedents the Homestead Act, the Social Security Act, and the G. I. Bill? Compare what Bush said today with the inaugural address of Lyndon Baines Johnson and the first inaugural address of Ronald Reagan and you'll find that Bush sounds much, much more like LBJ. He as much as announced that from now on the GOP will be a party of big government. I can only hope that Chris Cox, Dana Rohrabacher, and other Republican members of Congress standing on the platform behind the president today were thinking to themselves, "Not so fast, buster." Bush may yet win critical conservative victories in this second term — notably by managing to enact private retirement accounts. But his "broader definition of liberty" makes me mighty nervous.

Tell me I'm wrong. Please.

Why I can't stand to Listen to President Bush

By Byron LaMasters

Aside from the content, the over-the-top religiosity, the dishonesty and hypocrisy on the liberty and freedom talking points and the whole lying in his oath to uphold the constitution, it's more basic than any of that. Mike points out what a professor of speech communications said about Bush's inaugural speech that makes a lot of sense:

There is something about Bush’s speeches that has always bothered me (aside from the content) and until the other day I couldn't quite say what it was. But yesterday NPR interviewed a professor of speech communications who analyzed Bush's inauguration speech and I think he nailed it. He replayed specific parts of Bush's speech and showed how Bush puts the emphasis on the wrong words. For example, when Bush says "At this second gathering..." he puts the emphasis on the word 'gathering' rather than on the word 'second.' He also pauses at awkward moments and doesn't have a natural rhythm in his cadence. What is sounds like is somebody struggling to read a difficult passage for the first time, with no idea how the sentence is going to end before they start reading it.

The professor noted that past presidents like John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton could make a speech sound better than it read on paper. Bush, he said, is the opposite. His speeches are better when you read them and sound worse when you hear them.

The professor speculated that Bush just doesn't like public speaking and is perhaps daydreaming about being back on his Crawford ranch in the middle of his speeches. He certainly doesn't make me want to continue listening. I am usually upset by some of the things he is saying, but then hearing him struggle through the speech like a junior high school kid being forced to read aloud from his textbook in front of the whole class is just painful.

Well, I'm glad that I missed it. Jon Stewart informed me as to the highlights of the event - Freedom defeated Liberty 27-15, Dick Cheney still has a LESBIAN daughter, Bill Clinton still can't dance, and Joe Lieberman will stand up for Social Security. That pretty much covers it.

George W. Bush, the Constitutionalist

By Byron LaMasters

Yesterday, President Bush put his hand on the bible and swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States. If his first term is any indication, he won't. Juan Cole gives us a pictoral overview of how Bush upheld the constitution in his first term.

Liveblogging of the Inauguration Protest

By Byron LaMasters

From an Austinite...

St. Edward's University senior Jake McCook is studying in D.C. this semester, so he liveblogged the Inauguration protest yesterday on his blog here. Check out the other posts as well for lots of pictures of the festivities.

Some Questions for Dean

By Byron LaMasters

I blogged last week on the reasons why Howard Dean is not my first choice for DNC Chair. A lot of folks have asked open questions to Martin Frost on this blog and also over at Kos, MyDD and Annatopia. A lot of the questions for Frost are quite legitimate. What type of reforms would Frost like to see at the DNC? How would Martin Frost engage and utilize the netroots? Why did Martin Frost run those ads featuring President Bush and other Republicans? Well, I've asked Martin Frost those very questions, and I should be getting responses sometime soon.

Now, I have questions that I would like to ask Howard Dean and his supporters for DNC Chair:

What did Howard Dean actually do for the candidates which Democracy for America endored - i.e. "Dean's Dozens"? I've not been involved with Democracy for America, and I'm very pleased that it has brought so many new people into the process. However, I think that we should judge an organization by their results. What did Democracy for America do for the candidates they endorsed? As I wrote earlier, with the exception of Richard Morrison, I believe that DFA was ineffective in the races it targeted in Texas. What would Howard Dean do differently as DNC Chair?

To follow up, what was the process of targeting for races for Democracy for America? One of the races targeted by DFA was that of David Van Os for State Supreme Court. Now, Van Os is a nice guy, and a damn good Democrat, but he really never had much of a chance. DFA's endorsement of Van Os seems to be more about payback for Van Os's endorsement of Dean's presidential bid than of well thought out targeting.

Another one of Dean's endorsements was of May Walker, a candidate for Constable in Houston. It was an overwhelmingly democratic district, and Walker won with over 80% of the vote. Was she worthy of support? Sure. But should it have been a race to which Democratic resources were poured into (that could have gone to a competitive race)? I would say no.

I'm all for a 50-state-strategy, and a 254-county-strategy for Texas. As Democrats we should never concede a state, or even a county for that matter. Having said that, we need to invest our resources where they can have the largest impact. I would argue that DFA's endorsements of Walker and Van Os were ineffective uses of resources. Imagine if someone like Kelly White (for state representative) were targeted. She lost by less than 200 votes, but a few thousand more dollars, and things might have turned out differently.

My question is quite simple. What was the targeting process of Democracy for America in 2004? Did Democracy for America consult with state and local parties as to how they could best make a difference? My guess is if the Texas Democratic Party had been consulted, the targeting choices might have been different. Dean advocates working with state and local parties now in his DNC Chair race, but is that a strategy that Dean practiced as the leader of an influential Democratic organization? I'd like to know.

Amy Sullivan's article on consultants in the Democratic Party made quite a splash this month. Howard Dean certainly wasn't immune to getting sucked into bad strategic decisions in his presidential campaign by various consultants. As Anna notes, lots of us remember some of Howard Dean's horrific television ads during the Democratic primary campaign. I'd be interested in learning what Dean learned from his primary loss. What mistakes did Howard Dean make, and how has he learned from them?

DNC Polls Released Monday / Dean +1

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

I attending our Democracy for Texas / Democracy for America House Party tonight to help raise some money for Dean's DNC Chair race and meetup with our Dean leaders in the state.

Of interest are the results of two polls that have been run in Texas regarding the DNC race. These numbers, while announced on the conference call, are not yet public (though I know them) and will become available to DNC members and the press on Monday. I have gained permission from those who ran the poll to publish the results right here on Burnt Orange Report on Monday. One of the polls should turn some heads for sure. Until then, anything you hear are just rumors and should not be given credibilty or passed around as tends to happen on the Internets.

Also, it appears that Dean has picked up the endorsement of yet another actual voting DNC member, Robert Bell, from Democrats Abroad Canada.

I have endorsed and will vote for Howard Dean for Chair of the Democratic National Committee because I believe he has the proven experience to manage the organization, the vision to successfully direct and enlarge our party, and the presence and personality to be a respected voice rebutting the Bush Administration.

I founded Democrats Abroad Canada in the late 1970's. I have been Treasurer and then Chair of Democrats Abroad Canada, Vice Chair of the Americas Region, and DNC Member representing the DPCA. I am in my second term as DNC Committeeman.

Inauguration

By Byron LaMasters

Via Matt Stoller, Terry McAuliffe puts it best:

Departing national party chairman Terry McAuliffe: "If I truly wanted to match Bush's accomplishments, I would max out my credit card, take out a second mortgage and steal my mother's Social Security. Instead, I'll just spend it with my five kids and, in the spirit of the second Bush administration, we're going to rent 'Titanic.'"

It's hard to top that. The only inauguration coverage I plan to watch is whatever The Daily Show puts together tonight. My friend Chris is attending some of the Inauguration protest activities. It's not something that I'd spend 16+ hours in the car to do, but to each his own. I'm sure that he'll have an interesting report on the trip when he returns to Florida.

There's not too much news out of Texas this week, because our state legislature is adjourned until next Monday. They've simply abdicated their responsibility to the voters of Texas by going to this weeklong party in Washington D.C. when Texans have such important issues such as the budget and school finance (and of course, the critical need to re-defend marriage from the all those gays). Why are all the Republican state legislators going on the lam? I just don't understand it. At least the Democrats went somewhere boring like Ardmore. I don't remember any high-dollar parties or lavish balls in Oklahoma.

And an Update

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

To show my point from the previous entry, this post over at Blog for America came up while I was writing it. Stories from the Washington Post (front page of Section C), LA Weekly, and the Boston Globe.

I begin to wonder how long it will take for a repeat of Dean Dean Dean Dean Dean...

A New Perspective

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

If there is one thing that I have noticed about this DNC chair race (and isn't it a wonderful thing that for the first time in about 15 years, we are having a true public debate over the operation of our Party) it is that there is one person driving the media coverage (outside of the blogosphere). If you haven’t noticed, every time Dean makes a move, whether it is his formal announcement or endorsements he drives a media response from the press. It makes the front page of Yahoo and CNN, it gets discussed on cable news, and of course gets batted about on the Net. And in these stories, there is a choice quote or two from (usually) Frost (and earlier Roemer) and the obligatory listing of "also running are..."

My point in this is not to yammer on about Dean, it is to point out that aside from an occasional story on Frost now, and less so Rosenberg or Fowler, the media won't lead or write a story about the DNC race. And even if they do, what do you find? The second quote in the story is almost always from Dean.

The media knows what sells. The horserace sells, but even better, a horserace with a well known figure outside of the Democratic Party sells even better. Now, just for a minute, I would like to ask you to picture all of the DNC Chair Candidates as actual Chairs. In each case, they release a press statement or get scheduled for an interview or "crossfire" like event on cable. Of all the candidates, who do you think will get "message airtime"? Who will the media actually pay attention to? More importantly, who do you think average viewers are going to see and listen to, and then go "I remember that argument, because I know who is saying it and it sticks in my mind for longer than 3 minutes"?

You get my drift. Though it may not be a primary reason to support someone for DNC chair, there are other far more important issues, Dean does get attention because average people, even if they didn't agree with him in his Presidential bid, know who he is and will, if anything, give him credit for "changing the way politics is waged". Yes, there are some that think Dean and go "howling Vermont Liberal" but these are partisan Republicans who continue to push this line to discredit a threatening Democrat, Democrats supporting other candidates for Chairman, or people who have bought the story, don't believe it personally, but fear everyone else does. It reminds me of the "must vote for Kerry because he's supposed to be electable, even if I don't like him and don't know personally know swing voters that truly think he is more electable."

The DNC chair should be partisan, they should be bold, they should take the Party down the path of Reform, and they should make waves and get noticed. Having the right message does no good if you have no spokesperson to carry it that people will stop and listen to. We have these people in our Party. John Kerry and Hillary Clinton should continue to be loud in the Senate and carry the Democratic message there. Bill Richardson should keep speaking up as a Governor. Other leaders like Al Gore or most of the 2004 Democratic Primary field should speak up and not be afraid to offer their input. Having our Party's Operational Chief coordinate and also be a key speaker is an important factor, something that is not going to exist if someone like Leeland or Roemer or even Rosenberg or Fowler is the 'voice'.

I know it doesn't seem to be important, but step back from the echo chambers of the Internet for a minute, put yourself out in the fresh air where the TV is running all day while middle class families are putzing around the house doing chores, and tell me who they are going to stop and listen to. These are the busy citizens, casual voters, people that care about issues but are not set in partisan ways.

Reform will win the day, internal technical operations will be enacted, and our message will be reframed. But after all that, we still have to make sure that citizens notice us.

Context Context Context

By Andrew Dobbs

I just watched that Channel 11 (Dallas) story about how Frost wouldn't say that he was a Democrat and was sucking up to the GOP leadership. Looks pretty damning, particularly if you are willing to do anything to keep Martin Frost from winning.

But as Byron has noted, you have to keep it all in context- that portion of the ad shown was taken out of context. The ad wasn't there to show that Martin Frost loves the GOP, but rather that Pete Sessions is out of the mainstream of his own party.

What bill was Frost talking about? Was it some abortion ban bill? Was it some corporate giveaway? Was it gutting social security or some other respected and helpful program? No- it was a bill that made airline companies fortify the doors on airliner cockpits so that terrorists can't break in. Frost- along with virtually every Democrat and almost every Republican- voted for the bill while Pete Sessions joined only 8 other members of Congress in voting against the bill, which he feared was "too tight." That is what the ad shows before the part culled by Channel 11- Pete Sessions is an extremist out of touch with the mainstream, Martin Frost is willing to side even with political opponents when its for the good of the country. Sounds like a great ad and a great message.

DNC chair is a partisan position, and I am about as partisan as they come. But as the GOP moves further and further to the Right, we should be the party that envelopes the rest of the spectrum, until we have one mainstream party and one extremist party. We should make it clear that country comes before party, and that is what distinguishes us from Republicans. That Martin Frost joined every congressional Democrat and all but 9 Republicans in supporting a bill introduced by the President doesn't disqualify him, and that he pointed out his opponent's inability to lead doesn't disqualify him. Martin Frost will do what it takes to win, and he has proven himself many times over.

Slap! I'm Joe Biden beyotch!

By Nathan Nance

Guest post by Nate Nance

I watched some of the confirmation hearing for Condi Rice today on C-SPAN. It was day 2 and it seemed to me that the questions were a little more pointed. It probably had something to do with the good press Sen. Boxer got for her words yesterday.

But, Sen. Joe Biden (who I'm totally convinced is running in 2008) got the most meorable line in today. He said (and this is from memory because it is damned near impossible to find a transcript on the Web) "and don't listen to Rumsfeld, he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about." Or something to that effect.

Could it be that our elected Democrats are finally getting their backbones in the mail?

Of course, he followed that up by admitting that he was going to go vote yea for her confirmation in five minutes, so the answer is probably no. But it made me wonder if maybe senators should vote no for the confirmation of people they don't think would do a good job in the position they've been nominated for. I know there's "politics" involved, I'm not blind to the fact that voting nay could get them in trouble later on. But I would rally like to see some of the Democrats just be the opposition. Vote against the Republicans. Do something. Don't get get in lines like that and them capitulate because you think it is inevitable that she's going to be confirmed.

Biden's office, and indeed lot's of people, has serious concerns with her assertion that 120,000 Iraqis have been trained to fight the insurgency there. He's stated that the number is closer to just 4,000, which is a big difference. If she's going to be the Secretary of State, she's got to know this and be more forthcoming with the American people about our chief foreign entanglement.

But that didn't happen and Rice has been approved by the foreign relations committee.

This is a guest post from Nathan Nance. He can be reached at nate_nance@yahoo.com

6 More Votes for Dean

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Blog for America reports today (in addition to Florida) 6 state party leaders from 5 more states have announced their support for Dean for DNC.

Florida: Chairman Scott Maddox, Vice-Chairwoman Diane Glasser
Mississippi: Chairman Wayne Dowdy
Oklahoma: Chairman Jay Parmley, Vice-Chairwoman Debbe Leftwich
Utah: Vice-Chairwoman Nancy Woodside
Washington: Chairman Paul Berendt
Vermont: Chairman Peter Mallary

So much for the Chair's Association giving a united endorsement. I went over the full list of DNC members by state and have noted them below for these states. It's no sure bet that fellow DNC members will follow their state chair, but this is the world of Party Politics we are talking about and they do have influence. These numbers do not reflect Members at Large and other positions, just the average State by State elected DNC members.

Florida: 11
Mississippi: 4
Oklahoma: 4
Utah: 4
Washington: 6
Vermont: 4

That is 33 possible total votes of which we know 17 officially have endorsed Dean. And here is the thing, these endorsements matter because these people actually vote and are closest to the other voting members. You can have as many Congresspeople and Governors as you like (and it doesn't hurt) but as far as direct impact, well, you get my drift.

Oppose Frost for DNC?

By Byron LaMasters

Fine. Just do it for the right reasons.

Some examples of good reasons to oppose Frost?

Off The Kuff, Greg's Opinion, Southpaw, The Scarlet Left and TAPPED are a few examples. So are some of the thoughts posted by Karl-Thomas and Nate on this blog.

Martin Frost has some weaknesses that I'm uneasy about. As I've said before, Frost is not the most tech/net-savvy guy around. He's not the most reform-oriented candidate in the field, but overall on the balance, he's one of my top choices. I've said all this before.

I'm no Martin Frost hack, but I do think that the many of the blogosphere attacks against him have not been intellectually honest. Throwing up a picture of Frost and a Republican doesn't prove that Frost endorsed a Republican. It doesn't even prove that he's a conservative or a Blue Dog. It only proves that he was fighting like hell to win a seat where he should have gotten 35% of the vote.

It especially annoys me that the same people that attacked Tim Roemer for not standing up and fighting in 2002 when he would have had a tough reelection are attacking Martin Frost for doing exactly what Tim Roemer did not do - standing up and fighting the race of his life.

And there's more attacks on Frost...

By Byron LaMasters

Now it's these ads. Martin Frost ran ads at the time attacking Pete Sessions for being an extremist. Pete Sessions was one of nine congressmen who voted against supporting reinforced cockpit doors, putting air marshalls on our airplanes, toughening security in our airports and ensuring that our baggage screeners are well-qualified professionals.

Frost did join George W. Bush, Kay Bailey Hutchison, John McCain and Dennis Hastert in supporting this legislation, but he also joined just about every member of the Democratic caucus in supporting it as well. Just about everyone supported the legislation... except Pete Sessions.

I did a post on this in October. Here's part of the Frost press release on the ad:

"Too Tight"

Our second ad this week reinforces the advertisement we aired last week highlighting Sessions' vote against President Bush's major air safety plan to fight terrorism. 510 Members of Congress voted to support the anti-terrorism plan, while Sessions joined a band of only nine dangerously out of touch Members who voted "no". What's more, the ad shows Sessions himself explaining his vote by saying security at our airports is "too tight" because people like "even Senator Ted Kennedy" might be delayed.

"Stronger vs Weaker Homeland Security"

Virtually every American knows that everything changed on September 11, 2001.... but not Pete Sessions. While Republicans, Democrats and Independents came together to fight terrorism and protect America, Pete Sessions continued following an overtly partisan and dangerous ideology that puts raw politics ahead of American security. It's an attitude President Bush has described as a "September 10th mentality." Throughout his career, Congressman Frost has been willing to stand up to the leaders of either party in order to make sure that our Nation's defenses remain the strongest in the World and that the safety of those he represents comes before any partisan or ideological pursuits. Sessions' voting record and his own words demonstrate clearly that he can't be trusted to keep America safe.

Another Attack on Frost

By Byron LaMasters

Kos goes on the attack again. Kos attacks Frost for running a television ad where he mentioned that the Dallas Morning News endorsed both Frost and George W. Bush. I don't particularly see a problem with the ad. Frost did not endorse Bush. Frost did have to appeal to Independent and moderate Republican voters though. The rest is copy+pasted from comments on Kos:

The Dallas Morning News is one of the most conservative newspapers in the country. They endorsed Barry Goldwater in 1964. I'm sure that they've endorsed every Republican nominee since then. They rarely endorse Democrats, and when they do, those endorsements are almost always token endorsements in noncompetitive races. Everyone in Dallas knows that. The fact that Frost won the DMN endorsement in a highly comptetive race was quite significant. When the DMN endorses a Democrat in a competetive race, it gives that Democrat instant creditability among Independent / Moderate Republican voters, because such an endorsement is so rare. Frost was smart to emphasize that.

Frost was running in a 60-65% GOP district that was going to support Bush by a large margin. So what did he do? He ran a campaign that played up his moderate credentials while trying to paint his opponent as an extremist. It's not what a lot of us Democrats would like to see, but that's the race that Frost had to run in that district.

Finally, if you think that Frost's ads hurt Democrats in the Dallas area, just take a look at the results. Frost's media campaign spent $4 Million on putting up a Democratic message on the DFW airwaves. It didn't hurt Kerry. It didn't hurt local Democrats -- in fact, Frost's media campaign and GOTV opperation helped Dallas County Democrats to their most successful election in decades.

Dallas County Democrats elected a Hispanic, lesbian Sheriff, Lupe Valdez and three judges countywide (giving Democrats 4 judges countywide, Democrats won their first judical race in Dallas County in over a decade in 2002). Finally, John Kerry was not hurt by this ad. Even though Texas was not in play, Kerry lost Dallas County by only 10,000 votes, compared to Gore's loss of the county by 47,000 votes.

2000:
Bush/Cheney - GOP - 322,283 52.55%
Gore/Lieberman - Dem - 275,281 44.89%

2004:
Bush/Cheney - GOP - 346,246 50.32
Kerry/Edwards - DEM - 336,641 48.93

Anyway, there are legitimate reasons to oppose Martin Frost. He's not as reform oriented as someone like Dean or Rosenberg. He's not as tech/web savvy. Oppose Martin Frost for those reasons, but don't distort his record. He's a good Democrat.

Steny Hoyer Endorses Frost

By Byron LaMasters

Via Martin Frost Press Release:

WASHINGTON - House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.) - the 2nd-ranking Democrat in the U.S. House of Representatives, chair of the DNC's Democratic Business Council, and a former Democratic leadership liaison to the Democratic National Committee - today endorsed former Congressman and former Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Martin Frost to be the next DNC Chair.

"Martin Frost is one of the most successful political strategists and organizers in either Party because he is as innovative as he is pragmatic," Hoyer said. "He focuses on the bottom line - beating Republicans - and he challenges conventional wisdom and embraces new strategies to get it done. That's how he reinvented the DCCC after the debacle of 1994, leading Democrats to the historic victories that drove Newt Gingrich out of Congress. No one in this race can match his track record of successfully building and managing Democratic Party operations at all levels."

Frost and Hoyer served together in the House Democratic leadership, and worked together in the House of Representatives for more than two decades.

Frost said, "Steny Hoyer's support is so significant because he personally has seen me deliver for Democrats, and because he knows how to win without sacrificing our Party's principles."

Again, Hoyer's not a DNC member, but he certainly has some sway among the House Democratic Caucus and the Maryland delegation. Josh Marshall has some interesting thoughts on the endorsement.

Rosenburg fighting for 3rd?

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

I like Simon Rosenburg. I met him in Atlanta and was impressed by his thoughts and ideas. If he wins the DNC race, I'll be happy. If he loses, I hope that he's brought on board anyways.

His latest e-mail sounds like something from someone still behind in the race. And while he is, I don't know if I'm supposed to get that impression...

Dear Karl-Thomas,

Our very strong week last week and good performances at the first two regional DNC meetings have put us in the upper tier of candidates to be the next DNC Chair.

"Dean, Frost and Rosenberg have been cited most often as front-runners among party leaders." ...

Last week our endorsements ran from Alaska to Alabama to New York to California, including leaders from all parts of the party and from across the country. Chris Heinz joined us from the Kerry world, former DNC Chair Joe Andrew from the Gore world, Mike McCurry and Christine Varney from the Clinton world and of course Joe Trippi joined us from the Dean campaign. Ron Brown's former Chief of Staff Rob Stein also came aboard. Ben Chandler, Artur Davis, Jonathan Miller and Michael Thurmond joined us from the South; Tony Knowles, Loretta Sanchez and Adam Smith from the West; Joe Andrew from the Midwest; and Adolpho Carrion and Jack Markell joined from the East. And this is only the beginning.

Endorsements do not elect a DNC chair, DNC votes do. Maybe in their respective states, it will make those DNC delegations look at Rosenberg. Unless they are calling members in support...

And as to the Hotline Poll, here is the campaign's Spin on it (even if they claim to No Spine Zone it)...

Finally, we learned a few things from a "poll" conducted by Hotline that ran last Friday. Stripping away the spin, the data shows that three-quarters of all DNC members are undecided; this race is wide open. Of the quarter that have a preference, those candidates with the best name ID -- unsurprisingly -- are doing the best during this early stage, yet they too have only a tiny fraction of the votes needed to win (as little as 15 percent). And despite my relative late entry into the race and the fact that the poll was conducted before all of last week's endorsements were unveiled, I am tied for third. The bottom line is: we are in a strong position to win this race.

It is true that the race may be open, but I don't know if anything is fundamentally changing as these DNC meeetings go on. People know Dean, old-partyline-steppers are slowly getting the drift that Frost is "the man" even if he doesn't excite, and the rest are left scrambling to put together a come from behind second/third choice strategy, because I'm sure they are seeing that they aren't going to come out ahead of Dean on the early ballot rounds.

Should be fun to watch as always, and maybe Hotline will throw us another poll conducted after the Regional Caucuses.

Looks like I'll have to start Defending Martin Frost....

By Byron LaMasters

I was going to do a post responding to Nate's post on Martin Frost, especially after anti-Frost posts have popped up on MyDD and Kos. I have to say that Kos is off the mark on this one. Frost is not a conservative Democrat, he's a moderate Democrat. Look at his lifetime voting record. I'll do some research, and hopefully I'll have time to respond to some of the charges against Frost in the next day or so.

Complete Summary: Donnie Fowler Conference Call

By Byron LaMasters

Donnie Fowler made a compelling case for DNC chair in the conference call today. Fowler’s strengths are clearly his understanding of grassroots organization and technology, and his commitment to reform. I’m still a little bit concerned how he would fare in the party spokesman role. Fowler clearly represents a new generation of leadership, and he definitely will have a seat at the table for years to come.

An interesting comparison came up in several of my conversations with friends today about Donnie Fowler. I don’t think that 37 is too young for a DNC Chair, but I just have a sense that Fowler is significantly less polished than someone like Simon Rosenberg – who is only about three years older than Fowler. It might just be my own biases, but I know I’m not the only one who’s thought this. Anyway, overall, Fowler’s an impressive guy. Take the jump for my full summary of the conference call.

Fowler first addressed the fact that we were celebrating the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, and that King represented the values of the progressive movement in our country. Fowler noted that the liberal tradition in America has in many ways been one of radicals. Our founding fathers were radicals – suggesting that break allegiance to the British monarchy. The abolitionists, the Suffragettes, and the leaders of the Civil Rights movement were all radicals in their time, but today they are part of the liberal tradition that represents the best of America.

Fowler repeatedly touts his grassroots expertise. He likes to note that he was “grassroots before grassroots was cool”. He got his start in grassroots with Dick Gephardt, then Jesse Jackson in the 1988 presidential campaign. Fowler praises Terry McAuliffe as the right chair for a time when fundraising needed to be revamped. He credits McAuliffe and the netroots for the Democrats ability to nearly match Republicans in small donors this cycle. Now, Fowler says that his skill set matches the needs of the DNC. Those needs, Fowler notes, are rebuilding state parties and speaking to the grassroots.

First, Fowler thinks that we need to formulate a national message that speaks of our Democratic values – tearing down boundaries, opportunity, access, a fair shake, hard work, etc. Second, Fowler wants to ask strong state parties, and elected officials, especially those who have won in red states (i.e. Sen. Ken Salazar D-CO, Gov. Janet Napolitano D-AZ, Gov. Brian Schweitzer D-MT, etc) what works. Also, Fowler intends to bring the net/grassroots to the table, and ask how the DNC can embrace their issues. Finally, Fowler seeks to “build the pipeline” for communications with a two point approach. First, he wants to build a “message delivery system” to counter FOX News and right-wing talk radio. Second, Fowler thinks we should have training and resources for ground organizers, phone programs, mail, email, blogs, etc. Ultimately, the job of the DNC is to win elections, regain power and enact a progressive agenda.

Fowler took questions from everyone that wanted to ask one. He repeated the talking points that everyone is using on a “50 state strategy”. He expanded though to say that we should move organizing out of D.C., and that we should look to the successful organizers, consultants and state parties outside of D.C. to set benchmarks and find the best practices. Fowler also wants the DNC to show the netroots more respect, and bring the netroots into a decision-making role at the table, instead of just seeing the netroots as a source of money.

In another question, Fowler expanded upon why it was critical to moving organizing out of D.C. First, local organizers better understand local issues. Fowler noted that what the D.C. consultant / pundit class considered important – the Washington Post and Tim Russert, rarely reflected the concerns of those outside the beltway. When Fowler worked in Michigan this past cycle, he noted how Michigan had several unique issues such as Canadian garbage and a disproportionate number of Arab-American and Muslim voters that were best understood by local activists. Fowler used Spanish-language advertising to make another point. Simply hiring a translator and making an ad in Spanish isn’t enough. Before making a Spanish-language advertisement its critical to understand the composition of the local Hispanic population as Mexican-Americans, Puerto Rican-Americans and Cuban-Americans speak in somewhat different dialects.

When I had a chance to ask Fowler a question, I first thanked him for coming to the state democratic executive committee (SDEC) meeting in Austin last Monday. Most candidates probably skipped the event as Martin Frost will likely win most (if not all) of the Texas DNC delegate’s votes. However, Fowler spoke to the SDEC and asked to be considered as a second choice. It may not win him any votes on the first ballot, but if Frost falters early in the balloting for some reason, Donnie Fowler certainly won some brownie points with the Texas delegation, and would certainly receive strong consideration.

Before the conference call, I asked a few people what more they would like to know about Donnie Fowler. Since Donnie Fowler’s strength is his grassroots and work in the field, I decided that I’d ask him more about his communications skills. He admitted that he’s not as experienced as some others, and that his television appearances were more limited to state and local television, public radio, etc. However, Fowler pointed out that the next RNC Chair, Ken Mehlman is 38 – only a year older than him.

I also asked Fowler to elaborate on his proposal for a “message delivery system”. He repeated much of his previous points with more detail. His agenda focused on reaching out to local news as opposed to just the national news, regionalizing local and communication operations through forums and meetings and dramatically improving technology.

After some more questions, Fowler concluded that the DNC must change, and that he had the skill sets needed to implement the changes needed in 2005.

Florida DNC Delegation for Dean

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

First a short note to point out a post by Scott Goldstein on Blog for America, whom I was traveling with on his book tour over the winter break. He goes into more detail about out meeting in Birmingham concerning a homeless man and Martin Luther King, Jr.

And now, word that that all 11 DNC members of the Florida delgation have come out and endoresed Dean for DNC Chair. Some of the best quotes in the piece...

The Florida delegation to the Democratic National Committee has voted unanimously to endorse Howard Dean to be the party's next chairman, bucking an effort to orchestrate an endorsement of one candidate by all 50 state party leaders at the same time later this month.

The decision, announced yesterday by Scott Maddox, the Florida Democratic chairman, is a major lift for Dr. Dean, a former governor of Vermont, and it is a shift in a contest where most Democrats have been holding back from endorsing any candidate in the crowded field.

...

"The only knock against Howard Dean is that he's seen as too liberal," Mr. Maddox said. "I'm a gun-owning pickup-truck driver and I have a bulldog named Lockjaw. I am a Southern chairman of a Southern state, and I am perfectly comfortable with Howard Dean as D.N.C. chair."

If you like, the entire list of the 440 DNC members is available here. Texas has 12 members if I remember correctly. (PDF)

Donnie Fowler Conference Call

By Byron LaMasters

I'm on it. Annatopia is liveblogging it. I'll have some thoughts when it's over.

Roemer and the Big Tent

By Jim Dallas

Tim Roemer's fussing about litmus tests. Personally, I wish the focus was on Tim Roemer's votes on Bush's tax cuts, his position with a right-wing libertarian think-tank, etc. were taking priority over his position on abortion.

Our senate minority leader and many members of Congress are opposed to abortion-on-demand, which I'm perfectly fine with that. In fact I thought we were going to get some peace from the old pro-life canard that Democrats are excluding anti-choice people from power. If we're going to have litmus tests, how 'bout one that makes some sense, e.g. sticking with the New Deal consensus?

Once bitten...

By Jim Dallas

Old Man Wythe says it's time to stop fighting. Agreed. Texas Democrats unite! The only thing you have to lose is... umm, well, what haven't we lost yet...

(OK, we can agree to lose the cabal of Beltway consultants -- but let's do it in a productive way. Jokes about incompetent Democratic party consultants are only surpassed in antiquity by the old "circular firing squad" joke. That probably tells you something about the way things go down in Dem circles, doesn't it?)

I still haven't met Greg; although I should have, had I gotten down to the HCDP's Sharpstown voter reg drive (with which Greg did a wonderful job) instead of doing the campus drive instead. I've always imagined though that he might wear a monocle and a top hat and enjoy shaking a walking stick at younger people, especially hippie-Deanies (but in a "it's for your own good" kind of way). Sort of like the Monopoly Guy or Scrooge McDuck. Not that there's anything wrong with that; after all, without Uncle Pennybags you can't pass go and collect $200.

DNC St. Louis

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Another on the ground report has popped up in this MyDD diary.

From the DNC in St. Louis...

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Some thoughts have been offered up in this Daily Kos diary.

Models for health care reform

By Jim Dallas

The Washington Monthly's cover story this month suggests the VHA as a model for health care reform.

I've got a better idea - the United Federation of Planets:

KIRK Doctors, doctors, this is highly unprofessional --

He gives the Doctor a swift, sure, Judo chop. Gillian and the nurses gasp...

Bones, muttering as he passes the device over Chekov.

BONES
Chemotherapy... fundoscopic examination... dealing with medievalism here!

Sorry, I couldn't help myself. Is Longman correct about the need for a technological revolution in medicine? Yes. Although sometimes he sounds like Dr. McCoy, ranting about the Dark Ages.

DNC Second Round

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

MyDD has some information on the second regional meeting for DNC members. I'm not sure how much new information policy wise will be coming out from candidates at this point, but I'd look to MyDD for horserace information.

Michelman Won't Seek DNC Post

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Buried in this otherwise interesting article discussing the 60.7% national turnout in the 2004 election which also tells us...

The organization also found that Kerry ran behind his party's statewide candidates -- governors and senators -- who were up for election in 30 of 37 states. Bush fared much better, winning fewer votes than Republican candidates in just 16 of 37 states.

The report noted that although turnout reached new heights, more than 78 million Americans who were eligible to vote stayed home on Election Day. The group estimated that Bush won just 30.8 percent of the total eligible voters.

At the end of this story was the unrelated nugget..

Kate Michelman, the former president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, has decided not to enter the race to lead the Democratic National Committee and instead will lead, as she put it, an "effort to reassert the party's leadership on women's fundamental rights."

Dean Leads, Frost Second in DNC Poll

By Byron LaMasters

The Hotline polled all of the DNC members, and 187 (42%) responded. Dean leads with 31% to 16% for Frost (everyone else in the low single digits with 40% undecided) for first choice. When first and second choices are combined, Dean goes up to 40% and Frost emerges with 27%. Fowler comes in at 11% with Webb and Rosenberg at 8% and Roemer at 6%.

What should we make of all this?

Roemer has no traction. Roemer polls behind most everyone. Duh... because Roemer is a DINO on key issues that define the Democratic Party. Everyone except the D.C. leadership gets that. Time for them to wake up...

I think that some people will be surprised with Frost's strong showing, but I'm not. Frost has near unanimous support of the Texas delegation, and has contacts in most every state from his days of running the DCCC. Right now, Frost appears best positioned to consolidate the vote of those looking for someone other than Howard Dean. The endorsement of former DNC Chair Bob Strauss certainly helps as well.

Howard Dean is in a strong position, but after Tim Roemer, Dean is the most polarizing candidate in the field (the poll for last choice for DNC had Roemer at 16% and Dean at 11%). Both Dean and Roemer have the largest percentage drop in support from first choice to second choice. I can easily imagine a scenario where Dean leads the first round or two of balloting, but ultimately loses as the field shrinks. Dean supporters are the loudest, but I think that many DNC members (40% of those polled, and probably an even higher percentage of those who did not respond to the Hotline survey) are holding their cards until someone else emerges.

As for the others - Fowler, Webb, Rosenberg, etc. One of them may emerge into the top tier. I think Rosenberg is best positioned to be a compromise candidate (for example, if Dean realizes that he can't win, Rosenberg could be a potential compromise candidate if Dean threw him his support). Everybody seems to like Donnie Fowler, but he's not many people's first choice. Wellington Webb may get African-American support early, but I doubt that his support will go much deeper than that. More importantly is where African-American support will go after Webb drops out. I could see it going to either Dean or Frost.

Make what you want of it all. More at MyDD.

Update: More details now at MyDD (again) and Political Wire.

DNC Pictures

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

I can't believe that I have taken as long as I have to get all the pictures loaded from the DNC Atlanta meeting. If you want to page through four pages of pictures from the Sleepless Winter Book Tour, start here.

And here are some selected photos that I know you will love...

The Missing Fish

Florida Ballot Box (funny)

Dean and Georgia for Democracy

Karl-Thomas and Al Sharpton!

Karl-Thomas and Simon Rosenberg

Donnie Fowler and us bloggers

Speaking of the DNC Race...

By Byron LaMasters

Annatopia liveblogged the Blog PAC interview with Howard Dean.

Why I don't support Dean for DNC

By Byron LaMasters

I've meant to write this post for awhile now, but I wanted to wait until I could better express my thoughts. I proudly join Karl-Thomas, and probably every writer for this blog as a "Reform Democrat". I also think that I can speak with some creditability as a member of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party on most issues. Why have I not engaged in the general blogosphere euphoria over Howard Dean's campaign for DNC? It's really pretty simple. It's all about the record.

First, I should state my criteria for a DNC Chair. The chair must be a creditable spokesman for the Democratic Party on the core issues that define our party. That immediately eliminates Tim Roemer, who does not have creditability to be a spokesman for Democrats on the important issues of choice, a balanced budget and social security. Next, a Democratic chairman should be refom-minded. We cannot continue running elections as if it were still the twentieth century. We're in the twenty-first century. We need to throw out the consultants that suck and learn from the folks that actually win elections (and if you haven't read the Washington Monthly article yet, you should read it). A DNC Chair should understand how to use the Internet and know something about blogging. Finally, the DNC Chair should have a record of results. This final criterion is where I have a problem with Howard Dean.

It's not that I think that Howard Dean would be a bad DNC Chair. I think that he would do a good job as chair. He is clearly reform-oriented, and would probably steer the party in the right direction. Having said that, I think that we have better choices. Howard Dean brings some baggage. Ezra has more on the issue of Dean baggage that I tend to agree with. Dean has been unfairly pegged as a screaming liberal, but fair or not, that's the image that many Americans have of Howard Dean. That image is not one that I want for DNC Chair.

However, I have more substantial concerns about Howard Dean's candidacy as well. On the record of results, Howard Dean doesn't really have the profile I'm looking for. Yes, Howard Dean understands the Internet, knows how to raise money off the Internet, and has mobilized countless thousands of new people into politcs. That's great, and there are some good reasons for Dean to be DNC Chair. Kevin Drum's post outlines the best ones. But lets take a look at the results of Dean's fundraising and of the candidates which he endorsed in his "Dean's Dozens".

Dean raised tens of millions of dollars in his campaign for president, but he fell into the same consultant trap that has plauged many Democrats over the past few cycles. After New Hampshire, Dean had squandered all of his money, and had no backup plan in case he lost Iowa and New Hampshire. That's not a record of sucess.

Of the Dean's Dozen candidates, 33 won and 58 lost. Sure, that's a losing record, and I don't fault him for that. After all, whether you're a fan of Kos or not, Democrats ought to praise the Daily Kos for its work in raising hundreds of thousands of dollars for Democratic candidates for Congress, even if none of the Kos Dozen candidates won. As for Democracy for America, it's a great organization that has mobilized thousands of new people into politics and the Democratic Party, but what did Democracy for America actually do for the candidates that it endorsed? I can't speak for the entire organization, but looking at the Texas candidates endorsed by DFA - I don't really see what DFA did. DFA endorsed four Texas candidates: David Van Os for State Supreme Court, Katy Hubener for State Representative, Richard Morrison for Congress and May Walker for Harris County Constable. David Van Os never really had much of a chance, May Walker was going to win regardless, and Richard Morrison surely received a good deal of money from DFA, but he got money from many Internet sources, so big deal.

Where I really have some insight into the activities of DFA is with the Katy Hubener campaign. In a debriefing with some folks that worked for the campaign, they said that the DFA folks didn't really do too much for the campaign. DFA sent out an email endorsing Katy Hubener, but that was about it. A couple of hundred bucks came in, but that was all. That's no way to help candidates - send one email with a dozen candidates on it, asking for donations? The only way that the Katy Hubener campaign capitalized from the DFA endorsement was by looking up Texas donors to the Dean campaign and sending them a seperate fundraising letter. That raised several thousand dollars, but that was something that should have been done by DFA.

I tend to agree with Joe Trippi that there are others who better understand the climate of 21st century politics than Howard Dean. Trippi writes this in his endorsement of Simon Rosenberg:

If our party is to win in the 21st century, we have to have a strategist who knows how to practice 21st century politics. That means expanding participation, embracing technology, and building an apparatus that can counter the Republican machine. Simon Rosenberg was among the first in politics to acknowledge the power of the movement we built with Dean for America and he wasn’t afraid to speak up about how we were fundamentally changing politics. He knows that in the age of the Internet, our politics must be interactive and participatory to engage citizens. He knows the Internet is not just an ATM for candidates and parties, but a tool for bringing in millions of Americans who want to be a part of the political process. For Simon, building a new progressive politics for our time is not just lip service, it is a passion backed up by his record. I’m backing Simon for chair because I know I can work with him to help build a modern, winning Democratic party.

Simon Rosenberg and Martin Frost are my top two choices for DNC Chair. Why? Because they're the only two candidates in the race who actually have a record of success. Frost oversaw the DCCC efforts of unprecedented gains for the incumbent party in the sixth year of a presidential term. I'm a little bit biased to Frost as I'm a Democrat from Texas, and I know that Martin Frost understands first hand how important down ballot statewide and state representative races are in determining national politics. Had Democrats won the races for Comptroller and Lieutenant Governor in 1998, or had we won another state senate seat or two in 2002, re-redistring would never had happened. If the DNC had been there, things might have been different, but they weren't. Martin Frost wouldn't allow the DNC to make that mistake again. Like him or not, Martin Frost is a pit bull and a fighter. As for Simon Rosenberg - he has been an innovative leader for change in the party as Joe Trippi notes above. Read more about Simon Rosenberg - he's one of the folks that really gets it in terms of strategy and in understanding the net/grassroots.

I've been in touch with folks in both the Rosenberg and Frost campaigns, and I hope to have some more material from both campaigns in the near future. I won't be endorsing in this race, but Frost and Rosenberg are my top choices by far, because I believe that they are the candidates that have the best records of actually achieving results in the field.

Crap

By Jim Dallas

This makes me cry:

A number of other well-known and bright conservative judges, including Frank Easterbrook and Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit and Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit, are unlikely appointees in light of their libertarian bent and occasional departures from social conservative doctrine. Indeed, it seems likely -- given the sharp and close divide in today’s political world, in which one or two votes on the Court could made a significant difference in constitutional interpretation for years to come -- that the heavily ideological Bush administration will do everything it can to ensure that its nominees are clearly and consistently conservative. At the very least, it will seek to avoid a repeat of what it views as the catastrophic Republican appointment of Souter, who lacked a conservative “paper trail” and, subsequently, addressed cases with an open mind once he got the Court.

My humble experience in reading Judge Posner's opinions is, that he has a tendency to make even natural dissenters agree with him by using sweet pragmatic reason (which is why about every other assigned reading has a footnote to the effect of, "and Judge Posner said this, and lots of people agree with him"). That, of course, doesn't necessarily mean he's right, but sometimes it's the appearance that counts.

Judge Easterbrook (in Hill v. Gateway 2000, Inc., which I had to read for a class), at least, made me laugh.

I've heard good things about Kozinski.

Typical. We're gonna get stuck with a winger and the Supreme Court is going to drift on, bereft of any titanic legal minds, a mere pawn in the political chess between Washington extremists.

DNC Atlanta Report: Part 3 of 3

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Having finished up parts one and two from my time at the Atlanta DNC Southern Caucus meeting, now for the bit about Texas.

Of the dozen or so DNC members from Texas, it is likely that they will end up voting for Martin Frost in the early rounds, not because they may believe that he is the best candidate, but because he's a Texan, and it's just the proper thing to do. What was causing some consternation is that our State Chair, Mr. Charles Soechting, planned on introducing a resolution of support at today's State Democratic Executive Committee meeting to be voted on. The SDEC has 60 odd voting members, of which many are Dean folk that won elections for the seats at last year's State Convention.

No one likes to be railroaded into having to vote a particular way. In fact, my SDEC district representative met with 11 of the 21 county chairs in our region this weekend. I was proud enough that they had put forth a strategic planning statement and program to be submitted to the chair about how to work with counties for future success. Then I was told over the phone that the 11 County Chairs endorsed Howard Dean for National Chair and urged our SDEC rep to make that known.

This was shocking to me. Those County Chairs weren't Deaniacs or swept into office in local coups. They are hard working, older Party folk who want to win and restore the Party in the very rural areas which they represent. The fact that this crowd at the bottom of the ladder is in favor in Dean could be an indicator that there is more support out there for real reformers than we are seeing on the surface. It also jives well with ruminations that Dean is actually the fallback choice of much of the Texas delegation should Frost be knocked out.

Below are some thoughts from David H., one of Texas's DNC members whom had given me permission to share some of his relevant thoughts.

Make an effort to meet Simon Rosenberg. If there wasn't a Texan in the race, he would get my vote straight-away.

The Austin meetup went pretty well last night. Most of the people there were for Dean, of course, and I am not opposed to him, but there are and were elements who get pretty militant about Dean and his cause.

Like I say, I'm not against Dean in this. I have known Simon for ten years and after seeing his talents I think he'd make a great chair. He is part of a think-tank that is forefront on Progressive issues and his organization spent more on Hispanic targeted ads than either the Kerry campaign or the DNC, from what I understand. He gets the new activist dynamic.

And Frost, being a Texan, would mean great things for Texas and red states like it. He ran the DCCC like most people are saying they want to see the DNC run. He has a great record of working with candidates in every state - not just battleground - and candidates far down the ballot. He surrounds himself with great people.

So, Dean comes in somewhere after them for me, personally.

I think all Texans will vote for Frost as long as he is in it.

Frost as chair would probably mean more for Texas as far as money and support go (instead of it being sucked out of Texas to other states). But in this case I have to be a Democrat before a Texan, and to put 1 state ahead of the other 49 is shortsighted.

(Should there me more to report on after today's SDEC meeting, I'll be sure to file an additional Burnt Orange Report.)

DNC Atlanta Report 2 of 3

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

This is the second of three posts on my experience at the DNC Southern Caucus meeting in Atlanta. The third post will be on events related specific to Texas and Texas candidates.

As far as message is concerned, it's starting to remind me of the Democratic Primary where Dean ended up defining the message and other candidates, seeing where the Party was, ended up with similar thoughts. For me, a Reform minded Deanocrat, this of course is encouraging and the question now becomes, of those pushing for reform, how much is politics and how much is sincere. For me at least, it seems if the battle is not Dean v. Anti-Dean, it's Dean v. Dean light...

That being said, I attending the Atlanta meeting with an open mind, and an intent to report on what I saw to better offer a view into a decision that isn't ours to make in this type of election.

In the order that the candidates spoke, below are my thoughts on style and my personal meetings at their separate events.

Simon Rosenberg

I attended Simon's Meet and Greet event earlier in the day, and was able to personal chat with him some about blogs, technology, and the interface of the DNC with the lower levels of the Party. The Tennessee crew came in as well and held a Q and A with him. His passion for the job was much more apparent in this meeting than in what was visible in the general meeting that C-SPAN captured. His answers were complete (if at times a bit too long) and he did focus on relating his job experience running the NDN to the DNC saying he was ready to step into the job without a learning curve.

Being one of the younger candidates, he comes off maturer than Fowler does, but this is likely due to his executive position and background. His Chair Campaign had raised about $150,000 and had recently been endorsed by CraigsList, with supposed other endorsements coming this week. He had little 'campaign material' though and mentioned at one point how he supported the invasion of Iraq. He "gets it" though on the question of reform and if were elected chair would have my support and confidence. I feel that his positive aspects were not as well conveyed to the DNC audience though in the panel Q&A, and they are the voters, not me.

Tim Roemer

Tim Roemer, as hard as he may try, sounds like the ex-Congresscritter that his is, and seems artificial. His "meet and greet" event was centered on food and Max Cleland's endorsement. He had zero campaign materials. He did the traditional "Thank you for that very good question, I appreciate your question, That is perhaps the most important question" shtick in the Panel Q&A. Draped in security and patriotism in excess, he was one of the few asked specific questions about his negative points (being outside the mainstream of the party on Choice, Social Security, voting against Clinton Economic reforms, etc.) In his responses, it appeared that he was trying to set himself of as an "anti-Dean" candidate, such as saying he would not "run the party to the Left (Dean sitting on his left as he waves in that direction) or take it to the right." But so long as both he and Frost are in the hunt, they split up similar voters, helping the real reformers.

Howard Dean

The most well known of the candidates, there is less of an education issue with the delegates when it comes to policies or who the candidate its. In that sense, he has an "incumbent advantage" on those fronts one could say. DNC members that are paying less attention to the specifics of the race but are looking for reform, could quite possibly go Dean's way simply because they don't know of any alternatives. As knowledgeable as I would wish every member of the DNC would be, I get a sense from talking to some of them, that those of us racking this race online in the blogosphere have collectively a better understanding of the people and the issues at hand.

Dean drew crowds in the lobby when he would be sanding around, and was very at ease on a person to person basis He gave fresh insightful remarks in the Q&A round, much to my surprise as I was expecting something more along the lines of his stump speeches. Dean was the only candidate to be interrupted (twice) by applause in his 90 second opening remarks. Though he won't officially announce until a day or two, his campaign was in gear. The other candidates know it just as Dean does, that if he doesn't get elected, it will only be because Dean comes in second place in the final ballot between himself and the winner. His name is not one that will be dropped off in some earlier stage of balloting on the way to finding the next DNC Chair.

Wellington Webb

The former Mayor of Denver, Wellington Webb likes to tell you that his name is Wellington Webb. In the Q&A session, it was brought up about three times. Though his speaking style is clear and direct, I kept trying to figure out if he was still trying to increase his name ID. His meet and greet event was rather sparsely attended, not physically organized, and the only delegates seemingly supporting him were members of the Southern Black Caucus. Webb is a good man, and he cares about whom he represents. It appears though, that he represents the African American voice in this election, which is not enough to elect him as the Chairman. Seeing Al Sharpton in Atlanta (and getting an obligatory picture with him), it made me hope that at some point, the Democratic Party will have Black candidates for these National level offices that represent more tan "putting forth the issues and concerns of the Black community."

David Leeland

Former director of Project Vote and Chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party, David Leeland is otherwise unknown. Entering the race so late that he had no name placard for the event or and meet and greet, little is known about his policies. His answers did not go far in answering the question of what he brings to the race or what he stands for. For the most part, his responses were bland and repetitive (at least twice he stated "I think all of us up here have the same view on the answer to this question..."). Other than gaining Ohio's DNC votes, I don't see a base of support or unique appeal. I can see hi being one, if the only, of the 7 candidates in attendance to drop out before the February vote is actually held.

Donnie Fowler

Son of former DNC Chair Don Fowler, the younger Don is also one of the candidates that "gets it". I had a chance to personally speak with him up in his suite with blogger Scrutiny Hooligans. While one of his volunteers was very hot under the collar about Dean (not exactly the best thing to do talking to Dean campaign bloggers), Fowler actually got a question into me first, asking off hand, "I bet you want to know if I can code an HTML e-mail?" Fowler's answers were not canned and he draws energy and knowledge from his fieldwork and I much appreciated the openness of his meet and greet.

In the general session, he was quick, witty, charming at times. While some of his jokes didn't get the laugh lines they deserved (tough crowd) he identifies with this Regional Caucus. There is a concern I have though, and that in a race where DNC members' votes may be cast on identity (on race, ideology, relative time in the party) that quite a few won't identify with his enthusiasm or youthful unkempt vigor. I do, but then again, I'm 20, a blogger, and not a DNC member which makes it all quite pointless unless DNC members are reading the blogosphere. And if they are, they are probably already true Reform Democrats. Fowler probably gained more ground than most, and is now a better known quantity that sticks in your head, but this was also some of his more friendly turf. If Mr. Fowler wins, I will have every confidence that the Party will be better because of it. But first he would have to win.

Martin Frost

Martin Frost is the other former Congresscritter in this race. His meet and greet consisted of many Texans (not that those votes are unexpected). He seemed to be interested only in those in the room with official white DNC Member nametags, and if you were anything else... Hard to approach, disconnected, and not particularly compelling in his later answers to the full session, where he regularly cited Congress or people he knew as ways to answer questions.

While he may have headed up the DCCC for a couple cycles, I do not remember those being the most recent ones where the Internet and the issue of Reform has come into play. Plus, as the lead man on Democratic Redistricting after the 2000 census, I find it a bit ironic that he lost his seat in Dallas due to redistricting here in Texas. In response to a question on seeking higher office after being DNC chair, he responded "I am no longer interested in offering my name for public office" which should be interesting to Texans as his name has been bandied about as a Statewide candidate of some sort.

---

Not in attendance, but with their name placards sitting empty on the table were Molly Beth Malcolm former Chair of the Texas Democratic Party and Mr. Blanchard whom I thought had already officially pulled out. Molly Beth would be a bad choice, but it is unlikely that she would enter so long as another Texan was in the race (Ron Kirk dropped out as there were too many Texans as it was).

DNC Atlanta Report: 1 of 3

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

In this entry I will present some of the points that were made by the "introduction" speakers at the general session. The following entry will be a DNC candidate by candidate discussion. The third entry will be on the Texas angle and the "Texas Tussle" that is ongoing.

The Southern Regional Meeting of the DNC on January 8 almost ended halfway into it as those in charge claimed that seating to the general session was limited and only those with preapproved credentials would be allowed in, and if there was space after that, others would be accepted. By the time I was reluctantly let in, there still appeared to be dozens of open chairs and I am thankful that the obstacle was "fire codes" rather than disallowing bloggers, as was the case in Florida.

Governor Phil Bredesen of Tennessee gave a good speech in which he said we "need not a regional strategy but a national message that speaks to a culture of America because the people we need to reach out to are beyond the South".

He gave two suggestions to the party.
1) Get out of Washington! "The aspirations of the people are out in the nation, in red states and blue ones."
2) We need some Focus. "It needs to come from the top; we need a coherent world view."

Next up were proposed DNC Rule Changes put forth by Don Fowler, former DNC chair and father of DNC candidate Donnie Fowler. He offered them saying that he had been in charge before and sometimes responsible for the very rules which he is now proposing to alter, which would take power away from the Chair and put it in the Regional Caucuses and States. In summary they are...

1) Reduce the number of At Large DNC Members appointed by the DNC chair from the current 75 to 25 (out of the 440 or so total members) and give 12 or 13 to each Regional Caucus to appoint.

2) Reduced from 11 to 7 the number of executive committee appointments made by the DNC Chair, giving one to each Regional Caucus.

3) Related to making the management of the DNC budget to be more open and accountable.

A presentation was made by Pollster Dave Beattie on targeting. His quotable line? "Like Vietnam, Democrats cannot hold the cities and lose the countryside, and expect to win the war." His suggested target groups...

1) Catholics "We don't need to change who we are for this one."
2) Small Business "We can be the Party of Main Street over Wall Street".

DNC Atlanta News

By Byron LaMasters

Karl-Thomas will surely post his thoughts on the Atlanta meetings soon, but here's two other takes on the Atlanta meetings while we wait:

MyDD with comments from Matt Stoller who is working for Simon Rosenberg.

AND

Scutiny Hooligans who spoke with Karl-Thomas, and has some thoughts.

DNC Atlanta Report On its Way

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

I am now in North Carolina after spending the last two days in Atlanta, learning a heck of a lot about what is going on in the DNC chairs race and getting a much better personal read on the candidates, their styles, ideas, and interests.

Dean will be announcing his official candidacy on Monday; the campaign to be headed by a Tom .... from outside his Democracy for America leadership. Blanchard and supposed new entrant, Mary Beth Malcolm were absent and had no materials on their respective tables today. Mr. David Leeland of Ohio was unimpressive, had no campaign organization present, no separate "meet and greet" event during the day, and lackluster answers that added nothing that wasn't already said or represented by the current candidates.

I managed to attend all the meet and greets with the candidate, have pictures (one with Al Sharpton who attended for some reason) all of which I will post on Monday evening. In addition I will have a report on some Texas maneuvering and issues that involves Texas DNC candidates, DNC members, and the State Democratic Executive Committee.

Thus Saith DeLay

By Vince Leibowitz

Guest Post By Vince Leibowitz

This morning, I recieved several e-mails from Democratic lists I'm on attacking Tom DeLay over a scripture reading during the Congressional Prayer Service earlier this week. Always weary of e-mail rumors from listservs, I decided to investigate further to see if Tom DeLay did, in fact, hop on the Religious High-Horse. Sure enough, he did.

The only major media outlet I could find mentioning Tom DeLay reading scripture which many are interpreting as him saying the Tsunami victims got what they deserved was the "Quick Takes" column in the Chicago Sun-Times, which noted: "House Majority Leader Tom DeLay [read] from Scripture at [the]Congressional Prayer Breakfast Wednesday comparing those not faithful to Christianity to "a fool who built his house on sand," noting that "the floods came, and the winds blew, and buffeted the house, and it collapsed and was completely ruined."

Why has the mainstream media been silent on DeLay's latest gaffe?

Bloggers have been far from slient on the issue. Via various bloggers like American Coprophagia, we know that DeLay read the following scripture, but I'm unsure of the version of the bible he used (it appears to be the King James Version):

"Not every one who says to me, "Lord, Lord," will enter the kingdom of heaven; but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.

Many will say to me on that day, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?

"Then I will declare to them solemnly, 'I never knew you: depart from me, you evil doers.'"

Everyone who listens to these words of mine, and acts on them, will be like a wise man, who built his house on a rock:

The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew, and buffeted the house, but it did not collapse; it has been set solidly on rock.

And everyone who listens to these words of mine, but does not act on them, will be like a fool who built his house on sand:

The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew, and buffeted the house, and it collapsed and was completely ruined."

Scott over at DemWatch had this to say about DeLay's latest folly:

I know what it sounds like DeLay is referring to. A Christian nation is like a house built on a rock -- solid. A non-Christian nation is foolish, built on a foundation of sand. That's rhetoric I don't agree with one iota, but still just metaphoric rhetoric. But in the aftermath of the recent Indian Ocean tsunami, with so many houses collapsed and completely ruined when the floods came, in a largely non-Christian part of the world, it's rhetoric that is completely unacceptable. Tom DeLay is either blindingly stupid or heartlessly cruel. Either way, he should be ashamed of himself.

Oddly enough, right-wing Focus on the Family stayed away from the DeLay affair entirely when it published its sappy press release about the Congressional prayer service.

You can view the entire prayer service via C-Span. You can also right click on this link to save an MP3 of DeLay's reading, via DemWatch.

Vince Leibowitz is County Chairman of the Democratic Party of Van Zandt County. He is a regular contributor to the Political State Report and founder of the now discontinued Texas politics blog, Free State Standard. He and his two dogs, Ellie and Lyndon, reside in Canton.

Sleepless Winter Book Tour: Birmingham

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

I'm reporting in for Day 2 of the Sleepless Winter Book Tour with Scott Goldstein, 19 year old author of The Tea is in the Harbor ($8.96), a book on Democracy, the Dean Campaign, and the future of our country. I was asked to write a subchapter for the book, and have now joined him on the second half of his tour. Complete schedule is here. Our next meeting will be Friday evening, in Atlanta, at...

Quaker Meeting House - 7 PM
(http://atlanta.quaker.org/where.htm)
701 West Howard Ave, Decatur Georgia 30030

But as for today, we departed from Nashville around noon, traveling south to Birmingham. We made a noticeable transition into Alabama when the Interstate suddenly became very poor in condition and a billboard asked us... "Are you going to Heaven or Hell? Follow the straight and narrow path!"

But Birmingham is not like the rest of the state. The part of the city we traveled through was quite urban, and reminded me a bit of Austin, as if this was the closest thing to it in this state.

Before we went to the event held at the Safari Cup Coffee Shop (a wonderful place owned by what seemed to be a South African), Scott and I walked downtown towards the historic 16th Street Baptist Church (picture there). As we were crossing the memorial park, the most interesting event occurred.

A homeless African American man named Juan, noticed us looking at the MLK, Jr. Statue and approached us. He began to tell us about it, and then proceeded to tell us about the park, and the symbolism of all the statues there. From what we could gather he was quite young at the time, six or so maybe, and went to school nearby. We told us about the Children's March, and the dogs, and the Historic Black Business District, and the history behind a number of the building in the nearby area. He spoke from experience and the heart, and pointed out the cracks still visible on parts of the Baptist Church. It was something that cannot be described very well in words, and less so in pictures, though I do have some which are posted in this gallery of pictures from the Tour so far. It was one of those experiences that you don't forget, and could never plan or expect to have in life. He just asked that we remember, and in return we offered him some cash in return. Sharing his story, for now, is his way of sleeping each night.

Soon after that, we were back at the Coffee house for the Book Tour stop. Over a dozen people were there, progressives from the local area, a more urban and younger leaning crowd than in Nashville, people concerned about their party and their state. These are not people who have given up home because they are in Alabama, but they are people quite dissatisfied with the way their state party is run, though they have more confidence in the Jefferson County Party apparatus.

Scott and I will of course be taking on our collective knowledge on the tour to Atlanta tomorrow and to the DNC meeting Saturday. Until then, and with the hope I find Internet access once more, goodnight.

DNC Candidate Meetings

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

So far, the following is what I am aware of as far as candidate meetings in Atlanta. More may appear, and if you know of any, please leave a comment.

DNC Caucus Held in Atlanta at...
Sheraton Gateway Hotel
1900 Sullivan Road
5:30PM - 7:00PM

Howard Dean
Private Event on Friday (7th) around 3-4 p.m.
I'll be there for Burnt Orange Report

Simon Rosenberg
Saturday, January 8, 2005
10:30 am – 11:30 am
1900 Bar and Grille
Sheraton Gateway Hotel
RSVP event, not sure if public

Donnie Fowler
Saturday, January 8
Noon - 12:45 PM
Sheraton Gateway Suite 1034
public, open to "grassroots and netroots activists"

DNC Regional Meetings

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Southern Caucus Meeting
Saturday, January 8th
Sheraton Gateway Hotel
1900 Sullivan Road
Atlanta, GA 30337
5:30PM - 7:00PM

(Attending in Atlanta will be me for Burnt Orange Report, Georgia's Blog for Democracy and Scrutiny Hooligans.

Midwestern Caucus Meeting
Saturday, January 15
St. Louis, Missouri
(no other information yet)

Western Caucus Meeting
Saturday, January 22
Radisson Hotel
500 Leisure Lane
Sacramento, CA
1:00 PM - ?

Eastern Regional Caucus
Saturday, Jan. 29th
Roosevelt Hotel
Madison Ave at 45th St.
New York City
10 AM- 12 PM
To attend, apparently you must register with the NY state Dem party

DNC Chair Liveblogging

By Byron LaMasters

Annatopia is liveblogging a blogger conference call with DNC Chair candidate Simon Rosenberg. Some interesting material there...

Sleepless Winter Tour: Nashville

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

I flew into Nashville this afternoon, after a slight rain delay and being pulled aside for a security screening in Austin. Of course, I seem to get pulled aside for security checks most of the time, I'm not sure why, but I did have a good chat with the 70 year old in a wheel chair who was pulled aside right after me. Together we must have been a formidable duo in attempting to take down national security.

I met up with Scott Goldstein and his sister at the airport and continued on to the SEIU local #205 for the night's book tour stop. About a dozen people gathered, including the interim state director Mark Naccarto for Democracy for Tennesee.

Scott should soon have a report up on Blog for America, so I can offer a couple thoughts on events in Tennessee. Like other places, former Dean people have managed to gain a level of control over their couny apparatus, but at the state level, less so. Still, and this seems to be something that Scott has found so far, at the local level, the greatest complaint with the party is that there is not enough support for the county operations. But the DFT folks here are running people for local officers, such as Road Board, and understand the idea that sometimes you have to simply start running candidates, even if they lose, and then have them run again, and again, building the base and the local party.

Of course, in many counties in Texas, we are not even running people against Republicans, but if we start to, or even run people for non-partisan offices, we can build up candidates that have bonded with their communities just like the Republicans did 20 and 30 years ago.

It is indeed early in the trip, but I feel that "All politics is local" might be one of the themes that develop.

So, tomorrow night (Thursday) we will be in Birmingham, Alabama at 7 pm. Come see us, or buy the Tea is in the Harbor at...

Safari Cup Coffee Shop
300 Richard Arrington Jr. Blvd N
Birmingham, Al 35023

Upcoming Tour Schedule

What about Timmy?

By Nathan Nance

Guest post by Nate Nance

With all this talk about Frost's sudden consolidation of support, Fowler campaigning hard and Murtha supporting Dean, we've forgotten about Tim Roemer.

Roemer has two people supporting him that show, ithink, the kind of battle the DNC chair race really is. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi seem to be the only ones endorsing him, and they're the suits. What most people seem to want is a change, something anti-establishment. That's not Roemer.

Josh Marshall also points to two votes Roemer made as a congressman that point to why he definitely should not be in a leadership position.

Roemer was one of the Democrats that voted against the Clinton budget of 1993 -- the one that in the end won by a single vote and cost Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky and so many others their seats. (Not just the big vote, but a number that led up to it.) Then he was one of an even smaller number of Democrats who voted for President Bush's 2001 Budget bill. If I'm not mistaken, he was one of only 9 Dems in the House to vote to make the Bush cuts permanent the following year.

That really leaves us with Dean, Frost, Fowler and Rosenberg. I haven't really heard much from Rosenberg. He's had a lot of support from bloggers, but he seems to have fallen prey to the early-frontrunner syndrome. Talk of him burned out too early while Dean hasn't really made a move to run or announce that he is not running, thus leaving us anticipating it. He learned his lesson. I had all but discounted Frost, but I'm glad to see him still maneuvering like a skilled politician.

The way I see it now, Roemer is the congressional leadership's choice because they want to have control over the DNC's money. I think the Anybody but Dean group will put their support behind Frost because he is a little bit reform a little bit establishment. Dean will have support from those who want serious changes while Rosenberg and Fowler will siphon votes away from him. That leaves us with a Frost chair, which should make some BOR readers happy.

Of course, there is still lots of time before the DNC members vote and I've got to do what I can to win that bet with Andrew.

This is a guest post from Nathan Nance. He can be reached at nate_nance@yahoo.com.

Slap me silly

By Jim Dallas

I was in the Houston airport a few days ago and saw the cover of this year's Time "Person of the Year" edition. I thought it was pretty cheesy to call Bush an "American Revolutionary." I didn't buy it though, because I'm more of a Newsweek person and also I was running short on cash.

Matt Taibbi, via James Wolcott, on the other hand, did buy the magazine, and here's what he has to say:

Every damned year we go through this.

But this year, Taibbi writes, was the worst.

"The 'Person of the Year' issue has always been a symphonic tribute to the heroic possibilities of pompous sycophancy, but the pomposity of this year's issue bests by a factor of at least two or three the pomposity of any previous issue. From the Rushmorean cover portrait of Bush (which over the headline 'An American Revolutionary' was such a brazen and transparent effort to recall George Washington that it was embarrassing) to the 'Why We Fight' black-and-white portraiture of the aggrieved president sitting somberly at the bedside of the war-wounded, this issue is positively hysterical in its iconolatry. One even senses that this avalanche of overwrought power worship is inspired by the very fact of George Bush's being such an obviously unworthy receptacle for such attentions. From beginning to end, the magazine behaves like a man who knocks himself out making an extravagant six-course candlelit dinner for a blow-up doll, in an effort to convince himself he's really in love.

Now I'm thinking I should have bought the magazine just to see the train wreck myself.

DNC Race and Another Political Adventure

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Democratic Party news for the next month or so will be centered on discussions about where the party needs to go and what it wants to do organizationally as the DNC Chair vote approaches.

Well, being a loyal Burnt Orange Reporter (and the fact that I seem to have this urge to travel the country each January) I'm going East and will be attending the Southern Regional Meeting of the DNC in Atlanta. In stunning DNC speed, the time and location of the meeting had been announced 5 days in advance of the actual meeting.

Thanks to the Blog for Democracy Blog in Georgia...

Mayor Shirley Franklin & the Democratic Party of Georgia is hosting the Southern Regional Meeting of the Democratic National Committee.

The Southern Caucus members of the DNC along with the newly elected Democratic Party of Georgia State Committee Members and the candidates for DNC Chair are the main attendees of this meeting, but as always, Democratic Party events are open to the public.

Here's the date, time, and location:

DNC Southern Caucus Meeting
Saturday, January 8, 2005
Sheraton Gateway Hotel
1900 Sullivan Road
Atlanta, GA 30337
5:30PM - 7:00PM

Here are all the DNC members in the Southern delegation. From Texas, member David Holmes will actually be attending the Wednesday (Jan 5) Democracy for Texas MeetUp at Sholtz at 7 p.m. before he heads out. Ron Kirk, who dropped out and endorsed Frost today, is a DNC member himself.

The official Dean Blog has been quite silent on the issue, offering us such choice nuggets as...Governor Dean continues to hear from people across the country about the race, and is making calls seeking advice. Stay tuned for more news about the race and thoughts on the future of our party. If he's learned anything, it's not to be the frontrunner for any office at the beginning of January. Ha.

So stay tuned here at Burnt Orange as well as the Georgia Blog since Dean will be arriving in Atlanta the day before and will be at a book signing. Which of course brings me to the real reason for my flight from Austin to Nashville tomorrow.

I'm joining up with Scott Goldstein on his book tour, for his recently published (second book at the age of 19) titled, The Tea is in the Harbor. Buy it here for less than $10!

Why? Because I'm in his book, four pages (33-36) of print as a "Sons of Liberty" chapter. He has already driven from New York through Ohio and Indiana as part of the tour, and I'll be joining him for Nashville, TN then Birmingham, Alabama, and then to Atlanta, where we will be having an extra meeting with Howard Dean who is coming in earlier in the day (say 3-4 pm) to speak with the local Democrats and Dean folk, and will hopefully be signing some copies. I'll try to buy/snag a few to bring back to Austin and maybe then you'll come to a MeetUp or something.

So if you are in Nashville on the 5th, Birmingham on the 6th, Atlanta on the 7th, come out and see us (locations available here, all events should be at 7 pm) There may (but very well may not, be an event in North Carolina as we head back to DC but I will let you know).

So look out for reports from the road coming to a blog near you.

Unbought, Unbossed

By Vince Leibowitz

Guest Post By Vince Leibowitz

Many Democrats across the country this week were saddened to hear of the passing of former Democratic Congresswoman and 1972 presidential candidate Shirley Chisholm.

Black or white, male or female, Democrats everywhere owe a great deal to the "unbought and unbossed" Congresswoman from Brooklyn.

Not only was Chisholm the first black woman to serve in congress, and the first woman to seek our party's nomination for president, she was a true liberal who fought for what she believed in, fought for her constituents, and symbolized a better America.

The Arizona Republic summed up Chisholm in an excellent editorial this week, noting:

Many Americans remember Shirley Chisholm as an outspoken liberal, a symbol of Democratic politics in the 1960s and 1970s.

They know that she was the first Black woman to serve in Congress and the first woman to run for her party's presidential nomination in 1972.

But they don't know that when George Wallace was shot that same year, she visited him in the hospital, a gesture of such respect and kindness that Wallace, the prototypical segregationist Southern politician, was moved to tears.

[...]

Chisholm was respected--and despised--as a loud and unbending advocate of minorities and women, a critic of the political establishment of her day.

Some may recall how she challenged House leaders when, in 1968, they assigned her, a first-term congresswoman from Brooklyn, to the agriculture committee.

She later had the pragmatism to support Hale Boggs of Louisiana over fellow Black John Conyers for majority leader. She was rewarded with a seat on the Education and Labor Committee.

[...]

Whether you agreed with her politics, she made a difference. She cleared a path for others, Black and White, male and female, to follow.

The New York Post noted of Chisholm, "She was, appropriately, a trailblazer — and she made clear from the outset that she was not one to sit quietly and mind her place. Her fiery passion made her someone to be reckoned with."

But more than being a trailblazer, more than being an expert on early childhood education, and more than her firey passion, Shirley Chisholm had the heart of a true public servant.

She was fond of saying, "Service is the rent we pay for the privilege of living on this earth."

Chisholm serves as an excellent example for those of us who aspire to serve our counties, our state, our nation and our party. Hopefully, from her example, we can rest assured in the knowledge that we must challenge convention, work to clear the path for the next generation, and safeguard the less fortunate among us.

In our state, nation and party today, we need people like Shirley Chisholm: people to challenge, people who won't take "no" for an answer, and people with a firey passion for the people.

It's time for us all to pay our rent.

Vince Leibowitz is County Chairman of the Democratic Party of Van Zandt County. He formerly published the now discontinued blog Free State Standard. He is presently a regular contributor to the Political State Report.

Letter from Ron Kirk Endorsing Martin Frost for DNC Chair

By Byron LaMasters

Dear Fellow DNC Member:

Over the past several weeks, I've been honored to discuss the DNC Chairmanship with many of you. But after consulting with my family, friends and supporters, I have decided that I will not be a candidate for DNC Chair, and will instead endorse my friend Martin Frost for that position.

I care deeply about the future of the Democratic Party and of the DNC, and so I've given this decision serious consideration.

During my service as Mayor of Dallas and as the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate from Texas, I've had the opportunity to meet Americans from all walks of life and from coast-to-coast. I'm convinced that the majority of Americans share the values and priorities of the Democratic Party. I intend to continue working to build a stronger Party, and to elect Democrats across the nation.

My relationship with Martin Frost transcends partisan politics. I consider him a friend, a wise counselor, and a gifted and dedicated public servant. I sincerely believe he is the best choice to lead a reformed Democratic Party. Martin is the complete package for DNC Chair - a winning strategist, innovative grassroots organizer and tough, disciplined spokesperson who has proven Democrats win in Red States by fighting back, energizing the base and engaging new voters.

Moreover, Martin combines an unshakeable commitment to core Democratic principles with the proven ability to win in the reddest of the Red States. He understands that a "50-state" strategy cannot be an "either/or" strategy. He knows - because he's done it himself - that the only way Democrats can defeat Republicans in tough territory is by energizing our base and winning over new voters.

Together, with Martin's experienced and trustworthy leadership, I am
confident in the future of the Democratic Party.

Sincerely,
Ron Kirk

You can read Martin Frost's letter to DNC members here.

Update: The Martin Frost for DNC Chair website is under construction here.

Ron Kirk Drops DNC Bid, Endorses Martin Frost

By Byron LaMasters

[I just noticed posts on the same topic below, but I'll keep all the posts up as we take somewhat different angles on the news.]

The AP is reporting that both Ron Kirk and Harold Ickes have dropped their bids for DNC chair. Kirk wrote a letter to DNC members urging them to support Martin Frost. I'm a bit surprised that one day after Ron Kirk got some renewed blog buzz that he would decide to drop out. Then again, Ron Kirk never showed complete interest in the DNC job. Kirk seemed more interested in having a spokesman role, and letting someone else handle the inside-the-beltway, day-to-day executive director type duties of the job.

For Martin Frost's letter to DNC members announcing his run for chair, click here. More thoughts at MyDD on Kirk, and MyDD also gives Martin Frost a big up arrow this week. It appears as if Frost has consolidated some insider support this week.

The race narrows

By Nathan Nance

Guest post by Nate Nance

Apparently Ron Kirk and Harold Ickes are both dropping out of the race for DNC chair, which is kinda funny because they didn't exactly officially declare they were running for it. But that's all technicality stuff.

The person who seems to be working the hardest to win right now is Fowler. Check out his offical DNC chair campaign Web site. It's a lot of fun.

And popping over to NDN's site shows that Simon Rosenberg has a lot to say. Really easy to find links to his remarks in Orlando and his statement about the future of the party and about Simon.

Hat tip to Greg.

This is a guest post from Nathan Nance. He can be reached at nate_nance@yhaoo.com.

They have a word for that

By Jim Dallas

I'm more impressed by Atrios's indignation than by Senator Frist's inconsistency on judicial filibusters.

Why? Because we know these guys are lying liars, and I'm plum out of indignation. I wish the Senate Majority Leader would give us a few good months of honest, effective government so that we can recharge our snark cannons.

Will Kerry run in '08?

By Nathan Nance

Guest post by Nate Nance

Newsweek has a special interview with Sen. John Kerry online that I found very fun to read. Among other things, Kerry felt that he didn't "connect" with voters, but that he did run a good campaign nonetheless. He also felt that he wasn't well-served by Bob Shrum. Go figure.

Whatever you think of the failures of Kerry's campaign, George W. Bush's re-election was caused more by the failure of both campaigns to educate voters about their positions. An uninformed electorate will make the wrong choice every time.

KErry says he plans to learn from his mistakes which could be interpreted to mean he plans to run again in 2008. He'll have a national platform from which to announce, he'll remain a senator until his seat is up in '08, and he still has people in place for another go around. And about $15 million in the bank leftover from the '04 campaign.

With no popular incumbent to run against, he could very well win it. The question is, will Democrats vote for him again? We seem to have a one strike and your out policy for our nominees, so the liklihood of Kerry getting the nomination again is slim. I think it's worth asking why we always seem to want to start over from scratch with our candidates, but the consultants keep getting recycled. Don't we want some kind of name recognition and brand loyalty?

Like I said, his chance of regaining the nomination is slim. As evidence, I offer how fast some Democrats were quick to criticize him after we lost in November. Or how Kerry staffers quickly became the best source of gossip about Mrs. Keinz-Kerry and her role in the campaign. If we didn't like the guy, why did we nominate him?

We've got four years to really think about how we nominate our party's standard bearer and how we campaign for the presidency. Kerry says he will learn from his mistakes, I think we should learn from them, too.

This is a guest post from Nathan Nance. He can be reached at nate_nance@yahoo.com.

Martin Frost's Letter to DNC Members

By Byron LaMasters

This is the letter that Martin Frost has sent to DNC members in the past weeks stating his reasons for running for DNC chair. I'll probably be posting a good deal on the DNC race this month, and especially the Texas candidates. I'm not supporting one candidate or another, but I hope that we can use this opportunity to have a discussion on BOR about the future of the Democratic Party. Karl-Thomas's post on Reform Democrats yesterday is a great start. Anyway, for the full text of Martin Frost's letter to DNC members, take the jump to the extended entry.

Dear Fellow Democrat,

The decision on who will serve as Chair of the Democratic National Committee is critical not only to the future of our party, but to the future of our country as well. The current GOP leadership in the White House, Congress and dozens of States is driven by the very worst influences in public life and dependent upon political choices made out of fear rather than hope and narrow self interest rather than public good. Too many times in too many places, we have allowed Republicans to organize unchallenged, define patriotism and morality on their own narrow and partisan terms and then dominate the political exchange at every level.

I have been honored and gratified by the many calls suggesting that I run for Chair of the Democratic National Committee. It is an effort that no one should take lightly. After speaking with many DNC Members and other party leaders, I have decided to join the race for DNC Chair. While others of talent and promise are seeking the post, I believe I am the candidate whose perspective, experience and abilities combine the most important qualities needed in a new Chair.

First and most important, I believe in, and will fight for, the fundamental issues that define us as a party and separate us from the Republicans. I¹ve run competitive Congressional races for over 20 years. I¹ve gone toe-to-toe with Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay and the worst the GOP has to offer. And, through it all, I never backed down in my support for civil rights, a woman¹s right to choose, collective bargaining and workplace rights, access to the civil justice system or a strong and secure Israel. It would be a fundamental mistake to turn our backs on our traditional friends. We must build on the loyalty of traditional Democratic constituencies and reach out to new voters and those rural and suburban voters who have drifted away from us in recent years.

In this connection, we should have a forthright discussion of moral values vital to our nation and make it clear that there is room for people who hold differing views under the Democratic tent. Too often, we have been unwilling to even enter into a dialogue on these issues.

However, some would use the election of DNC Chair as a symbolic gesture to win non-traditional support. Should we follow that approach, America will have little more than two Republican Parties, and we would forfeit our responsibility to be an aggressive, hard-hitting opposition that speaks to the core values of a majority of the American people. While our candidates must always be able to run on a broad and tolerant platform, it is critical that our Party Chair believe deeply in our party¹s basic values. Our party cannot be adequately led by someone whose primary qualification to serve as Chair is his opposition to core Democratic beliefs.

The new Chair of the Democratic National Committee must be someone who can rebuild the party structure from the ground up in all 50 states, utilizing the best talents from within both our elected leadership and our party leadership. The Chair must be able to articulate our views
persuasively, but also understand that there are many strong voices within our party and that often the best messengers don¹t sit in Washington, DC, but rather live throughout the nation. The new DNC Chair must have a keen and deep understanding of our party¹s base and its foundation built upon opportunity, fairness, justice and love of country. There are elections to run and races to be won in every state. We must challenge Republicans everywhere ­ even on their own turf - and never concede the moral high ground.

I am the only person seeking the DNC leadership post who has successfully chaired a national party committee. I served as Chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee from January 1995 until December 1998. I took over as Chair just weeks after Democrats had lost the majority in Congress. Politicians and pundits alike were predicting even more dramatic losses in the years to come. However, I refused to accept conventional wisdom and immediately went about the work of transforming the committee. Both the political and finance divisions were restructured. For the first time, the DCCC invested heavily in small donor direct mail, a new national large donor program was instituted, a new strategic polling program was implemented and, for the first time ever, the DCCC invested directly in state party campaign programs designed to maximize minority turnout in specific congressional districts. Over the four years that I served as DCCC Chair, Democrats picked up a net total of 14 seats and raised a then-record $80 million. No subsequent national party committee has performed as well.

At home in Texas, I took the lead in working with my state and local parties to mount multimillion dollar campaigns to hold a narrow majority in the State House, protect a majority in our Congressional
delegation and hold key State Senate seats. During the height of the Bush era in Texas, we held our majorities in the House and Congressional Delegation. In fact, these majorities were lost only after Tom DeLay¹s illegal redistricting scheme that is currently under criminal investigation and court challenge.

I have a proven track record of successful party building with mainstream sensibilities and a deep understanding of the party leaders and candidates who must run and win in the most challenging areas of our nation. The DNC must start the rebuilding process at the state and local levels in every area of the country, rather than focusing on a narrow scope of battleground states that may or may not determine the outcome of a Presidential election. Our efforts should be focused on statewide, legislative, local and Congressional races that will be held in 2005 and 2006. Winning those races will allow us to go into 2007 ready to work on the 2008 Presidential race from a position of strength and with a party strong enough to win elections for the remainder of the decade.

DNC Chair is an important job, and I do not enter this race lightly. I will devote myself full time and all my energy to rebuilding our party. In doing so, I not only best serve the Democratic Party, but best serve our country as well. I respectfully ask for your support and your vote.

Sincerely,
Martin Frost

Congressman Matsui dies

By Nathan Nance

Guest post by Nate Nance

I didn't know much about him other than he was a California Democrat and and as the third-ranking member of Ways and Means, he was our pointman against privatization of Social Security. But there was way more to him. He was born in 1941 and a year later, his family was put in a Japanese internment camp for the rest of the war. He was one of the members of Congress who helped pass legislation years later to officially apologize for the internment and give survivors compensation.

He also had some issues he was at odds with the part over, like global free trade. But he had given ever indication the passed few weeks before his death that he was going to fight against Bush and his partial-privatization scheme. I think Nancy Pelosi said it best, "With the passing of Bob Matsui, our country has lost a great leader and America's seniors have lost their best friend in Congress."

This is a guest post by Nathan Nance. Nate is a sports/news clerk at the Waco Tribune-Herald and writer/editor of Common Sense a Texas-based Democratic Web log. He can be reached at nate_nance@yahoo.com.

I'm just wild about Harry

By Nathan Nance

This is a guest post by Nate Nance

This is just a really funny piece I saw in Slate about Sen. Harry Reid, the new minority leader. It's mostly about how not-boring he is, despite common knowledge to the contrary.

This is a guest post by Nate Nance. He can be reached at nate_nance@yahoo.com.

How to get rid of Abortion Clinic Protesters

By Byron LaMasters

Planned Parenthood of Central Texas has raised over $18,000 in the past three years by urging people to Pledge-a-Picket - meaning donors can pledge to donate a certain amount of money per protester at an abortion clinic.

It's a great idea, that I hope organizers will take nationwide. Abortion clinic protesters don't help prevent unwanted pregnancies or abortions, but rather they intimidate and harrass mostly low-income women. That does nothing to help advance the abortion debate in this country.

The Planned Parenthood tactics remind me of when the University Democrats and Voices for Choice protested the anti-abortion group, Justice for All in the west mall of the UT campus in the Spring 2002 semester. Justice for All (JFA) decided that they could really make a big statement and disgust everyone by putting up huge 15-foot high pictures of aborted fetuses as we were all walking to class in the morning.

Instead of engaging in shouting matches or counter-demonstrations, I thought of a more effective counterprotest - ask students walking by to donate 10 or 25 cents to a pro-choice organization for every hour that JFA had their demonstration. As people donated, I posted a big sign with the amount of money that we were raising per hour of their demonstration. Not surprisingly, they cut their demonstration a day short, and have had significantly toned down demonstrations since then. We, on the other hand, raised about $300 for the Lilith Fund.

I agree with Andrew and Greg that we need to have a debate about abortion in the Democratic Party, and keep pro-life Democrats in the tent. I'm willing to consider a ban on late term abortions, but ONLY if there is an exception for the health of mother, but Republicans would rather play politics. I wish that Republicans would spend half of the time and energy that they spend trying to pack the courts with pro-life judges on working with Democrats to actually do something to reduce abortions - most of us are sincere when we say that we would like to see abortion to be "safe, legal and rare". Unfortunately, most Republicans seem to have little interest in addressing the root cause of abortions in the first place - unwanted pregnancies. I'm certainly open to ideas, but as long as both sides play politics instead of looking for solutions, we probably won't get anywhere.

Planned Parenthood story via Lean Left.

Bush Contributes to the War on "Merry Christmas"

By Byron LaMasters

Will the Committee to Save Merry Christmas now go after President Bush?

It affects you (via Atrios) points to President Bush's news conference today in which Bush begins with this greeting:

PRESIDENT BUSH: Thank you. Please be seated.

Good morning and happy holidays to you all. I thought I'd come and answer some of your questions.

I'm with President Bush on this one - I'm generally a "Happy Holidays" person. If I owned a store, I'd probably instruct my employees to wish people a "Happy Holidays". Why? It's not political correctness run amuck, but simply an inclusive greeting for the holiday season which includes Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, etc. So, it makes good business sense for a company to instruct their employees to be inclusive in their greetings to customers, considering that we live in a pluralistic, multiethnic, religiously diverse society.

I think there are times when "Merry Christmas" is more appropriate. When I go to Christmas Eve services this Friday, I'll be wishing those around me a Merry Christmas. But this past week at Christmas / Holiday parties, I felt more comfortable wishing people a "Happy Holidays" as many of my friends are Jewish or non-religious, and many acquaintances of mine that I saw at those events, I simply don't know their religious persuasion - so instead of guessing, an inclusive greeting such as "Happy Holidays" is most appropriate.

There are other issues such as changing the words of Christmas carols sung in public schools, or calling a Christmas Tree a "Community Tree" instead a Christmas Tree where I can sympathize with evangelical Christians. I don't particularly care if public schools and public facilities allow Christmas carols, Christmas plays, Christmas decorations, etc. As long as they allow for other religious symbols, and don't require students to participate in such activities, I don't see the problem.

On the other hand, the whole attack on the "Happy Holidays" greeting is a bit silly. There are times where "Merry Christmas" is most appropriate - with friends, family, at church, etc., and times where "Happy Holidays" is more appropriate - with non-Christain or mixed friends, and in settings with people in which you don't know their religious background, i.e. with acquaintances or in a store.

There was a good article in the New York Times Week in Review yesterday that I would recommend as well.

HRC '08?

By Byron LaMasters

She polls better than I would otherwise expect (although, consider the source):

Hillary Clinton: 40%
Bill Frist: 33
Other/not sure: 27

Hillary Clinton: 41%
George Pataki: 35
Other/not sure: 24

Hillary Clinton: 46%
Jeb Bush: 35
Other/not sure: 19

John Kerry: 45%
Jeb Bush: 37
Other/not sure: 18

Is HRC qualified to be President (YES/NO/UNDECIDED):

Overall: 59/34/7
Men: 53/39/8
Women: 64/29/8
Democrats: 84/10/6
Republicans: 33/59/8
Independents: 58/33/9

HRC isn't my first choice, but I think that she would make a decent nominee, although I don't see how she expands the playing field in ways that someone like Mark Warner could. I do think that HRC is a polarizing figure, but then again, she's no more polarizing than President Bush. However, I'd prefer to start the campaign with someone with significantly lower negatives. John Kerry was just as polarizing as George W. Bush by election day, but it took the right-wing smear machine most of year to get it that way. Then again, Ezra might be right - that the whole 'Hillary is polarizing' mantra could just easily be "nothing more than a bunch of liberals too sensitive to the caterwauling of a fringe group of conservative misogynists". I don't know.

Personally, I'm inclined to agree with one of our earlier commenters yesterday. Two people that I would like to see more from are Russ Feingold and Mark Warner. Russ Feingold is one of the most honorable and principled men in politics, and Mark Warner is the type of southern governor in the Carter/Clinton mold that has proved to be the only winning combination for Democrats (like it or not) in the past thirty years. It's still early, and who knows what the national political landscape will look like in 2008, but its never too early to talk about it.

MyDD has some thoughts as well.

Religious Right Scares Even the Religious Right

By Andrew Dobbs

Saw this story linked by Andrew Sullivan and thought that it made some very interesting points. To wit:

No one can honestly question my commitment to pro-life, pro- family, conservative causes. That being said, the Religious Right, as it now exists, scares me.

For one reason, on the whole, the Religious Right has obviously and patently become little more than a propaganda machine for the Republican Party in general and for President G.W. Bush in particular. This is in spite of the fact that both Bush and the Republican Party in Washington, D.C., have routinely ignored and even trampled the very principles which the Religious Right claims to represent.

Therefore, no longer does the Religious Right represent conservative, Christian values. Instead, they represent their own self-serving interests at the expense of those values.

It also appears painfully obvious to me that in order to sit at the king's table, the Religious Right is willing to compromise any principle, no matter how sacred. As such, it has become a hollow movement. Sadly, the Religious Right is now a movement without a cause, except the cause of advancing the Republican Party.

Now, before you start celebrating, this guy isn't the most mainstream of the Religious Right leaders. The guy was the U.S. Constitution Party Vice Presidential nominee this year, so this guy seems to believe that Bush et. al are actually way too liberal. But that position isn't necessarily unreasonable- Bush has vastly increased the size of the federal government, trampled on states' rights and pushed us into massive deficits. He has abandoned traditional conservative ideology for a radical "big government conservativism." I would reccomend reading the rest of the story, as it has a lot of good info.

I myself am actually a person of deep faith. I don't write about it very often, and I have recently become more in touch with my beliefs than in the past, though I have been a Christian for some time. I have a conservative faith- I believe the Bible to be the inerrant (though not necessarily literal at all times) Word of God, I believe in the Virgin Birth, in Christ's divinity, in His crucifixion and resurrection, etc. But I vote for the Democratic Party. I am in the distinct minority of evangelical church-going Christians. For Democrats to start winning again we have to reach out to people like me while keeping our coalition intact.

But the issues that drive out the evangelicals are impossible for either side to compromise on, it seems. Abortion being the biggest issue. It is a tough issue for me- something I've been praying about a lot more lately. On the one hand, Psalms clearly says that God "knits" us while we are in the womb- and aborting that process seems to be an abominable sin. But on the other, God gave us free will and for the government to coerce people into following God's law seems to be taking a power into their hands that God did not even grant Himself. Others, however, aren't as concerned with the latter as I am and see abortion as murder plain and simple. Obviously they can't vote for a party who supports legalized murder no matter how cleverly they "frame" the issue. It is a principled position, as is ours, and neither can meet the other halfway.

So what is the solution? Perhaps it is to drive many of the Religious Right voters into third parties over GOP positions that aren't in coordination with their beliefs and reduce GOP numbers enough that our coalition is bigger. That seems rather difficult. Another is controversial, and I'm not sure I support it, but hear me out.

On abortion- which is really the biggest non-negotiable for the Religious Right- we can point out that short of a Constitutional amendment or massive sea change in the courts, nothing is going to happen. Constitutional change will almost certainly never happen and only Senators and the President have any say in the Supreme Court's makeup. In every other election, the prohibition of abortion isn't really an issue. What we WILL support (once again, I'm not saying I support this, I'm just throwing it out there) is as much legal restriction to abortion as is legal and prudent. Abortion is a devastating procedure which ought to be "safe, legal and rare." We'll keep 1 and 2 down, and on 3 we'll support parental notification, waiting periods, a ban on abortion for sex selection and bans on abortion after a certain point of time. If we can stomach these provisions and make the case that banning abortion completely is a non-issue for offices other than Senator or President, I think we can start focusing on other issues and win on those grounds.

And once an elected official at the Congressional or state level has proved him or herself to be a trustworthy official concerned with the issues important to religious people, they should be able to compete for religious votes for Senate or President.

What do you all think? Are the tradeoffs too high? Why not put those restrictions in place? The floor is open to all of you.

Big tent vs. little tent

By Nathan Nance

Guest post by Nate Nance

As the 2008 presidential race draws near, I get closer and closer to making a pact with Satan to win the Florida panhandle and the election. So concessions are not out of the question when we get there. And you know I'm going to vote for whoever gets the nomination. I don't care if he's a convicted murderer, I'll still be on the phones talking to swing voters about how more evil the GOP is with their cuts in Head Start and pell grants and whatnot.

But right now, I'm not sure how much I welcome the idea of just anybody being in the tent when it comes to abortion rights and the very foundation of the party. I will concede that it is inevitable and probably good for the party to have more varied positions if everyone else will concede that not having a single, unified message with a solid front when Bush appoints up to 3 uber-conservative Supreme Court justices might mean the end of a woman's right to choose. At least PR wise, it makes sense for all Democrats to be pro-choice, even if they are anti-abortion.

"All Democrats are united around the idea that we should make abortion safe, legal, and rare," but "we also have to be open to people who are pro-life," said Simon Rosenberg, the president of the New Democratic Network who is mulling a run for the DNC chairmanship.
...
Democrats could accept a leader who opposes abortion rights, but would not tolerate a weakening of the party's position on abortion, (Louise) Slaughter said. The failing, she said, is that the party has not articulated its position well: "I don't think we ever said we're for abortion. We're for choice."

If this is going to be the new position for our party, we really need to figure out how we are going to articulate why some Democrats are for abortion rights and some aren't. The Republicans are going to get a pass on this one, but we have to have an answer that does not say "we compromised our position on abortion so that we would get more votes."

Does anybody have any suggestions?

This is a guest post by Nathan Nance. Nate is a sports/news clerk at the Waco Tribune-Herald and writer/editor of Common Sense a Texas-based Democratic Web log. He can be reached at nate_nance@yahoo.com

Looking good in '08

By Nathan Nance

Guest post by Nate Nance

If we've already started forming alliances to vote somebody off the island, then I am firmly in the Anybody But Hillary camp. I'm sure that Sen. Clinton is an intelligent woman, but she is much too polarizing a figure. The argument would quickly become whether we want Bill Clinton to have a third term or not. I know we all like Bill Clinton, but we need to get away from the Clinton years.

His charisma got him into office and got him re-elected to a second term. The Democratic party's infrastructure had slowly been in decline since Carter and he did nothing to to help rebuild it when he was in power. At a time when we should have been learning to compete with the Republicans for small donations from grassroots organizations, he was finding the biggest checkbooks he could and coaxing just a little more money out of them. When campaign finance finally got passed, we were at a disadvantage. Only by extreme foresight did we get the Dean campaign that got the ball rolling on Internet Meet Ups and small donations. When we learn to harness the full power of the Web, we will have a source of revenue and political action the likes of which has never been seen before.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, we need to move on. We need to look for new leadership from up and comers and less-establishment players. Our presidential nominee should not be whoever the current party leadership chooses, it should be who best represents all Democrats.

As an interesting aside, I've heard no one talk about Biden running. Watching him speak on Meet the Press this morning, it seemed fairly obvious to me that he has higher office ambitions. He knows he can kick Bill "I'm a doctor, which is what I am, a doctor" Frist's ass in the general, and he probably sees McCain and other moderate Republicans as not having a chance in their own party in 4 years. This is by no means an endorsement for him to run, I just think the only reason he didn't run this time was because he assumed Bush was going to win and he didn't want to screw up his one chance to actually win.

This is a guest post by Nathan Nance. Nate is a sports/news clerk at the Waco Tribune-Herald and writer/editor of Common Sense a Texas-based Democratic Web log. He can be reached at nate_nance@yahoo.com

10 Commandments for Alabama Governor

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

via the AP

Ousted Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore said Friday he is considering running for governor in 2006.

"I'll be praying about it and considering it," told reporters.

Moore was ousted in November 2003 for defying a federal judge's order to remove his 5,280-pound Ten Commandments monument from public display in the state judicial building. He appealed his ouster to the U.S. Supreme Court, but lost.

If Moore were to run as a Republican, he could face a GOP primary battle with Gov. Bob Riley, who has not yet said whether he will seek a second term.

The Young and The Restless

By Jim Dallas

No complaints about this here:

They are opining, organizing and running for party chairman. A wave of young Democrats is demanding not just to be heard but to take charge. "This generation is looking for ways to participate because we're tired of losing," says Jamal Simmons, 33, a consultant who has worked for presidential hopeful Wesley Clark and several other Southern candidates.

Simmons and his fellow "Young Turks" worry about the Democratic Party's dependence on interest groups, their relations with minority groups, the stereotypes that they are weak on defense and values, the Republican appropriation of the "reformer" label and the swaths of America that Democrats seem to have written off.

Young Democrats believe that the party is dominated by people who came of age politically in the 1960s, and it's time for them to make room for new ideas and new voices. Theirs.

On the other hand, while I think I agree with the basic thrust of this quote, can't we all just get along?

A former aide to Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., Gerstein wrote in The Wall Street Journal that Democrats have "fallen right back into the elitist, weak-kneed, brain-dead trap" they thought they'd escaped with Bill Clinton.

He called for more muscle in foreign policy, more respect for religion and "banishing Bob Shrum and his tone-deaf Chardonnay populism" from future presidential campaigns. Shrum, 61, was nominee John Kerry's top adviser.

The way you get change is by taking the reins away from the dopes driving us off a cliff - not throwing people off the wagon. There's a subtle but palpable difference.

Via Political Wire.

Will Texas Lose its Biomedical Research Talent to Blue States?

By Byron LaMasters

It's very possible. Seeing the success of the California initiative on stem cell research, other states are making proposals to attract biomedical research talent to their states as the federal government is highly unlikely to move forward on the issue.

Blue states New Jersey, Wisconsin and Illinois appear to be the first to act:

California's embrace of stem cell science has triggered strong reactions elsewhere:

• New Jersey, Wisconsin and Illinois are budgeting taxpayer dollars or proposing California-style initiatives to try to prevent a brain drain of biomedical researchers to the West Coast. (Advanced Cell Technologies, a Worcester, Mass., company, is shopping for land in Northern California to build a branch facility.)

Illinois Comptroller Dan Hynes, a Democrat, will ask the Legislature next year to place on the ballot a proposal to grant researchers $1 billion. The money would be raised by a new tax on Botox injections, liposuction and other "vanity" treatments.

In Texas, U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (news, bio, voting record) has asked Gov. Rick Perry, a fellow Republican, to do what it takes to prevent California from stealing scientific luminaries from medical research centers in Houston. Pro-research bills are likely to be considered next year by legislatures in Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire and Washington state.

• Social conservatives in several other states are fighting embryonic stem cell research. Eight states - Arkansas, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota and Virginia - now ban or limit such research. All but one, Michigan, were "red states" that backed Bush in this year's elections. South Dakota passed the most recent ban, in February.

Next year, legislators in Missouri, Kansas and Louisiana will consider barring at least some types of embryonic stem cell research.

• In Congress, both sides in the stem cell debate are gearing up for battles next year.

I think it's possible that Texas move forward on stem cell research in the next few years, but clearly, that will probably require a new governor. On the other hand, Texas Republicans could join Republicans in Missouri, and elsewhere in taking an anti-science, anti-jobs stand.

More after the jump.

In Kansas City, Mo., business leaders are hoping that the privately endowed Stowers Institute for Medical Research, which opened in 2000, will be the seedbed for thousands of jobs. But proposals by two Republican state lawmakers to criminalize embryonic stem cell research could change that. Stowers trustees say they'll build a 600-job facility elsewhere if Missouri outlaws somatic cell nuclear transfer.

On the other hand, California will be spending ten times what the federal government is spending on stem cell research - an amount that puts California on equal footing with most other countries pursuing such research:

In California, the ballot initiative known as Proposition 71 was spearheaded by wealthy parents of children with life-threatening diseases and was backed by Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. It passed with a 59% majority. The state will sell bonds and give out $300 million a year in research grants for 10 years.

It's a sum that dwarfs the $24.8 million that the National Institutes of Health spent on human embryonic stem cell studies this year.

"It puts California on equal footing with whole nations that have made stem cell research one of their national priorities - nations like South Korea, Singapore, Israel, Sweden," Daniel Perry says.

I'll keep a lookout to see what happens here in Texas, but if blue states start pouring money into stem cell research, and Texas does nothing, we will surely see our top biomedical research talent go elsewhere.

George W. Bush and Rick Perry: Building a bridge to the 19th century.

Via MyDD.

Silver Bullet

By Nathan Nance

Guest post by Nate Nance

I touched on how important I think education is earlier, but now it's time to talk about it seriously. I know I don't have to tell anyone here how hard it is to get money together to pay for an education. So this post about Jesse Jackson's Pell Grant OpEd doesn't come as a surprise, but it is shocking nonetheless. Cutting pell grants for a million students to save $300 million dollars while simultaneously planning ot vote to extend tax cuts for the wealthy for another $30 billion.

Couple that with the insistance of some that superstitions and theology should be taught as science to America's school children and you start to see a pattern. There is some kind of method to the madness, and the method involves keeping people ignorant.

People are easier to control when they don't know what is happening to them. History has shown that to be true numerous times. Education is the silver bullet that solves all of the problems of the world. Education brings new ways to get people out of poverty, education brings new alternatives to feed starving people and education finds peaceful solutions to confrontations. Wherever there is education, there is hope for a better future.

But there seems to be this intense hatred of education among many people in this country. If I may riff off of What's the Matter With Kansas?, people seem to be voting not only against their own economic interests, but against their's and their children's education interests. They want judges who only enforce the Ten Commandments. They want people to teach creationism as if it were a real science. All the while they doom their children to an even worse life.

We are the party of education and hope fighting against a political party that wants to keep people ignorant so that they can be controlled. I think history will show that we already had half the fight won because people everywhere seek hope. It's just a matter of shining a light in the darkness.

This is a guest post by Nathan Nance. Nate is a sports/news clerk at the Waco Tribune-Herald and writer/editor of Common Sense a Texas-based Democratic Web log. He can be reached at nate_nance@yahoo.com

Jeb Bush Likes Books

By Jim Dallas

My friend wise master Matt asks, "Sex is an emerging threat?"

Hint: Enlarge the image of the book and look at the bottom for Jeb's money quote.

Hint: Then read the customer reviews to find out what a "special brand of love" means.

Ron Kirk Makes "Big Splash" at Orlando Meeting

By Byron LaMasters

I spoke with someone who worked for Ron Kirk's 2002 U.S. Senate campaign about the DNC race tonight, and heard some things that might explain how Kirk came out of nowhere into essentially a three way tie for the lead in an informal exit poll of DNC members last weekend.

Take the jump to the extended entry to read what Hotline Editor Chuck Todd had to say on CNN about Ron Kirk's performance in Orlando:

WOODRUFF: Well, just a few days ago in Orlando at the end of last week, the Democratic state party chairs from around the country, got together, they heard from some of these candidates. What do you hear about the reaction?

TODD: The guy who made the biggest splash was a candidate that nobody was even sure he was going to be a full-time candidate. That is Ron Kirk, former mayor of Dallas, former nominee for the U.S. Senate in Texas. He was the most charismatic of the group. He stole the show. He went last when he gave his statements. He was the one to acknowledge that -- the sadness that there was no woman candidate, that went over very well. It's not clear who his constituency is but he left a good feeling and got more people talking about the idea of a two-headed DNC where Kirk would be the messenger and he might team up with say Harold Ickes. That is a rumor that is as substantial as any rumors that you hear these days.

WOODRUFF: If those people are still in the running are there any who didn't go over so well?

TODD: One that didn't go over well was former Michigan governor Jim Blanchard. He was trying to be the DGA's unofficial candidate. He fell flat, from the folks I talked to. And Leo Hendri (ph), who was the big donor, he went down there and left after four hours. Nobody knew him and he left and didn't tell his staff. They were sort of surprised. So that was his way of sort of dropping out. But I think the big news was Kirk and Wellington Webb did himself well. Harold Ickes didn't do as well as some thought but he wasn't as popular with this crowd. The state chairs and ACT didn't always get along. ACT was the leading 527, and so there was some tough talk there.

Ron Kirk is one of the most charismatic candidates that I've ever met. He certainly made mistakes in his senate campaign, and managed to piss off some of the Democratic activist base by basically spending most of his ads talking about how he "supports the president" on this and that, and did not really carry forth a strong affirmative Democratic message. Still, the largest contribution I ever made to a political candidate was to Ron Kirk in 2002. He just has this charm where he remembers your name, acts like he cares, and when you have the chance to meet and talk to him, he quickly wins you over.

I'm not saying he'd be a good DNC chair. I don't really know enough to make a solid judgement on that, although as I said with Martin Frost, I like the idea of a Texas DNC chair if for no other reason than that I know that someone at the head of the party will be looking out for Texas. And while I'm not one to bash Terry McAuliffe - I think that he's done a lot of good things for the party, the current DNC hasn't really done shit for Texas.

Some Good News from a GOP pollster

By Byron LaMasters

This admission by GOP pollster Frank Luntz is certainly good news for the future of the Democratic Party:

On the importance of voters aged 18-29, based on the Nov. 2 election:

"They are going to be the battleground for the next four years. [Of] first-time youth voters, 62 percent supported Kerry; 35 percent supported Bush. They are, for the Democrats, the beginning of a core constituency if they hope to return to power. The Democratic Party cannot win without the youth voting in even larger numbers."

On the news-consumption habits of young voters:

"Sorry, ladies and gentlemen, but [young people] are not reading your newspapers. And I am sorry, too, [for] the anchors of the networks, but they are not watching them, either. A greater degree with every passing month are getting their information from the Internet."

If Democrats learn to understand this demographic, and don't do stupid things like kick bloggers out of meetings, but find ways to integrate the Internet, blogs and interactive multimedia into a coherent message and outreach towards young people, there's no reason why the 18-29 demographic should not be solidly Democratic.

This is a demographic that is largely turned off by the social conservatism of the Republican Party. It's a demographic that hasn't made a lot of money yet, so they're less drawn to the GOP on taxes. It's a demographic that has seen many of their generation have trouble finding jobs and affording higher education. If Democrats can mix a solid message with modern technology, there is no reason why young people should not be one of the major demographic constituencies of the Democratic Party. Now, if only we could get 'em to vote...

Via Smart Ass.

DNC Roundup

By Byron LaMasters

Greg links to Simon Rosenberg's ASDC Meeting - Orlando Speech and likes much of what he reads, as do I.

MyDD has the "post-Orlando" cattle-call, along with an informal exit poll of members of the DNC. The verdict? "Outsiders" such as Howard Dean, Wellington Webb and Ron Kirk seem to have made a strong impression, and "insiders" such as Simon Rosenberg, Martin Frost, James Blanchard and Harold Ickes are well behind. Then again, the poll is a small sample, and could easily be marred by some sort of groupthink mentality among ASDC (Association of State Democratic Chairs) attendees.

Jerome has a rant about getting kicked out of various meetings at the ASDC. Geez, some of these people still just don't get it. Ignore bloggers at your peril.

Panhandle Truth Squad has decided after today's anti-Dean editorial in the Amarillo Globe News that Howard Dean is obviously the man for the job.

Speaking of Howard Dean, he has a column today about moral values. Democrats often cringe when asked to talk about values. Social liberalism is often equated to moral relativism, when in fact liberals simply see moral values as something more than God, gays and guns:

It is a moral value to provide health care. It is a moral value to educate our young people. The sense of community that comes from full participation in our Democracy is a moral value. It is a moral value to make sure that we do not leave our own debts to be paid by the next generation. Honesty is a moral value.

Dean has the right message, here. Democrats so often feel squeamish when talking about our values, because we often squirm at religious sounding rhetoric mixed in political discourse. It's a fear that we must overcome, as we find ways to project our values in a sincere and honest manner. I don't think that Howard Dean is the right messenger for that task - for all his talk in the primary about "southerners who drive pickup trucks with confederate flag stickers" - I don't think that Dean understands the root values of those very people he liked to talk about. In many ways, I don't either, but I do believe that we ought to elect as chair someone who has at least made a serious attempt towards reaching out beyond the Democratic Party base.

Simon Rosenberg's work in Alaska and Oklahoma certainly places him in that category. Ron Kirk and Martin Frost have similar experiences in running uphill races where appeal beyond the Democratic base was a requirement. Both achieved some success in that department, but not enough to win. I'd like to hear more about other candidates as well. We shall see.

Update: Anna weighs in on the race. Her preference? Howard Dean, or "someone who has a clue".

Another Update: Matt Stoller posts his endorsement of Simon Rosenberg.

Via comments, another Rosemberg blogger endorsement at KY Dem.

And behind door number 3, Ron Kirk!

By Jim Dallas

A semi-formal survey of DNC voting members suggests that former Dallas mayor, 2002 senate candidate, and all around good guy (I say this from personal anecdotal experience, your mileage may vary) Ron Kirk may be building momentum towards being the next DNC chairman.

Bye, bye Bernie

By Nathan Nance

Guest post by Nate Nance

Bernard Kerik has taken his name out of nomination for Homeland Security Director. He stated "personal reasons" involving the immigration status of a nanny as the cause.

Josh Marshall and others have been doing some investigative journalism (remember when reporters used to do that?) and found some interesting things. For instance, though he was police commissioner of New york on Sept. 11, he quit that job soon afterwards. He also had a job training Iraqi police to take over the duty of securing the country whihc he left after only a few months. It's all moot now, but still interesting. This is stuff that is available in a quick Google search, but still most people don't know it; like Iraq not having WMD.

This is a guest post by Nate Nance. Nate is a sports/news clerk at the Waco Tribune-Herald and writer/editor of Common Sense a Texas-based Democratic Web log. He can be reached at nate_nance@yhaoo.com

The Democrats Da Vinci Code

By

Guest post by Christina Ocasio

This is an ecellent article that needs to be read by all Democrats and progressives. It just may hold a key for future success in Texas.

*The Democrats' Da Vinci Code*

*By David J. Sirota,
The American Prospect.Posted December 9, 2004 *

As the Democratic Party goes through its quadrennial self-flagellation process, the same tired old consultants and insiders are once again complaining that Democratic elected officials have no national agenda and no message.

Yet encrypted within the 2004 election map is a clear national economic platform to build a lasting majority. You don't need Fibonacci's sequence, a decoder ring, or 3-D glasses to see it. You just need to start asking the right questions.

Where, for instance, does a Democrat get off using a progressive message to become governor of Montana? How does an economic populist Democrat keep winning a congressional seat in what is arguably America's most Republican district? Why do culturally conservative rural Wisconsin voters keep sending a Vietnam-era anti-war Democrat back to Congress? What does a self-described socialist do to win support from conservative working-class voters in northern New England?

The answers to these and other questions are the Democrats' very own Da Vinci Code - a road map to political divinity. It is the path Karl Rove fears. He knows his GOP is vulnerable to Democrats who finally follow leaders who have translated a populist economic agenda into powerful cultural and values messages. It also threatens groups like the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), which has pushed the Democratic Party to give up on its working-class roots and embrace big business' agenda. These New Democrats, backed by huge corporate contributions, say that the party must reduce corporate regulation and embrace a free-trade policy that is wiping out local economies throughout the heartland. They have the nerve to call this agenda "centrist" even though poll after poll shows it is far out of the mainstream. Yet these centrists get slaughtered at the ballot box, and their counterparts - the progressive economic populists - are racking up wins and relegating the DLC argument
to the scrap heap.

The code's seven lessons are clear, and have been for some time. The question is, will party insiders see the obvious and finally follow their real leaders? Or will they continue mimicking Republican corporatism, thereby hastening their own demise?

*Fight the Class War*

If patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels, crying "class warfare" is the last refuge of wealthy elitists. Yet, inexplicably, this red herring emasculates Democrats in Washington. Every time pro-middle-class
legislation is offered, Republicans berate it as class warfare. Worse, they get help from corporate factions within the Democratic Party itself.

But as countless examples show, progressives are making inroads into culturally conservative areas by talking about economic class. This is not the traditional (and often condescending) Democratic pandering about the need for a nanny government to provide for the masses. It is us-versus-them red meat, straight talk about how the system is working against ordinary Americans.

In Vermont, Rep. Bernie Sanders, the House's only independent and a self-described socialist, racks up big wins in the "Northeast Kingdom," the rock-ribbed Republican region along the New Hampshire border. Far from the Birkenstock-wearing, liberal caricature of Vermont, the Kingdom is one of the most culturally conservative hotbeds in New England, the place that helped fuel the "Take Back Vermont" movement against gay civil unions.

Yet the pro-choice, pro-gay-rights Sanders' economic stances help him bridge the cultural divide. In the 1990s, he was one of the most energetic opponents of the trade deals with China and Mexico that destroyed the local economy. In the Bush era, he highlighted the inequity of the White House's soak-the-rich tax-cut plan by proposing to instead provide $300 tax-rebate checks to every man, woman, and child regardless of income (a version of Sanders' rebate eventually became law). For his efforts, Sanders has been rewarded in GOP strongholds like Newport Town. While voters there backed George W. Bush and Republican Gov. Jim Douglas in 2004, they also gave Sanders 68 percent of the vote.

Sanders' strength among rural conservatives is not just a cult of personality; it is economic populism's broader triumph over divisive social issues. In culturally conservative Derby, for instance, a first-time third-party candidate used a populist message to defeat a longtime Republican state representative who had become an icon of Vermont's anti-gay movement.

The same message is working in conservative swaths of Oregon, where Democratic Rep. Peter DeFazio keeps getting re-elected in a Bush district. For DeFazio, the focus is unfair trade deals and taxpayer giveaways to the wealthy. When Republicans promote plans to "save" Social Security, DeFazio counters not by agreeing with privatization but with his plan to force the wealthy to start paying more into the system.

The message is also used by Mississippi Congressman Gene Taylor, who represents a district that gave 65 percent of its vote to Bush in 2000 and was previously represented in the House by Trent Lott. Taylor bucks his district's GOP tilt by mixing opposition to free trade with what the Almanac of American Politics calls "peppery populism" and a demeanor that is "feisty to the point of being belligerent." "Unlike the policy hawks who never leave Washington ... I know the owners of factories, the foreman, and the workers, and they'll all tell you it's because of NAFTA that their factories closed," Taylor told newspapers in late 2003, criticizing the trade deal signed by President Bill Clinton.

This message contrasts with that of the DLC centrists, who promote, for instance, Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh's free-trade, Republican-lite positions as a model for winning in red states. What they don't say is that Bayh comes from one of Indiana's most beloved political families and wins largely by virtue of his last name, not his ideology. Where a corporate message like Bayh's has been put to a real challenge, it has been a disaster. In Louisiana, for instance, the state's tradition of electing Democratic populists like Huey and Russell Long gave way to centrist politicians like Sen. John Breaux, a man best known in Washington for throwing Mardi Gras parties with business lobbyists. When a Breaux clone ran to replace the retiring senator, he was crushed by a moral crusading Republican.

In North Carolina, instead of following John Edwards' class-based formula, Democrats anointed investment banker Erskine Bowles as the nominee to replace Edwards in 2004. At the time, party insiders brushed off concerns that, as a Clinton White House chief of staff, Bowles was an architect of the free-trade policy that helped eliminate North Carolina's manufacturing jobs. But Bowles' opponent, Rep. Richard Burr, made the Democrat pay for his free-trade sellout. "You negotiated the China trade agreement for President Clinton, which is the largest exporter of jobs not just in North Carolina but in this country," Burr said at one debate, robbing Bowles of an economic issue that might have offset North Carolinians' inherent cultural suspicions of a Democrat. On election night, Bowles went down in flames.

*Champion Small Business Over Big Business*

The small-business lobby in Washington is a de facto wing of the Republican Party. But Democrats are finding that, at the grass-roots level, small-business people are far less uniformly conservative, especially as the GOP increasingly helps huge corporations eat up local economies. While entrepreneurs don't like high taxes and regulations, they also don't like government encouraging multinationals to monopolize the market and destroy Main Street.

As a small-business man himself, Montana's 2004 Democratic gubernatorial nominee, Brian Schweitzer, figured out how to use these frustrations in one of America's reddest states. He lamented how out-of-state corporations were using loopholes to avoid paying taxes, thus driving up the tax burden on small in-state companies. He discussed taxing big-box companies like Wal-Mart that have undercut local business. In the process, he became the state's first Democratic governor in 16 years.

In the Midwest and New England, progressives are focused on small manufacturers. These traditional GOP constituencies, which sell components to large multinationals, have been decimated by a trade policy that encourages their customers to head overseas in search of repressive, anti-union regimes that drive down labor costs. "When the economy turned soft [in 2001], we anticipated the business would come back," one owner of a factory-machine business told BusinessWeek. "But it didn't. We saw our customer base either close, or migrate to China."

Free-trade critics like Democratic Reps. Mike Michaud, Ted Strickland and Tim Holden, who perpetually win Republican-leaning districts, are rewarded for their stands with support from these kinds of businesspeople, who had previously been part of the GOP's base. The U.S. Business and Industry Council, which represents America's domestic family-owned manufacturers, now lists these and other progressives at the top of its congressional scorecard.

Unfortunately, these kinds of trailblazers are not yet being rewarded by their own party in Washington. According to reports, the House Democratic leadership is considering promoting some of the most ardent free traders to the Ways and Means Committee, the panel that oversees trade policy. Apparently Democrats have not yet lost enough seats in the heartland to honestly address their Achilles heels.

*Protect Tom Joad*

Northern Wisconsin and the plains of North Dakota are not naturally friendly territories for progressives. Both areas are culturally conservative, yet their voters keep sending progressive Democrats like Rep. David Obey and Sen. Byron Dorgan, respectively, back to Congress.

No issue is closer to these two leaders' hearts - or more important to their electoral prospects - than the family farm. In Wisconsin, corporate dairy processors have tried to depress prices for farmers' dairy products. In North Dakota, agribusiness has squeezed the average farmer with lower prices for commodities. But unlike other lawmakers who simply pocket agribusiness cash and look the other way, Obey and Dorgan have been voices of dissent. They have pushed legislation to freeze agribusiness mergers, a proposal originally developed by populist Sen.Paul Wellstone of Minnesota. As Dorgan once wrote, "When Cargill, the nation's number one grain exporter, can buy the grain operations of Continental, which is number two, the cops aren't exactly walking tall
on the antitrust beat."

Dorgan and Obey also opposed the Republican-backed "Freedom to Farm Act," which President Clinton signed into law. Instead of pretending the subsidies in the bill were good for the little guy, Obey told the truth and called it the "freedom-to-lose-your-shirt" bill. He noted that the new subsidies would primarily go to large corporations, encourage overproduction that depresses prices, and reward big farms over small ones.

Other Democrats are catching on. In South Dakota, Rep. Stephanie Herseth used her family-farm roots to woo Republican voters. As most of Herseth's House Democratic colleagues buckled to corporate pressure and helped pass a free-trade deal with Australia in 2004, the first-term congresswoman attacked her GOP opponent for supporting the pact, arguing that its provisions would undercut American ranchers. She won re-election in the same state where Republicans defeated Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle.

Similarly, in conservative western Colorado, John Salazar won a House seat by touting his agricultural background. His campaign slogan was "Send a Farmer to Congress," and voters obliged.

And the opportunities for progressives are growing. Instead of neutralizing Democrats' advances on agricultural issues, the GOP is digging in, already planning to repeal country-of-origin labeling laws that help small farms differentiate their products from larger corporate producers. House Majority Whip Roy Blunt, who has pocketed more than $360,000 from agribusiness, wants to kill the measure, claiming, "I can't find any real opposition to doing exactly what we want to do
here." Clearly the GOP hasn't talked to any family farmers lately.

*Turn the Hunters and the Exurbs Green*

For years, conventional wisdom has said that culturally conservative hunters and exurbanites will always vote Republican. But the GOP's willingness to side with private landowners and developers is now putting the party at odds with these constituencies. And that could create a whole new class of Democratic-voting conservationists.

In Montana, Schweitzer criticized his opponents for trying to restrict the state's Stream Access Law, which protects anglers' rights to fish waterways that cross through private land. He also promised to prevent the state from selling off public land. It was one of the ways he outperformed previous Democrats in rural areas and won his race.

In Colorado, when the Bush administration tried to allow development in wildlife areas, John Salazar pounced. He noted that many of the Bush administration's plans went "against what nearly every local elected official on both sides of the aisle has asked for." Salazar's opponent, who was a former lobbyist and industry-friendly state environmental official, was unable to effectively respond.

Meanwhile, successful Colorado Senate candidate Ken Salazar trumpeted his record of creating land-conservation programs, and his surrogates communicated that message to the state's culturally conservative hunters. "Ken's background in resolving water, access and big game habitat, and natural resources issues best qualifies him to be Colorado's next senator," wrote the group Sportsmen for Salazar in an open letter to outdoorsmen. The Democrat had transformed his environmental advocacy from a potential "liberal" albatross into an asset in conservative areas.

*Become a Teddy Roosevelt Clone*

"Tough on crime" has always been a reliable Republican mantra. Now, though, progressives are claiming that law-and-order mantle for themselves. Led by state attorneys general, Democrats are realizing the political benefits of fighting white-collar crime, big-business rip-offs, and corporate misbehavior.

In Republican Arizona, former Attorney General Janet Napolitano became known as a tough prosecutor of corporate crime. She charged Qwest with fraud and negotiated a $217 million settlement with scandal-plagued accounting firm Arthur Andersen on behalf of investors. The record helped her become the state's first Democratic governor in more than a decade.

In New York, Democrat Eliot Spitzer, who had never held elective office, eked out a victory against a Republican incumbent in 1998 to become the state's Attorney General. He then did something that seemed like political suicide: He took on Wall Street. Specifically, Spitzer used state law to charge investment firms with bilking stockholders. Though opponents labeled him anti-business, he countered that he was pro-business because he was protecting the integrity of the market. Four years later, he won re-election in a landslide, improving his performance in many parts of the conservative upstate.

On Capitol Hill, some senior Democrats have been slower to take up this fight. For instance, as chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee in 2002, centrist leader Joe Lieberman refused to seriously investigate the Enron and Arthur Andersen scandals. Not surprisingly, both companies had been bathing Lieberman and his New Democrats in cash for years. The Connecticut senator's refusal to aggressively investigate the matter became an embarrassing public admission that he and his kind had been castrated by their corporate financiers. So rank-and-file lawmakers are filling the void. North Dakota's Dorgan, for instance, brushed past Lieberman by leading high-profile hearings on Enron's misbehavior. As TV cameras rolled, Dorgan dressed down executives who had deceived shareholders.

Sanders, meanwhile, won the hearts of Vermont's Republican-leaning IBM employees by fighting to prevent the company from illegally reducing their pensions. And Mississippi's Taylor continues stumping about corporate traitors. He pushed legislation to prevent taxpayer subsidies from going to companies that ship jobs overseas.

This Teddy Roosevelt-inspired posture is potent for two reasons. First, the GOP's reliance on corporate money means it cannot muddle the issues by pretending to meet progressives halfway. Second, the GOP is increasingly using corporate lobbyists and executives as its candidates for public office. Last year alone, Republicans ran corporate lobbyists and executives for top offices in Indiana, South Dakota, Colorado, Montana, and Florida. These kinds of candidates will never be able to fight off progressive opponents who make corporate crime and excess a major campaign issue.

*Clean Up Government*

In the early 1990s, Newt Gingrich attacked Democrats as corrupt, wasteful, and incompetent, eventually leading the Republicans to reclaim Congress. Now, though, progressives are using the tactic for themselves.

In Montana, voters grew tired of state policy being manipulated by corporate lobbyists while the economy was sputtering. In Gingrichian fashion, Schweitzer criticized his GOP opponent for becoming a corporate lobbyist after a stint in the Legislature. He also asked why his opponent had spent $40,000 of taxpayer money to redecorate the secretary of state's office during a state budget crisis.

Schweitzer was following Arizona's Napolitano, who was making headlines by cutting out almost $1 billion of government waste at a time the state budget was in the red. Her crusade was reminiscent of how deficits have been used by South Carolina Rep. John Spratt to symbolize government mismanagement and win his Republican-leaning district. It also echoed Colorado Democrats, who used deficits to win the state Legislature for the first time in 40 years. "The Republicans' obsession with narrow cultural issues while the state's looming fiscal crisis was ignored drove a deep wedge between fiscally conservative live-and-let-live Republicans and the neo-conservative extremists with an agenda," wrote one Denver Post columnist.

In the conservative suburbs of Chicago, Gingrich's corruption theme arose as Republican Rep. Phil Crane took fire for accepting junkets from companies that do business with Congress. Democrat Melissa Bean, a first-time candidate, used the issue to defeat him. The same thing happened in conservative New Hampshire, where Democratic businessman John Lynch hammered Republican Gov. Craig Benson over cronyism allegations. Lynch painted Benson as "a governor with ethical problems overseeing an administration wrought with scandal," according to The (Manchester) Union Leader. Lynch won the race, making Benson the first New Hampshire governor in almost eight decades to be kicked out of office after just two years.

*Use the Values Prism*

In 2004, pundits seem to agree that the national election was decided by "moral values." And though many believe the term is a euphemism for religious, anti-abortion, and anti-gay sentiments, it is likely a more general phrase describing whether a candidate is perceived to be "one of
us."

It is this sense of cultural solidarity that often trumps other issues. For example, many battleground-state voters may have agreed with John Kerry's economic policies. But the caricature of Kerry as a multimillionaire playboy windsurfing on Nantucket Sound was a more visceral image of elitism. By contrast, successful red-region progressives are using economic populism to define their cultural solidarity with voters. True, many of these Democrats are pro-gun, and some are anti-abortion. But to credit their success exclusively to social conservatism is to ignore how populism culturally connects these leaders to their constituents.

In Vermont's Northeast Kingdom, Sanders' free-trade criticism not only speaks to conservatives' pocketbook concerns but also to a deeper admiration of a congressman willing to take stands corporate politicians refuse to take.

In Montana, Schweitzer's plans to protect hunting access not only attract votes from outdoorsmen but also project a broader willingness to fight for Joe Six-Pack and the state's way of life. As focus groups showed, this stance garnered strong support from Montana's women, who saw it as a values issue.

Wisconsin's Obey may be a high-ranking national Democrat, but he keeps winning his GOP-leaning district by translating legislative fights into values language at home. Debates over Title I funding, for instance, become a venue for Obey to question whether America should provide huge tax cuts to the wealthy while its schools decay. Battles about whether to change antitrust rules become an Obey rant about out-of-state media conglomerates pumping obscene radio shows into his culturally conservative market.

In North Dakota, Enron may have had almost no direct effect on locals. But Dorgan made the company's antics a values commentary on the problem of unethical corporations. "This is disgusting to me," he said to the cameras during an Enron hearing. "[This is] corporate behavior without a moral base."

Mississippi's Taylor flamboyantly challenges free-trade supporters to visit his district to see the effects of their positions. "Some of [those who voted for free trade] knew better, and those are the ones I'm really mad at," he said. "[They] looked out for the big multinational corporations at the expense of average Mississippians and average citizens, even from their own states."

*****

In these seven ways, successful red-region Democrats have tacked back to a class-based populism that puts them firmly on the side of the little guy. And because voters implicitly know that big guys with lots of cash dominate the political system, that populism projects a deeper sense of values and a McCain-like authenticity.

In the aftermath of the recent election, the stale cadre of campaign consultants who helped run the party into the ground now say the solution is for Democrats to simply invoke God more often and radically change their positions on social issues. But the point is not to impulsively lunge rightward in some cheap, unprincipled gesture to red America that would reek of political strategizing.

The point is to follow red-region Democrats who have diminished the electoral impact of traditional social issues by redefining the values debate on economic and class terms. Granted, the progressive populists profiled above do not uniformly hew to the standard liberal line on social issues: some are pro-life, some pro-choice; some pro-gun ownership, some pro-gun control; some pro-gay marriage, some anti-gay marriage; some vociferous about religion, some subdued. But they have shown that there is another path that moves past wedge issues if the party is willing to fundamentally challenge the excesses of corporate America and big money.

Critics may say populism will not appeal to middle-class voters because that portion of the electorate is economically comfortable. But polls show that outsourcing, skyrocketing health costs, and other alarming indicators mean that even those who are getting by do not feel financially stable or secure.

Historical revisionists will claim that the centrist Clinton's ascension in the 1990s directly refutes the electoral potency of class-based populism. But Clinton's 1992 campaign was not the free-trade, Republican-lite corporate shilling that many propose as a Democratic panacea. It was, by contrast, populist on all fronts. "I expect the jetsetters and featherbedders of corporate America to know that if you sell your companies and your workers and your country down the river, you'll be called on the carpet," candidate Clinton promised in 1991. On trade, it was the same. "I wouldn't have done what [George Bush Senior] did and give all those trade preferences to China ... ," he said. "I'd be for [NAFTA] but only - only - if [Mexico] lifted their wage rates and their labor standards and they cleaned up their environment so we could both go up together instead of being dragged down."

Clinton, of course, proceeded to break these pledges, reducing corporate regulation, coddling big business, and leading the fight for NAFTA and free trade with China. Worse, well after these policies were wreaking havoc on working-class America, high-profile Democrats kept pretending nothing was wrong. "[Congress'] NAFTA vote had about a two-week half-life," said Clinton's chief trade negotiator, Mickey Kantor, years after NAFTA was sucking U.S. jobs south of the border. "Even today trade has very little political impact in the country."

Populist red-region Democrats might beg to differ with Kantor, who is now a high-priced corporate lawyer. They know firsthand that the embrace of a big-business agenda arguably did as much long-term damage to the Democratic Party's moral platform as any of Clinton's sex scandals or the battles over social issues. Because, really, how moral is the "party of the working class" when the president it still worships led the fight for trade agreements that hurt that same working class? Where are the principles of a party that has high-profile leaders so tied to big business that they are unwilling to seriously investigate white-collar criminals? And what are the core values of a party that keeps venerating its corporate apologists while marginalizing its voices of reform?

This is why populism is ultimately the way back for Democrats. Because, as red-region progressives show, having the guts to stand up for middle America - even when it draws the ire of corporate America - is as powerful a statement about morality and authenticity as any of the GOP's demagoguery on "guns, God, and gays."

All the Democratic Party has to do is look at the election map: The proof is right there in red and blue.

/David Sirota is a fellow at the American Progress Action Fund, a progressive advocacy organization in Washington, D.C./

Blogging the DNC Race

By Byron LaMasters

Jerome Armstrong and Matt Stoller have some great coverage of the State Directors Meeting in Orlando over at MyDD.

Matt has an aside about the Young Democrats Dork Problem. As a member the Texas Young Democrats executive committee, I can definitely see where he's coming from (without, of course, naming any names). Then again, aren't most bloggers dorks?

For the sake of Fairness

By Byron LaMasters

Since I was quite amused by the F*ck the South website, for fairness sake, here's a rebuttal.

The North Sucks.

Let's try an open thread

By Nathan Nance

Guest post by Nate Nance

It seems to me a lot what I've spent my time doing today is explaining my dislike for the DLC. I don't see why anyone would really care why or if I dislike the DLC. I'm just a guy with a blog that maybe 10 people a day read. Byron and the guys have been nice enough to let me fill some space and some time here at Burnt Orange, that's all.

Then I ran across this piece at DailyKos about the waning influence of the DLC within the party to people like Simon Rosenberg at the NDN. Once the NDN was just a clone, but Simon has taken it in a different direction and, I think, in a better one. Not to mention the Hispanic-targeted ads that I think are more of a help than some realize.

So I want you guys to read that and tell me your opinions. Leave a comment, say whatever and I'll do another post discussing it and we'll all have gotten a say so that we can move on to other things, like protecting Social Security.

This is a guest post by Nate Nance. Nate is a sports/news clerk at the Waco Tribune-Herald and writer/editor of Common Sense at Texas-based Democratic Web log. He can be reached at nate_nance@yahoo.com

It's the choice of a new generation

By Nathan Nance

Guest post by Nate Nance

Andrew has a post about who he would like to see as DNC chair as the race heats up and it's Martin Frost followed by Simon Rosenberg by a length.

It's no secret I'm a big Dean supporter, but I also like Rosenberg and Frost. I think Dean has something that the others don't have, he has media gravitas and a national platform. Outside of the Democratic party, no one knows Rosenberg and very few people outside of Texas know Frost (there is of course a lot media attention on him because of his recent race, but see if anybody really remembers that).

Dean is well-known and often invited to speak on national news programs. He has something of a reputation for being plain-spoken and for speaking his mind. With the right kind of people behind him, that image could be cultivated to help reach moderates when election time rolls around.

I think all three, Dean in particular, want to change the way things are done and start building the party. Without the infrastructure to run a ground game and the congressmen to help get things done, it doesn't matter if we win the White House. These guys understand that.

Andrew makes a very good point by saying Ickes doesn't need the chairmanship because of his ties to the Clintons. I'll go him one better and say we need to just stop paying attention to Bill Clinton. I know, I liked him when he was the president, too. He's not anymore. And when he left office, he left our party in shambles because it was all about him and not about us. It needs to be about us now.

I can't really convince you all of what you think is right for the party. We've all got our own motivations. Mine is to someday serve at the pleasure of a Democratic president and write speeches and change the world. Yours might just be to afford your kids college tuition or feel sure that you can one day retire. Whatever you decide, make your voice heard by contacting the state party chairs (helpfully supplied by MoveOn). I might be the one writing here, but your opinion is just as important as mine.

This is a guest post by Nate Nance. Nate is a sports/news clerk at the Waco Tribune-Herald and writer/editor of Common Sense a texas-based Democratic Web log. He can be reached at nate_nance@yahoo.com

On the Race for DNC Chair

By Andrew Dobbs

I know that many of my critics will take my sometimes right-of-center beliefs about foreign policy (and increasingly a few domestic policies) to count my opinion out of this discussion, but they would be wrong. I am a Democrat. I support this party because I believe that at its heart it has the best interest of working Americans as its highest priority, which I can't say for the opposition. I believe that it has adopted a bunch of misguided and silly policies as a means of trying to cobble together a coalition, and that these policies aren't just bad for America, but bad politics as well. So I feel it necessary to stay in my party and fight for it to shed the burdens that are weighing it down. And on that note, I have some ideas about who the next chair should be.

I really should pick out the best candidate and bash him, as I did that the last time the state party picked a chair and I got a job out of the exercise. I doubt that history will repeat itself, though, so I will say that all of the candidates will be decent, but some will be better than others and some will be best for Texas.

As a Texas Democrat, I think that our biggest need right now is to expand into areas that aren't on the coasts, aren't dominated by labor unions and are currently "red." We need a leader who is used to winning in Red States and has the ability to run the party successfully. We need someone committed to ridding the party of its elitist mindset and that is willing to organize, fund and work with parties in states like Texas, Montana, Colorado, Arizona, the Deep South, the Mountain West, the Midwest, etc. I think that Martin Frost fits this bill.

I have some selfish reasons for backing Frost. Frost has helped keep the State Party here in Texas afloat for a long time and the prospect of him simply being Citizen Frost is a bit worrisome- will he be able to keep helping us? Furthermore, if he is the DNC chair you can bet that Texas won't be ignored in the future. As DCCC Chair in the late 90s he gained seats in the House at a time when no one thought that would be possible. He is a phenomenal fundraiser and though he lost his last race, he ran well ahead of Bush in his district- proving that he can swing voters. He is "an insider" but he's also an old political hack who is more than willing to "think outside the box." He brings the best of both worlds- a creativity and insatiable drive to win that we see in Simon Rosenberg and Howard Dean alongside an experienced, thoughtful demeanor we see in Ickes. He's also a moderate (like Rosenberg) from a Red state (like Webb) making him appealing to everybody.

Texas will benefit, other Red states will benefit and the party will benefit from his experience and vision. I don't know if he'll win, but if he can create a strong bloc among the Red state chairs and DNC members and get the votes of some insiders not too keen on the idea of Hillary 08 (Ickes' biggest problem), he can stay alive long enough to drive out some of the other candidates and pickup their votes. He knows how to win (present examples excluded) and I think he'll make a great chair.

Other candidates have strong points and weak points. I really like Simon Rosenberg, and he's my second choice. I would like to hear more about what he's willing to do to revive the party in Red states, but his record as a moderate activist and his experience in creative political organizing make him a very attractive candidate.

Howard Dean is a great guy and is a leader for our generation of activists, but I am afraid he'll push the party even further to the Left. People don't vote for an anti-war candidate in the middle of a war, particularly one that is going relatively well and had the unassailable goal of removing a brutal fascistic dictator from power. People aren't ready for a lot of the ideas he gets tagged with, but if he can be the Howard Dean I started supporting in 2002- conservative on fiscal issues, sensitive to rural values, driven towards creative market-based solutions to public policy challenges and interested in organizing a movement and not just a simple campaign- I think he'd be a great choice.

Harold Ickes is just too tied into the Clintons for my taste. I like the guy and I love the Clintons, but I think that a Hillary nomination would be disastrous at best. I am afraid that he would use his position to simply grease the skids for a Hillary nomination, and such would be the beginning of the end for our party for a generation or more.

Wellington Webb is a good man who quietly supported Dean early on and was a solid mayor of a major city in a Red state. But winning big urban areas isn't our problem, and as of right now reaching minorities isn't a problem (though that might be changing). I really don't see what he brings that we can't get in Frost or someone else.

Other candidates abound and as I have said, all have good and bad points. But with Frost in power, we can be assured of greater support for the Texas Democratic Party and the Democratic Party in other "Republican" states to start fighting the GOP on what they have taken for granted at their ground. Frost or Rosenberg are my two top choices. Who are yours?

Seasons change, people change

By Nathan Nance

Guest post by Nate Nance

We all thought Snow was just going to leave, I guess it was a play fake or something. But he's staying, for how long is anybody's guess since Scotty Boy made it apparent that he doesn't know if he will serve the full four years. It's Anthony Principi that's leaving.

The Waco Trib will be doing a story on that tonight since Principi is Sec. for Veterans Affairs and we've had an ongoing struggle to keep the recently-renovated Waco VA Hospital open.

Still sitting pretty is Donald Rumsfeld. I think Stephen Colbert said it best last night on the Daily Show, it's not failure that gets you job security in the Bush administration it's "colossal failure." Rummy was trying to give a pep talk today to soldiers in Kuwait when Army Spc. Thomas Wilson asked him "why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up armor our vehicles? And why don't we have those resources readily available to us?"

Rummy's answer is priceless, if only because of it's stark stupidity. He actually said "You go to war with the army that you have." Never mind that he's the guy in charge of making sure the army that we have is equipped to fight a war or that we didn't really have to go to war in the first place. You would think that in the $400 billion a year we spend on defense, and all of the billions of dollars in supplementals, we would have the money somewhere to make sure that all the Humvees the army uses are armored. You would be tragically mistaken, though.

This is a guest post by Nate Nance. Nate is a sports/news clerk at the Waco Tribune-Herald and writer/editor of Common Sense a Texas-based Democratic Web log. He can be reached at nate_nance@yahoo.com.

"Intelligence" overhaul: UPDATED

By Nathan Nance

Guest post by Nate Nance

A deal was struck and the House passed the intelligence reorganization bill. The Senate should vote on the measure soon and then send it to Bush for signing.

I've got my share of problems with putting all our intelligence agencies under one umbrella; a centralized intelligence apparatus under the control of a political appointee, especially in the Bush administration, only exacerbates the problems we've seen when we need good intelligence to decide whether or not young Americans have to fight in a war.

I am glad for some of the other reforms in the bill, however. Some of them are:

creates a Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board to ensure regulations and policies do not threaten privacy rights or civil liberties.

* requires the secretary of homeland security to develop and implement a national strategy for transportation security, including steps to improve aviation, air cargo and maritime security.

* calls for greater coordination and communication between all levels of government and emergency response providers.

* requires the Department of Homeland Security to increase the numbers of border patrol agents by at least 2,000 per year and customs and immigration agents by at least 800 per year for five years.

* tightens visa application requirements; requires a face-to-face consular interview of most applicants for non-immigrant visas between the ages of 14 and 79.

* increases criminal penalties for alien smuggling and allows deportation of any alien who received military training from a group designated as a terrorist organization.

* provides new authority to pursue "lone wolf" terror suspects who are not affiliated with foreign terror groups.

* authorizes funding for better technology and other federal support to improve efforts to fight money laundering and terrorist financing; requires better coordination and building on international coalitions to combat terrorist financing.

Those are some long overdue policies that need to be adopted. If what I'm hearing about Bush using his "political capital" to get this through, then maybe he's not the son of Satan.

UPDATE: The Senate has also passed the intelligence reorganization bill. Their reworded version does not have immigration legislation that will apparently be worked out next year.

This is a guest post by Nate Nance. Nate is a sports/news clerk at the Waco Tribune-Herald and writer/editor of Common Sense a Texas-based Democratic Web log. He can be reached at nate_nance@yahoo.com

Fun news fact of the day

By Nathan Nance

Guest post by Nate Nance

I've seen this in a few different places today, and it both sickens me and makes me laugh. Apparently, a youth minister from Des Moines, IA was picked by Bush to show how his tax cuts were working. Mike Hintz and his wife were delighted to help the president and had this to say:

"The American people are starting to see what kind of leader President Bush is. People know where he stands," he said.

"Where we are in this world, with not just the war on terror, but with the war with our culture that's going on, I think we need a man that is going to be in the White House like President Bush, that's going to stand by what he believes.

But that's not the end of the story. We find out today, that Hintz has turned himself in because last Spring he began an affair with a 17 year-old girl. He was also fired and is charged with sexual exploitation by a counselor.

Don't you just love those Repulican values?

This is a guest post from Nate Nance. Nate is a sports/news clerk at the Waco Tribune-Herald and is writer editor of Common Sense a Texas-based Democratic Web log. He can be reached at nate_nance@yahoo.com

At least it ain't just us

By

Guest Post by Christina Ocasio

In news of the unbelievable, Senate Majority leader and medical doctor Bill Frist was unable to refute the claim when asked if one could get HIV from sweat and tears . Why would he even be asked such a question? Thanks to some serious dective work done by Rep. Henry Waxman's office, it has come to light that several of the leading federally funded abstience only programs are teaching our children just such "facts." But what takes the cake is when an board certified MD is unwilling to speak the truth about medical matters. For the record, it is impossible to catch HIV from sweat and tears.This past sunday Frist was on ABC's This Week and had the following exchange with George Stephanopoulos.

"STEPHANOPOULOS: Now you're a doctor. Do you believe that tears and sweat can transmit HIV?
FRIST: I don't know. I can tell you --
STEPHANOPOULOS: You don’t know?
FRIST: I can tell you things like, like --
STEPHANOPOULOS: Wait. Let me stop you there. You don't know that, you believe that tears and sweat might be able to transmit AIDS?
FRIST: Yeah, no, I can tell you that HIV is not very transmissible as an element, like compared to smallpox, compared to the flu, it's not.
(snip)
STEPHANOPOULOS: ...Let me just clear this up though, do you or do you not believe that tears and sweat can transmit HIV?
FRIST: It would be very hard...for tears and sweat to -- I mean, you can get virus in tears and sweat. But in terms of the degree of infecting somebody, it would be very hard."

Can someone please explain this? A simple no would have done just nicely.

This is a guest post by Christina Ocasio. Christina is a scientist and writes her own blog at http://www.apathyiscool.com and can be reached at christina at apathyiscool dot com.

I am a Deaniac, hear me roar

By Nathan Nance

Guest Contributor Nate Nance

I don't keep it a secret that I was a major Howard Dean supporter before the primaries. All the way through, I was very sad and very angry that Dean had been so mistreated in the media. And that's why I started to blog.

Howard Dean hasn't gone away though. After "The Scream", he melted away from the limelight until fairly late in the general election. His support for the Democratic nominee John Kerry was unwavering and his defiance of George W. Bush's policies was unquestionable.

So, I still like him. And he's apparently not forgotten about me and the millions of other Deaniacs, because he's running for the DNC chair. He's got a vision for the Democratic party and its future which he was going to share in a major speech Wednesday, but I guess he couldn't wait.

Democrats need to learn by our previous mistakes - we have tried being “Republican-lite” and it does not work. It is a mistake to run away from the things we believe and I think we can win in the so-called Republican states by being real Democrats.

We have to realize that there are no red states and no blue states, just American states. I believe the country is still more in sync with Democratic values than Republican values. Our task is to remind ourselves and the American people of the hallmark issues that distinguish Democrats from Republicans.

For example, Democrats historically tackle economic issues with bold, common-sense policies. Our last Democratic president created 22 million new jobs in this country. In the last four years, George W. Bush oversaw the loss of over 1.5 million. Democrats balance budgets, Republicans do not. Democrats consistently try to pass legislation that would provide some kind of affordable health care, Republicans do not. Democrats believe we ought to raise the minimum wage to help the average worker keep up with the cost of living, Republicans do not. Democrats believe corporations have too much power over our daily lives; Republicans do not - and to prove it, they have given away billions of dollars of our tax money to the biggest corporations in the world over the last four years.

On each of these issues, the majority of the American people are with Democrats not Republicans. Democrats have the right beliefs to win; we just execute a poor public relations plan. And, despite the enormous improvement in our ground game, the Republicans executed a more effective strategy. Republicans are far more successful because they work in a more unified, disciplined way with local supporters, especially with their base. They also avoid the Democrats chronic pitfall of listening to pundits from inside the Beltway.

So I'm hoping Dean can win this one, because I really think he's got the right idea at the right time. He and Joe Trippi seem to be on the same track, which is always good news, and I can't help but feel that we bloggers will have more of a say in how things are run if Dean were the DNC chair.

Nate Nance is a sports/news clerk at the Waco Tribune-Herald. He is also writer/editor of Common Sense a Texas-based Democratic Web log.

Post with no name

By Nathan Nance

Guest Contributor Nate Nance

According to CNN Money, Sec. of Treasury John Snow is going to be replaced as soon as Bush names a successor. Among the names being mentioned are Chief of Staff Andy Card and former Texas senator Phil Gramm.

I had heard from several people that Snow was welcome to stay at Treasury, as long as it wasn't too long. Bush seems to want a whole new economic team, and this is the final piece. I can only speculate why he wants a new team; maybe he's tired of making up excuses for the lagging economy and piss-poor job creation numbers. I don't know.

I do know that Sec. Rumsfeld's job is secure for reason's not even God knows.

Nate Nance is a 21 year-old sports/news clerk at the Waco Tribune-Herald. He is also writer/editor of Common Sense a Texas-based Democratic Web log.

I For One Welcome Our New Blue State Overlords

By Jim Dallas

This essay in Time contains some truths, but only once you get over the clumsy "red state-blue state" (for what it's worth, Cottle is not one of the worst offenders in this regard):

Day to day, liberals have the luxury of ignoring conservative America. Only occasionally does some red-state phenomenon like The Passion of the Christ intrude on our consciousness, and even then it's usually because of some outrage it sparks among a particular interest group on the left. Social conservatives, by contrast, cannot escape the world view of blue staters.

Every time they go to the movies or turn on the television or open their child's school books they're reminded that traditional values ain't what they used to be. (Many liberals will be horrified to hear that two-thirds of Americans think creationism should be taught alongside evolution in science classes.)

Forget aggressively raunchy shows like Sex and the City or Temptation Island. Even the mainstream megahit Friends featured a parade of bed hopping, divorce, lesbianism and out-of-wedlock births that would have raised howls of protest not so long ago.

If anything, social conservatives don't realize the full depth of blue-state America's condescension. They assume that liberals sit around all day thinking about how much smarter or more sophisticated or more enlightened they are than social conservatives.

Truth be told, most of the time liberals don't bother to think about social conservatives at all. Except at election time, when they suddenly become aware of them as some frightening, incomprehensible menace to their otherwise comfortably progressive society.

If you look at the country that way, it's only fair that conservatives have their moment in the sun. They may have won the battle, but their prospects for the broader culture war remain dim.

It took me a moment to realize what exactly my problem with that statement is, until I realized that the wording impies that only the slimmest of majorities (or zounds, perhaps even just the 48 percent who voted for Kerry!) controls culture in America. That "liberals" have complete control and whatever "conservatives" do is mere tilting at windmills.

But the thing is, American culture is just that.... American culture. It's heartily endorsed (or most of it anyway) by most Americans, not just "liberals." Cottle here seems to be playing into the far-right-wing fantasy that "blue state elitists" are oppressing "the red state masses" (both groups exist, dontchaknow, on the same metaphysical plane as angels and demons).

The reason why "red state culture" barely imposes on the rest of us isn't that we're aloof; it's that the vast majority of Americans don't care, either.

And I dare say that those elements of "red state culture" which do surface (The Passion, The "Left Behind" series, DC Talk, etc.) do so in large part because they tap into some marketable desire among "blue staters" as well. There's a little bit of Jesusland in each one of the fifty states, and among most (zounds!) Democratic voters.

And just the opposite is true. Although I'm highly skeptical, some claim that as many as 73 percent of Republicans are closet pro-choicers. And we clearly know that newly re-elected cultural warriors are (lets face it) going to be pretty ineffectual.

I suppose my main criticism is the implication that it's liberals who are responsible for all the crap on television these days. Don't look at us, America, corporate elitists are responsible for the crap on television these days.

LA Run-Offs Results

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Democrats picked up a Republican Seat.
Republicans picked up a Democratic Seat.

Voters turned off by negative campaigns, light turnout. Congress remains unchanged from Nov. 2 results.

More can be found in this news report.

R.I.P.

By Byron LaMasters

Via Kos diaries.

This is what Senator Kerry did today.

When will President Bush join Senator Kerry in paying his respects to the brave American men and women who have fallen serving our country?

Sore Winners

By Byron LaMasters

Because merely winning just isn't good enough. The Austin Chronicle has a great overview of the way Republicans do business in 2004.

This is a party that thinks that getting 95% of their judges confirmed isn't enough, a party that would allow an indicted member to lead their caucus if convenient (after changing a rule originally intended to embarrass a Democrat a ten years ago), a party that would usurp the will of the voters since an 87-63 majority in the Texas House isn't good enough unless there's room for ol' Talmadge.

What will be next?

Via the Stakeholder.

US Increasing Iraq Troops by 12,000

By Andrew Dobbs

The Source.

Brig. Gen. David Rodriquez, deputy operations director of the Joint Staff, told reporters that these moves would increase the size of the American force in Iraq from 138,000 today to about 150,000 by January.

That is the highest number of U.S. troops in Iraq since the invasion, he said. By May 2003, when President Bush declared major combat operations over, there were about 148,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, he said. (...)

Military officials have said repeatedly in recent weeks that they were considering whether more American troops would be required to provide sufficient security before Iraqis vote.

The moves announced Wednesday are in line with expectations — a combination of holding some troops in Iraq longer than scheduled and sending some fresh forces from the United States.

Unfortunately for our soldiers already over there, the bulk of the increase comes from simply extending the combat tours of 10,400 troops. The good news is that is seems that Bush is finally going to fight to win. We probably need more than 12,000 troops, but it is a good start.

These elections in Iraq are of incredibly high importance. If a government chosen by the people of that desperate country can come into power, the arguments of terrorist insurgents that the whole thing is nothing but colonial exploitation will whither in the wind. If they can establish a stable democracy, it will be a powerful example to other Arab dictatorships. The only evidence you need for how important these elections are for an American victory is the level of intensity our enemies are showing against the effort. They know their goose is more or less cooked if they go off without a hitch and without a stable base of operations, the loss of hundreds- if not thousands- of their comrades and the seizure of a large chunk of their weapons they are on their last leg. By this time next year things could be completely different if this is successful.

But victory will only come if we invest in more troops to train an Iraqi military, to secure the country in their absence and to defeat the fascist insurgency that threatens to throw Iraq back into the hellhole of oppression. 12,000 troops is a solid start, we need to keep the trend going until Iraq has a stable professional army, an effective police and domestic security force, a freely elected government, the beginnings of an economic/infrastructure redevelopment and a defeated or incredibly weak insurgency. We've succeeded in this sort of thing before and if we show the courage to do it again, we'll have a huge feather in our caps that we will celebrate for generations.

That Old Time Religion

By Jim Dallas

One of my favorite Internet toys is the NORC's General Social Survey analysis site.

Here's an interesting statistic I discovered running the cross-tabulations module:

Of white "Strong Democrats", 77.3 percent either "know God exists" or "believe but have doubts" (334 respondants of 432 between 1992 and 2002). 58.8 percent "know God exists."

Of white "Strong Republicans", 88.1 percent do. (449 respondants of 510). 76.1 percent "know God exists"

However....

Of white "Strong Democrats", 44.4 percent believed that hell "definitely" exists (36 of 81 respondants). 48.1 percent believe in religious miracles (39 of 81)

Of white "Strong Republicans", 69.8 percent believe that hell "definitely" exists
(67 of 96 respondants). 64.1 believe in religious miracles (59 of 92).

Ponder that. A pretty strong majority of both hard-core Democrats and hard-core Republicans believe in God, but Republicans by far are a lot more likely to believe in damnation and miracles.

What is really odd is that there doesn't seem to be a strong partisan divide over the nature of the Bible; white "Strong Republicans" seem to be slightly more likely to think the Bible is the literal Word of God, but only by about 10 points or so. Not like the big 30 point divide over hell.

I don't think that "literalism" or "fundamentalism" are the sine qua non of religious conservatism (which, let us stipulate, is a far more powerful force in the Republican Party); rather, I think, it's rooted in a sort of mysticism.

What I'd like to see is a partisan breakdown of belief in faeries and angels.

Frost for DNC?

By Byron LaMasters

He's making the calls. The AP reports:

Defeated Texas Congressman Martin Frost is among potential candidates for chairman of the Democratic National Committee who are telephoning members about the situation, a leading Democrat said Monday.

"The following candidates are making phone calls to DNC members -- Howard Dean, Donnie Fowler, Martin Frost and Leo Hindery," said Mark Brewer, party chairman in Michigan and president of the Association of State Democratic Chairs.

[...]

Former Denver Mayor Wellington Webb has sent videos to the state chairmen promoting his interest in the job, Brewer said. Fowler is a Democratic strategist and son of a former national chairman. Hindery is a New York businessman and former chairman of the Yankees Entertainment & Sports Network LLC, a New York-based sports cable channel that televises New York Yankees baseball games.

Frost spokeswoman Susan McAvoy said: "Martin is taking some calls and has placed some calls" but emphasized he was merely exploring possibilities.

As a Democrat who grew up in Dallas, I've always been a fan of Martin Frost. Still, I think that my first choice would be Simon Rosenberg, and while I haven't done much posting on the DNC race, I'll be sure to post more on the DNC race in the next two months.

More thoughts from Political State Report and MyDD.

Why simply rebranding won't work

By Jim Dallas

I like Oliver Willis, but it sure didn't take long for the twits* to turn the tables on us.

* by which I mean, those Republican apologists who are so smug as to be completely intolerable and worthless to us, politically speaking (as in, when you add up the people who are persuadable, they ain't them). I'm sure there are probably a few loyal readers of the conservative bent who think the same about me, for what its worth. Why resort to name-calling then? Because sometimes it's just inevitable, and I'd like to get the first shot in.

* Is anyone else disturbed by the cognitive dissonance that said twits employ, when, for example, they remind us (correctly) that some Democrats were right-wing crazies (e.g. segregationists), but then accuse us of all being left-wing crazies (e.g. Stalinists)?

How did your Congressman Vote on the DeLay Rule?

By Byron LaMasters

The Daily DeLay and Josh Marshall have been doing great work in outting the GOP congresscritters who voted their values in allowing an indicted member to lead their caucus. The Daily DeLay has categorized the GOP House caucus into these groups:

Shays Handful (25) voted AGAINST the DeLay Rule
Refusers (14) simply REFUSED to say how they voted
Letter Writers (28) will WRITE LETTERS TO CONSTITUENTS with their vote
Loud and (Not So) Proud (53) voted FOR the DeLay Rule
Did Not Vote (29) NOT VOTING for a variety of reasons
What is the Story? (1) cannot get a STRAIGHT STORY about what they think

My only complaint is that nothing is listed for representatives-elect. It's hard to contact those folks, because they're just getting their office staff in place, and don't have their D.C. or district offices set up yet, BUT they do have a vote in caucus elections. So as soon as I get contact information for the new Republican Congressmen in Texas, I'll be sure to post it so we can start badgering these guys. (Although I'd be shocked if any of them voted against the DeLay rule. Tom DeLay got Marchant, Poe, Gohmert and McCaul elected, so I fully expect them all to be Tom DeLay's bitch on basically everything).

Our Mis-Leader

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Rawstory.com brings us this gem...

Mysterious ‘George W. Bush: Our leader’ Clear Channel political public service billboard graces Orlando freeway

A billboard recently put up in Orlando bearing a smiling photograph of President Bush with the words "Our Leader" is raising eyebrows among progressives who feel the poster is akin to that of propaganda used by tyrannical regimes.

"The first thing I thought was, when was the last time I have seen a president on a billboard?" wrote resident Dianna Lawson. "Didn't Saddam Hussein have his picture up everywhere? What next, a statue?"

The text on the bottom of the Clear Channel owned board says that it is "Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. A public service message brought to you by Clear Channel Outdoor"

The original sighting brought to you by the Democratic Underground boards.

If you want to drop them a line, in order of impact...

For the Orlando branch....

Clear Channel Outdoor
5333 Old Winter Garden Road
Orlando , FL 32811
Phone: (407) 298-6410
Fax: (407) 297-8176

Outdoor Corporate HQ
1-602-957-8116

Clear Channel Main HQ
1-210-822-2828

A Daily Kos Diary has some great comparison pictures.

Amend, but not for Arnold

By Byron LaMasters

Unlike the Federal Marriage Amendment, the recent proposals to amend the constitution to allow naturalized American citizens to run for president is a worthy idea looking into. For once, I think that Orrin Hatch is on to something. I agree with most of what Andrew wrote on the subject two months ago. My problem is not with the concept, but with the idea of amending the constitution to benefit one particular person. In the eyes of its supporters, this amendment seems to be less about a its merits, than it is about the political career of Arnold Schwarzenegger. All you have to do is take a look at the two leading supporter sites:

Amend for Arnold and Amend US.

This is also an issue where Democrats can easily get trapped. Patrick Ruffini, back to blogging after his stint as the official Bush / Cheney 2004 re-election blogger outlines an approach for Republicans to take on the issue. I'm personally doubtful that Republicans can pull off unanimity in support of the amendment. At the very least, Republicans will have to do a lot of convincing of the anti-immigrant and social conservative (why would most social conservatives support an amendment making it possible for the GOP's most popular social liberal to run for president) wings of the party. Still, Democrats have largely been silent on the issue -- something that poses problems for us. If Republicans are smart, they'll turn this into a campaign about supporting immigrants, and enlist prominent Hispanic elected officials and donors to bankroll the campaign. They'll turn this into a wedge issue to paint Democrats not supporting the amendment as anti-immigrant. And frankly, there's no reason Democrats should be running from this issue. After all, we've historically been the party of immigrants.

So how do we balance the concerns of supporting immigrants and of not wanting an amendment to our constitution designed to benefit one particular person? I see an easy solution that would take the politics out. As long as this amendment is seen as benefiting one politician or one party or another, there's no way that it will pass. There's no way it gets two-thirds majorities in both houses and three-quarters of the state legislatures if this is seen as a partisan issue. So take the politics out of it.

Pass an amendment that allows naturalized American citizens to run for president that are born after 34 years prior to the amendment's enactment. For example, should the amendment pass in 2005, any naturalized citizen born after 1971 would be eligible to run for president (assuming they meet the other requirements). Thus, no current politician would benefit, but within a few decades most leading non-U.S. born politicians would be eligible to run for president. My year suggestion may sound hopelessly arbitrary, but I think that it's nescessary in order to remove politics from this otherwise worthwhile amendment.

Not these Democrats

By Jim Dallas

One of the many problems (among many), that Democrats face is our inability to market ourselves effectively. Granted, it's time to turn around the Democratic brand name.

But let's face facts: we're not going to accomplish a lot with a little bit of magic fairy dust.

Looking at the "Brand Democrat" logos put out, my Republican acquaintances (naturally, laughed). That was expected, because they're the folks you can't convince. Remember Jesus's parable about the seeds.

Moreover, though, some on the left found the "Brand Democrat" things to be, at best, a bit hokey. To wit,

"We Won World War 2"? Come on, America won World War 2. Franklin Roosevelt won World War 2. The kind of Democrats who used to inhabit Washington in the early 1940s won World War 2.

The kind of Democrats that now run the show did not win World War 2 (so they say).

And the same for domestic agenda items. "Civil rights came about because of the civil rights movement!" Labor rights? Social security? Blame the Wobblies and the pinkos for those.

Now, I'm not bringing these points up because I necessarily agree with them, but the point is this: looking in the mirror, are we the same sort of folks who would be able to accomplish any of the sort of things Democrats used to accomplish?

The temptation is to say "no, because unlike previous generations of Democrats, frankly, we suck." And that temptation can be an awfully strong one.

Nonetheless, I happen to think the answer is not "no," but "yes, we are!"

But the way to go about proving that isn't going to be through the magic of marketing. The way we prove that we rehabilitate our party's image is to shoot straight and shoot often (among other things).

There's a certain part of me that thinks that "Brand Democrat" conjures up all the excitement of Diet Sprite. Meditate on that for a moment.

(Hint: think about our party's tendencies (1) towards low risk/low reward politics and (2) away from bold, memorable pronouncements.)

For what it's worth, I still think that Oliver Willis's idea can bear fruit. But the Washington boys (and girls) really need to get their act together.

Brand Democrat

By Byron LaMasters

It's Brand Democrat via Oliver Willis.

Good idea. I like it. Check it all out.

GOP Values in Action

By Byron LaMasters

The DCCC is all over the recent GOP House hypocrisy -- where they've changed the House rules to allow Tom DeLay to remain leader even if when he's indicted. House rules previously required members in leadership positions to resign if indicted by a state prosecutor. When and why did they put the rule in place? Back in 1993 when they were targetting Rep. Dan Rostenkowski (D-IL), then-chairman of the Ways and Means Committee who was having ethics problems of his own at the time. Now that their guy is having some trouble back at home, the rule isn't quite as convenient.

You can help the DCCC elect Democrats in two Louisiana House runoffs by donating today.

Update: They've got a petition to sign here (blog post here).

I drink green tea, maybe you've heard of it?

By Jim Dallas

Atrios and MMFA.

But what really pisses me off about Iowa was that they wouldn't let me buy a beer with a temporary drivers license (I lost my real ID before going to Iowa for Dean).

At any rate, we absolutely MUST rid America of these pinhead media elitists. As a former aspiring-pinhead-elitist myself, I hope this carries some weight.

Lamar Smith Hates TiVo

By Jim Dallas

He's the sponsor of this odious bill.

This is a pro-Hollywood, anti-American, anti-freedom bill that must be stopped.

Democracy Fest 2005: Austin Wins

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

DemocracyFest '05 will be held in Austin, TX on June 17th-19th. Mark your calendars now! Over 4,000 people voted, thank you to everyone who voted.

For more information on DemocracyFest '05--including proposed agenda and lodging info, please see here.

The South

By Jim Dallas

Two things are causing me some distress:

First, "F* The South." In a word... no. The South is part of who I am, and I'd probably rather saw my arm off than concede defeat.

Second - and this is a long-term thing - the apparent complete lack of real pride on the part of a majority of Southern voters. The half of Alabama that voted not to drop segregation from the state constitution.

I was brought up to believe that pride does not mean wallowing in your own inequity, but rather to bring down walls of oppression with the full force of the hammer of righteousness. "We shall overcome, some day."

Take a look at yourself, people.

Another Reason to Fuck the South

By Byron LaMasters

Even in 2004, a majority of the people in Alabama are racists. Democrats just don't have much appeal to racists in the 21st century. Winning is not worth pandering to people that support segregation. And if we have to sacrifice much of the south for that, it's a principled choice worth making. I think the future Democratic majority will be formed by finding ways to appeal to Hispanics, and in adding the southwest to the Democratic coalition. I'm increasingly convinced that winning the south (at least most of the "southern" states) is hopeless in the near future if our party is to stand for the values that Democrats believe in.

Via Atrios.

From the Justice Department to the Ministry of Love...

By Zach Neumann

It looks like a fellow Texan may take up where (soon to be) former Attorney General John Ashcroft left off. The Washington Post reported today that Alberto R. Gonzales, White House Counsel and one time Texas Supreme Court Justice may take over at the Justice Department if he is able to make it through the Senate:

President Bush has chosen White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales to be attorney general, succeeding John D. Ashcroft, administration sources said.

Because of Gonzales's close relationship to the president, his selection would give Bush tight control over the Justice Department. As governor of Texas, Bush put Gonzales on the state Supreme Court, and Gonzales had been mentioned by White House advisers as a possible candidate for appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court.

If his nomination is approved by the Senate, Gonzales, 49, would be the first Hispanic attorney general.

As White House counsel, Gonzales has served as the president's top legal adviser. His involvement with controversial administration policies on terrorism detainees could be an issue as the Senate considers his nomination to replace Ashcroft, whose anti-terrorism policies made him the focus of a fierce national debate over civil liberties.

Though I could be wrong on this one, I’m of the philosophy that anyone is better than John Ashcroft. Assuming Gonzales is approved, I am interested to see how he handles controversial issues like Guantanamo detainees and the Patriot Act. While he will probably follow in Ashcroft’s footsteps, there is a chance that he may loosen things up a bit. Who knows, if we’re really lucky maybe he’ll take the curtain off the semi nude statues in the main hall of the justice department…

Last Chance to Vote for Democracy for Texas

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

On Thursday, time will run out to vote to bring more grassroots training and nationally recognized speakers to Texas in June, 2005.

Texas is competing with California and Virginia for the chance to host Democracy Fest 2005, a gathering of progressives from around the country. We have big plans, but we need your vote to win—and this time it doesn’t matter that you temporarily live in a red state!

Please go to myvoteismyvoice.com and look at the proposals. Unless you really want to go to California or Virginia if we don’t win, we ask that you vote “Texas, No Second Choice.” After you’ve voted, please forward the link to your friends and ask for their help.

Thanks for your support!

Your DFT Steering Committee —
Marla Camp, Glen Maxey, Teri Sperry, and Fran Vincent

Ashcroft, Evans Resign

By Andrew Dobbs

Too bad that sentence doesn't suggest scandal, simply that they will soon be replaced by other right wing lunatics.

AP Story here.

As for replacements...

One name being mentioned for Evans' job at Commerce is Mercer Reynolds, national finance chairman for the Bush campaign, who raised more than $260 million to get him re-elected.

Speculation about a successor to Ashcroft has centered on his former deputy, Larry Thompson, who recently took a job as general counsel at PepsiCo. If appointed, Thompson would be the nation's first black attorney general. Others prominently mentioned include Bush's 2004 campaign chairman, former Montana Gov. Marc Racicot, and White House general counsel Alberto Gonzales.

I'm surprised Rudy Giuliani's name didn't make the AG speculation list. And Evans' departure makes me wonder if he has designs on the Texas Governor's race in 2006. He shot rumors to that effect down a few months ago, but the suggestion was he'd stay in the Bush Administration, which doesn't seem to be the case.

Still, the new cabinet is forming. I'm interested to see who the new foriegn policy team will be. Some had Dick Lugar's name running around for Sec. State, which I would endorse. And (I know you all will hate me for this one) I'd like to see Paul Wolfowitz Sec. of Defense. A more active Secretary of State and a smart, tough, creative Secretary of Defense would be much better than the pansy we have in the former and the easily distracted tough guy we have in the latter.

Back to the minor leagues

By Jim Dallas

This is probably the most useful strategy memo I've read in a while.

I almost feel guilty for not paying much attention to the state legislative races this year.

I might have to reconsider this "year without politics thing," too, sense the more I think about it, the more I am convinced chipping down the Republican margin in the state legislature - and eventually retaking back one or both of the chambers - is probably the most important thing that we can do for our state.

Yeah, he's a Shmuck

By Byron LaMasters

This is a fascinating read -- it's a very detailed, in-depth look at Jim McGreevey's career. It's interesting reading my initial knee-jerk reaction to McGreevey's coming out. On one hand, I can sympathize with his difficulty in accepting his sexual orientation, but what he did was pretty much inexcusable. His advisors put it best in the Newark Star Ledger article:

The consultants laid it out again.

"An affair, okay, not bad," one adviser told McGreevey. "A gay affair, that's a little bit worse, but okay.

"You hired your lover as the homeland security adviser without credentials, four months after 9/11 -- that's it. You can't withstand that. You'll be impeached. Democrats will join Republicans."

Yup. The American people are pretty forgiving of personal foibles -- look to Bill Clinton, but when it comes to jeopardizing our national security, Americans are a bit less forgiving.

Dean for DNC Chair?

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Like one must in politics, the trial balloon must be floated. Hey, it's time better spent than thinking about running for Prez in 2008...

Bush Change? Don't Make me Laugh

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

After winning a so called "mandate" of 51% thanks to an underground hate based campaign, President Bush says he wants to unite the country, work with Democrats, and move forward.

These are three things he has failed to do for 4 years, even when offered the chance to do so after the 2000 election and 9/11. I expect him to lie as usual and continue to push his right-wing grounded agenda.

Because Bush Stands by Rejection of Kyoto Treaty even as Russia signs on with the rest of the intellectual world in attempting to do at least something for the future of our global environment.

Why?

"President Bush strongly opposes any treaty or policy that would cause the loss of a single American job, let alone the nearly 5 million jobs Kyoto would have cost," said James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

Oh, President Bush, worried about JOBS! Haha, that's almost funny until I think about how many jobs he's lost with his own economic policies which are running this country and it's budget into the ground. And he wants to reform Social Security? With what? His good looks?

Well I'll just let him ponder that one while Insurgents in Iraq killed more Americans today.

Lessons From Election 2004

By Andrew Dobbs

Okay, here's my 2 cents on the events of Tuesday night in the extended entry...

(Update): I forgot one, read the new Lesson 7 if you haven't already

1. People Don't Vote Out the President During a War
Most Americans think we are on the wrong track, think that Bush is not doing so hot and think that the economy is in the shitter. Turnout was the highest it has been in 36 years, usually a good sign for Democrats. Yet Bush was reelected relatively easily, the Senate gained 4 Republicans and the House got more Republican as well. Some of this can be attributed to continuing regional trends, but more than anything it is a sign that people will stick with a guy they disagree with when the bullets are flying. Only when the war is an undeniable quagmire (and most of the country as well as this observer would say it is quite the opposite) will they kick them out (see 1968). Bush had this going for him and it helped trump almost everything else.

2. Liberalism is On the Outs
In 9 presidential elections we have elected Democrats in only 3 of them (four if you count Gore, but that was a tossup really). Each time (including Gore), it was a moderate, southern religious type. Liberalism might benefit from the ground game we built for this election, much like conservativism was ultimately helped by Goldwater, despite his defeat. But except for the coasts and a small part of the Upper Midwest, the vast majority of America is fundamentally conservative. They are religious, anti-tax, pro-gun, pro-war. We can try to change their minds, but this trend goes back much further than Bush. The good news is these people split their tickets for moderate Democrats who support the general party line but still don't take their marching orders from the liberal wing. Montana elected a Democratic governor, Indiana reelected a Democratic senator, Colorado elected a Democrat to the Senate and the race was surprisingly close elsewhere. But if we want to win we need to return to a party of the middle class- a Clinton New Democrat kind of place.

3. Vote for the Guy Who Inspires You... Within Reason
Before Tuesday I thought that simply running a campaign of how much you hate the other guy would suffice. I thought that despite the lack of any real enthusiasm for Kerry, the hatred of Bush would put us over the top. I was wrong wrong wrong. Campaigns have to have a positive vision and an articulate, inspiring spokesperson. Bush inspires and excites his base- Kerry was just a stand-in for the more amorphous hatred of Bush. A candidate who could excite people on his own- Dean, Clark, Edwards- probably would have done better. In the end, don't try and pick someone because they are "electable," pick them because you think they are the most exciting. Obviously if Kucinich or Sharpton rocked your socks, you should consider voting for someone who doesn't look like a troll or have a history of hating white people.

4. Districts Drawn to Elect Republicans/Democrats Usually Do Just That
We had 5 candidates redrawn into shit congressional districts this year. Despite the great campaigns ran by all of them and the weak candidates at least 4 of them drew, 4 of the 5 lost. This isn't because the Republicans are better, and though we could have done better it isn't because the Democrats ran bad campaigns. It is because people a lot smarter than us drew maps to elect only a Republican, and it worked. We need to stop partisan redistricting if we want a truly representative and effective congress and Texas 2004 proved that.

5. Raising Money Is Priority Number One
The DCCC and other organizations designed to elect people to office pick candidates primarly on how much time they spend raising money. A good candidate spends about 6-8 hours a day or so doing that. A bad one doesn't. Jim Dougherty in Houston was a good candidate on the outside, but lost because he didn't raise the money. Without putting the time and effort into raising enough money, he got 44% in a Republican district. A better candidate could have won. If we want to win we need to recruit candidates who will do the work necessary to pick up the phone and ask for cash. It is a sad reality, but it is true.

6. All Other Things Being Equal (or Even Kinda Unequal), the Candidate That Works Hardest Wins
Hubert Vo appears to have beaten the 20 year incumbent chair of the House Appropriations Committee, Talmadge Heflin. Vo knocked on several thousand doors, wore out several pairs of shoes and busted his balls to win that race. Of course, working the night shift and going to college all day only months after traveling to the United States with nothing but the clothes on his back prepared him well. Heflin, on the other hand, sat up on his coondog and expected incumbency to carry him to victory. On the flip side, John Otto busted tail in East Texas while 3 term incumben Dan Ellis decided to take it easy. Otto won and Ellis lost. If you want to win, you have to work and if you work harder than the other guy as long as the district is somewhat competitive and you have enough money to keep your name on people's lips (see Lesson 5), you will win. Hard work does pay off, and Talmadge Heflin and Dan Ellis learned that one the hard way.

7. (Added After Initial Post) Wedge Issues Work
The most surprising thing is that the number one issue on people's minds wasn't the War or the economy, but rather "moral issues." This doesn't mean voting out a leader who lies, exposes CIA agents and uses racism to keep himself in office, but rather keepin' queers from marryin' and keepin' ladies from abortin'. Karl Rove knew that he needed more evangelicals to vote if he wanted his boy to win, and he knew that guns, gays, God and abortion would turn them out. As a result, he played these issues up, got anti-gay marriage ballot initiatives on 11 ballots and got the church goers to the polls. Tada- Bush is elected.

There are two options here. The first is unacceptable in many ways- give up our positions on these issues. I think on guns this is preferable. Gun control doesn't really work, it pisses off a lot of people and it is lazy. We always argue that the solution to crime is in fighting the causes of crime- poverty, lack of education, etc. Banning guns is reacting to the sympton, not fighting the cause and we ought to jettison this issue. But abortion and the rights of all people- including gays- are non-negotiable for most of us. The second is to (as 'stina put it) reframe these issues and draw attention away from them. Gay rights is a civil rights issue and when Republicans bash them for political gain it is no better than when Southern Democrats used to use racism for gain. We ought to say so. Banning abortion is pushing one particular religious view onto other people, much like the enemies we are fighting do. We ought to say something similar. And then we ought to point out that the real problem is the crisis in marriage in general created in large part by financial insecurity and the high number of children born out of wedlock because of bad faith federal education funding. If we turn the gay/abortion debate into a debate about education and the economy, we can win. We ought to do this all over and it will succeed.

On a Texas specific side note, this has good implications for 2006. Essentially, the heart and soul of the Republican Party now belongs to the theocrats. In the South, the idea of a pro-choice woman winning a contested Republican primary with a viable pro-life candidate in the running is pretty far-fetched. Kay Bailey Hutchison may be popular, but 3-6 months of Rick Perry calling her a baby killer in her first contested GOP primary ought to put a stake in the heart of her campaign. And then, at the end of a brutal and nasty primary campaign, the unpopular Rick Perry has to fight off a Democrat. Texas could have a Democratic governor because of this issue if we simply reframe the issue as I have suggested above.

8. Things Are Looking Good for Texas Democrats
In 2002 only the very inner cities and the very Hispanic parts of South Texas went for the Democrats and only about 1/3 of the state could be considered "base Democrats." Now Democrats are starting to take over the biggest urban counties as Harris County saw an uptick in Dem voters, Dallas elected a Lesbian Latina Democrat as Sheriff and Democrats easily swept Travis County. Also, the inner suburbs- not the exurbs like Frisco, Georgetown or Katy- places like Grand Prairie, Pflugerville and Alief are starting to consider voting for the Democrats. In Grand Prairie, Ray Allen narrowly escaped defeat at the hands of an environmental activist Democrat. In Alief, Vo beat Heflin. In Pflugerville Mark Strama beat Jack Stick. If we can take the big 4 counties- Dallas, Harris, Bexar and Travis- with big numbers and add in their inner suburban counterparts, we can start winning statewide races.

But we also have to improve turnout in South Texas. Hidalgo County in 2002 had less than 72,000 votes for the biggest race on the ballot. In 2004, they had 115,000. In 2000, it was 101,000. In 2000, Webb had fewer than 32,000 votes for President. In 2002 it was just over 39,000. In 2004, it was 41,500. The turnout trend in South Texas is in our favor- if we can continue stoking these flames, we win races.

Finally, in 2002 Tom Ramsey ran for Agriculture Commissioner against incumbent Susan Combs. Neither really ran a campaign for the down ballot office and Combs was an incumbent. Ramsay got 37.8% of the vote. This year, neither campaign for Texas Supreme Court- David Van Os for the Democrats or Scott Brister for the GOP- did anything beyond some signs, bumper stickers and campaign speeches. David Van Os got 40.75% of the vote. That means that Democrats increased their base by roughly 3 points in 2 years. If we do that again before 2004, we start out with a base of 44% and need only increase turnout in South Texas, keep swinging the votes in the inner suburbs and big 4 counties and we have a race on our hands. This is good news for Texas.

So the summary is this: we need candidates with a positive, creative, inspiring message that doesn't fall back on old liberal cliches. We have to raise money and work hard and try and get districts that are fair for the people of Texas. And we have to either win this war or lose it bad if we want to start winning again. I would never cheer against our troops and I think we are doing a helluva job over there right now, so I suspect the former will happen before 2008. But in the end things are looking up for Texas right now and if we work hard and play our cards right, things will be even better in 2006.

Dick Durbin for Senate Democratic Leader

By Byron LaMasters

Daschle lost. Fuck John Thune. I had the opportunity to meet Dick Durbin at the Democratic convention this summer, and he's a fantastic spokesman and leader in the Democratic caucus. He's a progressive / liberal Democrat with a backbone, but as a Midwesterner from southern Illinois it's hard to label him as a wild-eyed liberal. Also, I think it's important to have a Democratic leader from a solidly Democratic state. I think either Chris Dodd or Dick Durbin would fit the bill in that respect. Senate Democrats were hurt on many occasions in the past year or two by Daschle's need to show conservative credentials to the voters back home in South Dakota. That's a concern that Dodd or Durbin won't have.

Mongiardo Leads

By Byron LaMasters

Very good early returns out of Kentucky Senate Race with 35.6% reporting:

Daniel Mongiardo D 303,342 54.3%
Jim Bunning R 254,964 45.7%

Coburn: Blacks have "Genetic Predisposition" to Die Young

By Byron LaMasters

Chalk this up as another Coburnism from tonight's debate with Brad Carson:

COBURN: [35:54] If you die... If you're an African American male in this country, you die before the average... your average life expectancy is less than the retirement age of social security. How, what kind of plan is that that we're gonna take from those because they had a genetic predisposition to have less of a life expectancy. You're gonna steal from them and give it to somebody else. The fact is that we can solve the problem. We can't solve it if we won't talk about it. And we can do with what Albert Einstein said was the most powerful force on earth, which is compound interest. Get it out of the hands of the politicians. [36:29

I'd like to find an African American that would agree with Tom Coburn -- that the Social Security system discriminates againt Black people. Wow.

Update: Well, it looks like Kos got the same press release that I did.

Republican Race Baiting In Colorado

By Byron LaMasters

Looks like Republicans are trying to scare people in Colorado - attacking Colorado Congressional candidate John Salazar on Immigration. Watch the ad to see the shadowy figures in the background, trying to tie a Hispanic candidate to illegal immigration. Pretty shady. Rick Perry ran similar ads against Tony Sanchez two years ago, attempting to tie Sanchez to drug dealers and the murder of DEA agents.

Via Colorado Luis.

Is Katherine Harris doomed?

By Jim Dallas

My friend and blogger Larry, who is pretty Republican albeit an independent-minded one, voted for Jan Schneider instead of Katherine Harris.

GOP Leadership Abandoning Coburn

By Byron LaMasters

Here's what Speaker Dennis Hastert said yesterday:

House Speaker Dennis Hastert predicted Tuesday Republicans will lose the U.S. Senate seat in Illinois being sought by conservative former U.N. Ambassador Alan Keyes.

"We have a race in Oklahoma that we are probably not going to win," Hastert told the Daily Herald editorial board. "That's a Republican seat we are probably going to lose. Same thing in Illinois."

Hastert's a realist, Alan Keyes, on the other hand is in La-la land:

Keyes, appearing separately before the paper's editorial board Tuesday, refuted the notion he'll lose Nov. 2.

"No, because I'm going to win this election. It's that simple," Keyes said. "Based on the fact that I am articulating things that represent the heart and conscience of a majority of people in Illinois and we will see that registered on Election Day. The response I'•getting around the state suggests that that is true. So brace yourselves."

Media polls show Keyes trailing Democratic state Sen. Barack Obama by 40 percentage points or more.

Alan Keyes is soooo much fun! And pay Brad Carson a visit. I'm confident Carson will win, but not quite as convinced as Dennis Hastert yet.

Comrades

By Jim Dallas

Matt Yglesias puts down in words what I've been thinking (as well as, apparently, Kevin Drum, Michael Froomkin, and a whole bunch of other people who are smarter than I am):

There are disturbing parallels between the Bush White House and the Putin government in the Kremlin.

Look, it'll be a bright and sunny day for freedom when Bin Laden gets his just desserts, but walking the rain-slicked streets of the gray present, I must wonder what is happening to America, and worry what will happen if we keep on the road we're on.

Right Wing 3rd Parties Might Swing PA Sen. Race

By Andrew Dobbs

From a DKos Diary Entry (reccomend this one- it is good), Arlen Specter's once inpenetrable lead is slowly deflating as more people learn who Joe Hoeffel is and as conservatives bolt the party. Quoting an unlinked article from the Harrisburg Patriot News:

Specter says Hoeffel supporters pulled what he believes is a "dirty trick" by helping Jim Clymer, a Lancaster County conservative attorney - who opposes Specter, abortion and gun control, in that order - to get on the ballot. (...)

But for Specter, Clymer might be one opponent too many. Specter has watched his numbers fall from the safe, just-over-50-percent range, to the more tenuous, 45-46-point range, as Clymer rose from 2 percentage points months ago, to 7 points among likely voters in the Keystone Poll last week.

That poll shows Specter leading Hoeffel, 44 percent to 35 percent, among likely voters, 46-32 among registered ones.

But it also shows Hoeffel getting the support of only half of self-described Democrats, and shows half of the voters haven't heard of Hoeffel. So he has a lot to do, but also a lot of relatively easy ground to gain. As the Democratic nominee, Hoeffel figures to get, at minimum, 42 to 44 percent on Election Day.

So, do the math: If Clymer gets the 7 percent he is polling and Libertarian Betsy Summers gets 1 to 2 percent, as Libertarians can get statewide, that leaves 91 percent to be split between Specter and Hoeffel. That means you don't need 50 percent to win, just 45.6 percent.

If the Pat Toomey crowd boosts the conservative Clymer up near 10 percent - his political mentor, Peg Luksik, reached double figures twice when both major parties nominated abortion-rights supporters, like Hoeffel and Specter are -"Arlen is in a lot of trouble, very vulnerable at that point," said Sen. Vince Fumo, D-Philadelphia, a longtime quiet Specter ally.

That's right, the Constitution Party candidate and the Libertarian might soak off enough Right wing votes from the moderate Specter to allow the disappointing Hoeffel campaign to actually eek out a victory. Pat Toomey has repeatedly endorsed Specter, but most of his supporters simply aren't having it.

This is a great strategy and we really need to start promoting this where available. I was hoping for Aaron Russo, a charismatic, wealthy Hollywood producer to pick up the Libertarian nominationa as he would have been a formidible threat to Bush. Instead Michael Badnarik- who I met last week, incidently (he has lots of nose hair)- a nutjob got the nomination. Still, Dems should look into spending a few hundred bucks in swing precincts for every kind of race to put out some cheap Libertarian fliers. If we can split conservatives- social versus business, statist theocrats versus libertarian types- we can break the party in half and have a period of Democratic dominance.

Keep an eye on PA, it might just give us some ideas for the future.

DMN: No Speaker DeLay

By Byron LaMasters

They took a day off from their GOP cheerleading:

GOP House Majority Leader Tom DeLay escaped an independent counsel investigation last week. But the Texas Republican's now damaged goods. It's hard to see him ever becoming speaker of the House.

The House voted along party lines to reject siccing an outside counsel on Rep. DeLay. That's just as well. The vote was a Democratic trick to get Republicans to support their controversial colleague, knowing they could use the vote against Republicans in tight congressional races.

[...]

But the sheer volume of charges is hard to ignore. It smacks of a pattern of abuse. Worse, it reveals a contempt for how the House should work. This business of getting an agency to track down Texas Democrats was about as brazen as it gets.

Add that to all the editorials yesterday and over the weekend.

Understatement of the Millenium

By Jim Dallas

Ezra at Pandagon:

"...it's thus a shame that current FCC commissioner Michael Powell has, thus far, been something of a tool."

P.S. I suppose it bears clarification: Ever since I started paying attention to the FCC (in 1996, when I got my ham radio ticket), I have never seen a Commission so devoted to carrying water for big corporate interests, except, of course, when women's breasts are involved.

Everyone Editorializes Against DeLay

By Byron LaMasters

Well, pretty much everyone.

Just a small sampling:

Louisville Courier-Journal
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Virginian Pilot
Allentown Morning Call
Denver Post
Washington Post
New York Times
Chicago Tribune
Wilmington Morning Star

Via Off the Kuff and the Stakeholder.

Also, be sure to read up on Streakin' Pete Sessions:

Hard to believe, but Sessions, the Texas Republican who decried Janet Jackson's Super Bowl public nudity incident in January took part in a raucous, two-night streaking rampage when he was a freshman at Southwest Texas State University in San Marcos.

[...]

"Just taking off your clothes and running around is kind of a free spirit thing," said Sessions, who was two weeks shy of his 19th birthday and a physical education major. He would later transfer to Southwestern University.

Haha. I think we know what this spells... H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E...

Mocking Oklahoma

By Byron LaMasters

I'm a good sport about having BOR in Crimson and Cream this week. I'm not going to complain. We'll be back in burnt orange on Wednesday night, but I do think that it's only fair to spend each of these three days with at least one post a day mocking Oklahomans. Today's victim? It should come as no surprise... Tom Coburn (heck, he just might be tomorrow and Wednesday's victim, too!).

The man is obsessed with lesbianism. Atrios has the latest of Coburn on the issue:

Rampant Lesbianism

Listen to the Republican candidate for senator from Oklahoma say this:

You know, Josh Burkeen is our rep down here in the southeast area. He lives in Colgate and travels out of Atoka. He was telling me lesbianism is so rampant in some of the schools in southeast Oklahoma that they’ll only let one girl go to the bathroom. Now think about it. Think about that issue. How is it that that’s happened to us?" - Tom Coburn, 8/31/04

Only in Oklahoma...

Update: The Carson campaign had this to say about Coburn's statement:

"This is one in a long line of outrageous statements Tom Coburn has made during the course of this campaign," said Carson for Senate spokesman Brad Luna. "As Tom Coburn continues on his own far out personal agenda, Congressman Carson will continue fighting for the people of Oklahoma. We deserve a Senator who's focused on creating good paying jobs in Okahoma, fighting for road money to improve our state's infrastructure, and trying to lower skyrocketing health care costs -- not someone who is focused on this type of crazy nonsense."

DeLay Indictment Still Forthcoming?

By Byron LaMasters

TAPPED reports on the thoughts of U.S. Rep. Chris Bell (D-Houston) in a conference call with reporters this afternoon:

Rep. Chris Bell made a pretty intriguing point about the Ethics Committee’s decision to defer an inquiry into Tom DeLay’s Texans for a Republican Majority PAC (TRMPAC) shenanigans, pending further developments in Travis County DA Ronnie Earle’s criminal investigation. [...] According to Bell, this decision is the “strongest indication yet that Mr. DeLay himself is the target of an investigation by the Travis County grand jury in Austin. Mr. DeLay could face a felony indictment in the very near future.” I asked Bell to elaborate a bit:

The committee states in its memorandum that it has been following the investigation in Austin quite closely. Mr. DeLay has claimed that he’s not a target of the investigation, but if he’s not a target then there would be no reason for the Ethics Committee to defer action. They apparently seem to believe after following the case that there’s a strong possibility that he is a target and that an indictment will be forthcoming, and that’s a thought that I share. I think that Mr. Earle has made it quite clear that this is an ongoing investigation and that he is in no way, shape or form tried to lead anyone to believe that Mr. DeLay is off the hook. So I think by deferring action on that particular account, the ethics committee seems to believe that Mr. DeLay could very well be a target.

Emphasis mine. Continue to keep your eyes and ears open on the DeLay mess. DeLay's political career is dying a long slow death, and it's a privilege to be able to watch it.

Pelosi and Hoyer Slam DeLay

By Byron LaMasters

Via The Stakeholder.

Pelosi:

"Mr. DeLay has proven himself to be ethically unfit to lead his party. The burden now falls upon his fellow House Republicans.

"Republicans must answer - do they want an ethically unfit person to be their majority leader, or do they want to remove the ethical cloud that hangs over the Capitol?"

Hoyer:

"Twelve years ago, a Republican member took to the House floor and stated: 'When someone is in power for an inordinate amount of time, then this kind of oversight, this kind of corruption, if you will, continues and builds upon itself and sort of feeds on itself.'

"Two years later, that same member stated: 'We need to clean our own House for the sake of the institution.' That member was Tom DeLay. It is time for the American people to clean this House."

Taking on Tom DeLay has the news roundup from this morning.

Help the DCCC take down Tom DeLay, and donate today.

Run A House Campaign

By Byron LaMasters

Ohio House candidate Jeff Seemann has a great idea here - let his onling supporters and the blog community choose his schedule for tomorrow. So, vote for what you'd like to see Jeff do, and it'll be interesting to see what type of coverage it works.

If it turns out well, I could see a candidate like Richard Morrison doing something similar.

Secret House Ethics Committee Yesterday

By Byron LaMasters

Very interesting. Andrew posted earlier that a DeLay censure may be coming down this evening. Now, word is leaking out that there were secret metings of the House Ethics Committee yesterday:

The Hill:

First, potential political damage will hinge on the results of the indictment of DeLay’s allies by Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle, the Senate and Justice Department investigation of DeLay’s former aide Mike Scanlon, and the pending ethics complaint against DeLay filed by outgoing Rep. Chris Bell (D-Texas).

The ethics committee met yesterday in secret, a meeting that committee observers speculated was for the purpose of voting on how to proceed on the Bell complaint. An aide to Hefley announced yesterday afternoon that the committee would issue no statement on the proceedings.

Fort Worth Star-Telegram:

The House ethics committee met Tuesday to consider how to proceed on the complaint against House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land, but did not disclose the proceedings.

Lou Dubose says that things will only get worse for Tom DeLay over at Truthout (via Salon.com):

September was a bad month for House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas. The year to come will likely be worse.

And finally, the conservative public advocacy group, Judicial Watch has called on Tom DeLay to resign his post as majority leader:

Judicial Watch, the conservative public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today called on Rep. Tom DeLay to step down as House Majority Leader in the wake of the bipartisan House Ethics Committee’s recent findings that he acted improperly in attempting to win a vote from Rep. Nick Smith in exchange for endorsing Smith’s son in a congressional primary. It is the second time that DeLay has been chastised by the ethics panel.

[...]

“Frankly, the ethics report was too kind to Mr. DeLay and the other House members implicated in the controversy. Mr. DeLay’s actions in trying to trade a political endorsement for a vote were inappropriate and unacceptable, and given this grave ethical lapse, he should step down as Majority Leader. The Republican Party should not countenance its leadership violating House rules and standards of ethical behavior,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Also following the story around the blogs are Off the Kuff, Taking on Tom DeLay and Gregs Opinion.

DeLay Rumor from DC

By Andrew Dobbs

Word round the campfire is that a DeLay decision will come down tonight, probably around 7 PM CDT. Word is there will be a CD-ROM released, which suggests exhibits, evidence that sort of thing. "Censure" has been on a lot of lips. Can't confirm it, but where there's smoke, there tends to be fire.

Just reporting what I've heard, don't shoot the messenger.

On Agreeing With InstaPundit

By Jim Dallas

Wow, I thought I'd never see the day:

Personally, I'd be delighted to live in a country where happily married gay couples had closets full of assault weapons.

Annoy Tom Coburn

By Byron LaMasters

The man called the good folks of Oklahoma City "crapheads". Now, I certainly disagree with the average Oklahoman on a number of issues (not the least of which being who's gonna win in Dallas next weekend), but I've never called them "crapheads". On the other hand, the Republican that wants to represent them in the U.S. Senate has done just that:

Does Wohlgemuth Represent Ohio Values?

By Byron LaMasters

Yesterday, State Rep. Arlene Wohlgemuth campaigned with President Bush in Ohio:

Republican Congressional candidate Arlene Wohlgemuth traveled with the president to a couple of campaign stops in Ohio Monday and walked down the stairs of Air Force One with President Bush Monday night in Waco.

As state representative, Arlene Wohlgemuth authored the bill to cut over 130,000 kids off the CHIP program:

State Rep.'s bill has caused 130,000 Texas children to lose health insurance; Results in higher local taxes and health insurance premiums.

[...]

Wohlgemuth, as chair of the Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee, wrote the law that "reorganized" the Texas Health and Human Services Department. The bill, HB 2292, has made it more difficult for working families to qualify for CHIP by cutting continuous eligibility in half (from 12 months to 6 months) and imposing a 90-day waiting period on new CHIP applicants. CHIP is intended to serve working families who make between 100%--200% of the poverty level—up to $37,700 for a family of four. Congress designed CHIP to help families making too much money to qualify for Medicaid, but too little to afford private insurance.

Wohlgemuth's bill also eliminated dental care and eyeglass coverage from CHIP. CHIP is not free—families pay a monthly premium to enroll in the program.

Arlene Wohlgemuth votes against health care for poor kids. Arlene Wohlgemuth campaigns with George W. Bush in Ohio. Does Arlene Wohlgemuth represent Ohio values (or heck anything other than her own right-wing extremist agenda)?

RNC: Liberals are Evil

By Byron LaMasters

First, Oklahoma GOP Senate candidate Tom Coburn cast his race as good vs. evil.

Then, the RNC sent mailers to Arkansas and West Virginia saying to vote Republican because liberals will ban the bible.

Now, they're hitting New Mexico and Florida with radio ads that mimic Coburn's good vs. evil rhetoric:

A Republican radio ad airing in swing states in this presidential election— including New Mexico— paints voters' choices as between good and the threat of evil.

"There is a line drawn in America today," the Republican National Committee ad says. "On one side are the radicals trying to uproot our traditional values and our culture."

In a bitterly fought presidential election, the ad minces no words in laying out the differences facing a polarized electorate, although it never mentions President Bush's re-election effort.

The ad alludes to gay marriage and accuses "radicals" of conspiring against the conservative agenda: "They're fighting to hijack the institution of marriage ... plotting to legalize partial birth abortion ... and working to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance and force the worst of Hollywood on the rest of America."

"Are you on their side of the line?" the ad asks. "Or do you believe our values made our country great by keeping our families strong?"

The ad encourages listeners to register to vote and to support "conservative Republican candidates."

Anyone else see a Theme?

By Byron LaMasters

Repeat after me. Repeat in every congressional district where ARMPAC has dumped money. ARMPAC money is DeLay money. DeLay money is dirty money. Dirty money is very, very bad. If you have dirty money, you should give it back. If you don't give back dirty money then you're just a typical corrupt, worthless, no-good Tom DeLay lackey congressional pawn, and it's about time you got the boot.

Every Democrat in a race against an ARMPAC Republican should hammer away at the issue and demand that the Republican return their check. A brief google search shows the issue taking hold in House races across the country:

TX-1:

A spokesman for U.S. Rep. Max Sandlin on Wednesday challenged Republican congressional candidate Louie Gohmert to return "tainted cash" he has received from groups affiliated with U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

[...]

"As a young man, my parents taught me to never revel in the troubles of others, so I was disappointed, but not surprised, to learn that three of Tom DeLay's top lieutenants, and many of his cash contributors, were indicted for illegal campaign activity," Sandlin, D-Marshall, said in a statement.

Gohmert, whose campaign has received $10,000 from Americans for a Republican Majority, said Wednesday that the investigation should have no bearing on his campaign to unseat Sandlin in the 1st Congressional District.

AZ-1 (PDF file):

The Paul Babbitt campaign today called on Rick Renzi to return $15,000 in campaign funds from ARMPAC, a political committee named in felony indictments in Texas and run by House GOP Leader Tom DeLay (TX). ARMPAC’s executive director Jim Ellis and other aides to DeLay were indicted yesterday by a grand jury for money laundering, a first-degree felony.

“Rick Renzi has received thousands of dollars from a political committee involved in a felony money laundering scheme. Rep. Renzi should immediately give Tom DeLay his tainted money back,” said Paul Babbitt.

Using an accounting trick that credited a March 2003 contribution of $5,000 to the previous election cycle as “debt retirement,” Renzi has accepted $5,000 more than from ARMPAC than the legal limit of $10,000 per election cycle.

CT-2:

U.S. Rep. Rob Simmons, R-2nd District, and his challenger, Democrat Jim Sullivan, continued to fire away at one another Wednesday, with Sullivan calling for Simmons to return a campaign contribution from a political committee whose aides were indicted the day before.

[...]

At the center of Sullivan's demand was the indictment Tuesday of three men, including Jim Ellis, a top aide of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, and John Colyandro, executive director of his political committee, Americans for a Republican Majority, or ARMPAC.

[...]

Simmons has received $10,000, the legal maximum, from ARMPAC, which has distributed more than $780,000 to Republican candidates in the current election cycle.

NJ-7

Democrats on Thursday called on New Jersey Rep. Mike Ferguson to return $10,000 in campaign money he received from a political committee named in felony indictments and associated with House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas.

Good to see Dems turning up the heat on Tom DeLay's congressional lackeys... help the DCCC expose them all with a donation.

Why to give to the DCCC?

By Byron LaMasters

Because unlike any other major national Democratic committees, they can make the difference between winning and losing in the final weeks of the election. And for everyone complaining that Texas sends millions of dollars to the D.C. committees and doesn't get a cent in return, give to the DCCC. Texas has six competetive congressional races this cycle. SIX! That's about two more than any other state. So for the first time in a long time, Texas (via the DCCC) will see money coming into it from other states. Read Joe Trippi on the Stakeholder on how the DCCC really does make a tangible difference in these races that we're talking about everyday on here.

If he makes as much sense to you, as he does to me, send them a few bucks.

Well, Your Honor, It's Funny That You Mention That...

By Jim Dallas

Justice Scalia says its time for the Court to stop hearing so many morally-charged, "political" cases.

Funny, I feel the same way.

The New and Improved Democratic Party

By Jim Dallas

Apparently this was under the radar until tonight, but tomorrow we're going to get the unveiling of the DCCC's version of the Contract with America.

Here's to hoping the best for the D-trip's manifesto.

Thoughts on an Idea

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

The other week my mother sent me a very interesting e-mail with an idea in it which I have been meaning to post here for your review so here goes...

I feel so frustrated every time I watch the news and read the paper because of the war, but yesterday with the death toll at 1000 American soldiers really got to me. And all for nought, such needless, senseless deaths for such a bogus sham of a war. I guess because I am a mom I always think, that was someones boy, that could have been my boy.

I wish there was something that I could do to make people more aware of the situation, surely we have not all forgotten Vietnam.

I was thinking, is there anyway to find out where or who made those yellow Lance Armstrong wristbands?

I would like to see the company make black ones with white letters that say "NO MORE WAR". And they would cost a dollar and the money would go to making a memorial for all those fallen soldiers. This would be a non-partisan action, it would be for anyone that wants to make the statement that the war needs to end, that there should be no more wars like it. It would not be a money maker for anyone (except to cover the costs of the wristbands of course)

Would do you think I could contact? Would putting out a note on the Burnt Orange or the Daily Kos work asking for someone who knows someone to see about this? I feel that a statement should be made, and the Armstrong wristbands were a very powerful message.

So here goes, comments anyone?

More on Oklahoma

By Byron LaMasters

Since the Oklahoma race is my adopted senate race this cycle (since Texas doesn't have one), I thought I'd post the good news.

SoonerPoll.com shows Carson with a seven point 42-35% lead. Note that the SoonerPoll.com is a Republican poll.

So what's the latest in the race?

Republican Tom Coburn has pissed off Oklahoman Native American tribal leaders:

In a news release Thursday, tribal leaders quoted Coburn as calling treaties between the United States and Indian Nations "a joke" and "primitive agreement(s)."

"I mean, this is a joke," Coburn was quoted as saying. "It is one thing for us to keep our obligations to recognize Native Americans, but it's a totally different thing for us to allow a primitive agreement with the Native Americans to undermine Oklahoma's future."

Ya know, those primative Injuns! That's how Republicans think I guess.

And of course, the woman whom Tom Coburn sterilized without her consent is speaking out:

Angela Plummer says Coburn removed a fallopian tube without asking - while operating on her for an ectopic pregnancy. It happened during emergency surgery in Muskogee in 1990.

“Doctor Tom Coburn sterilized me without consent, verbal or written; I know he's stating he got oral consent, that's not true.”

And check out Brad Carson's latest TV ad entitled "Heard it all". Brad Carson's wife can vouch for Brad. He's not evil.

169,000,000 Cell Phone Users Can't be wrong

By Byron LaMasters

Except when they're not polled.

Oh and check out the internals of the Gallup poll while your at it. No wonder they have Bush with a double digit lead when they sample 40% Republicans and only 33% Democrats. That's an eleven point swing from 2000 - where Zogby estimates that 39% of voters were Democrats and 35% were Republicans.

Amend the Constitution- Let Naturalized Citizens Run for Prez

By Andrew Dobbs

CNN just talked about US Rep. Dana Rohrbacher's (R-CA) proposed constitutional amendment to let naturalized citizens run for President of the United States. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) has, of course, offered similar legislation in the Senate. While these people appear to be boosting Arnold Schwarzenegger's chances for the top job, I think that there is a better reason to pass and ratify this amendment.

Because it is the right thing to do.

You see, the constitutional prohibition against naturalized citizens running for president is actually one of the least reasonable parts of the document. Rather than springing from the thoughtful philosophy of federalism or republicanism or a wise protection against tyranny, the prohibition was born of pure political partisanship. Opponents of Alexander Hamilton, who was born in England, wanted to keep the frequently enervating (the man was killed in a duel for chrissakes) Hamilton out of the office of President. So naturalized citizens since then have been barred from the White House because a handful of otherwise brilliant men let their conniving get to them.

Naturalized citizens can serve in any office except for President or Vice President. We have had naturalized cabinet members (Madeline Albright), Congressmen (Tom Lantos), Governors (Schwarzenegger, MI Gov. Jennifer Granholm), Mayors, Senators and every other office imaginable. They have yet to overthrow our democracy in the name of the Kaiser or any other "prince or potentate" as of today and I don't believe serving as president would make things worse.

The people who choose to go through the naturalization process work incredibly hard and develop a deep love and knowledge of our nation. People who want to harm us do not bother with that process. This is the last great discrimination written into our election laws (with the possible outstanding violations of the District of Columbia and paroled felons)- it is time that we got rid of it. I'll be writing my congressman and senators to urge them to support this constitutional amendment.

Dick Morris's readers don't really like him that much.

By Jim Dallas

Well, OK, mayyyyybe it's just me.

Tom Coburn in a Sentence

By Byron LaMasters

Tom Coburn really is about the nuttiest U.S. Senate candidate with a chance of actually winning (thus, Alan Keyes is excluded here) since Oliver North. If you haven't been following the race, check out Salon for the latest. Atrios posted on Coburn yesterday, too. Anyway, I decided to have a little fun with Tom Coburn's wackiness tonight, and came up with a sentence:

Tom Coburn is an death penalty-prescribing (for abortion doctors), yet abortion-providing, homosexual-obsessing, female-sterilizing, medicaid-defrauding, name-calling, Schindler's List-condemning, base-closing, farm-destroying, road-decaying, ski chalet-owning, Club for Growth-pandering, hatemongering, hypocrite who says he won't raise taxes, but wants a Senate pay increase as Oklahoma's next senator.

So yeah, donate to Brad Carson. If you donate to one senate candidate, donate to Carson, because 1) Obama will win, 2) Coburn is the scariest senate candidate with a chance of winning since Oliver North, and 3) a senate majority will be gained only through a victory in Oklahoma.

Update: Kos has the latest independent poll numbers for the race showing a statistical tie.

Better late than never

By Jim Dallas

Funny, I don't remember the national media really mentioning this until today:

CNN:

Studies done by pro- and antigun groups as well as the Justice Department show conflicting results on whether the ban helped reduce crime. Loopholes allowed manufacturers to keep many weapons on the market simply by changing their names or altering some of their features or accessories. (Assault weapons ban to expire Monday)

Gun shop owners said the expiration of the ban will have little effect on the types of guns and accessories that are typically sold and traded across their counters every day.

At the Boise Gun Co., gunsmith Justin Davis last week grabbed up a black plastic rifle resembling the U.S. military's standard issue M-16 from a row of more than a dozen similar weapons stacked against a wall.

The civilian version of the gun, a Colt AR-15 manufactured before 1994, could be sold last week just as easily as it can be sold this week. "It shoots exactly the same ammo at exactly the same rate of fire," said Davis.

Of course, I'm sure this means that drug-dealers and terrorists will now all be lining up to buy newly-legal assault weapons like TEC-9s. Out the door and around the block.

In the Wings

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

It's almost 4 pm and I can't believe that none of the other Burnt Orangers have written a Sept. 11 post. So neither will I.

As much as I'd like to reflect on today as a great day or mourning and remembrance, which it is, the more immediate questions is whether or not American's are making the sacrifice to reduce terror and the causes of it around to world.

In George W's mind, that of course means Iraq, which thanks to him actually has become a new front in the 'war on terror'. And just this last week, we acknowledged that 1,000 American's sacrificed their lives for Bush's lies.

Roberto Abad and Robert P. Jr. Zurheide

What do these two men have in common? They are the "A" and "Z" of 1000 Americans and in between them lie 998 more pictures of soldiers now gone from this world because of lies.

That is the most moving thing I have seen in months. Thanks to the New York Times (and George Bush) the Thousand Image Roster of the Dead.

Can anybody hook a person such as myself up with an AK?

By Jim Dallas

Starting Monday, the answer is... sortof (to the extent that any AKs not banned by previous legislation will be legal).

CNN: No vote to renew Assault Weapons Ban

Regardless of your feelings on this (and my feelings are mixed), why do I get the feeling that Frist is making stuff up?

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Congress will not vote on an assault weapons ban due to expire Monday, Republican leaders said Wednesday, rejecting a last-ditch effort by supporters to renew it.

"I think the will of the American people is consistent with letting it expire, so it will expire," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, told reporters.

The 10-year ban, signed by President Bill Clinton in 1994, outlawed 19 types of military-style assault weapons. A clause directed that the ban expire unless Congress specifically reauthorized it.

The Daily Cougar had an article about this on Tuesday.

P.S. Yes the title was changed, on the grounds that it was potentially offensive.

They told us it would be Easy

By Byron LaMasters

Remember Shock and Awe? Remember how we'd crush Iraq in a matter of days with swift, coordinated attacks and the best military technology in the world? Well, we did. And that was the easy part. If only they would have had a coherent plan for the peace...

Why couldn't the war have just lasted one month as Bush would have led us to believe when he said "Mission Accomplished"?

Seriously, how can anyone make a rational case for Bush's leadership in Iraq? He told us that all the major combat opperations were completed, only to see more than four times more Americans lose their lives than before major combat opperations were completed - not to mention entire cities are still uncontrollabe and ungovernable.

The crisis of libertarian fundamentalism

By Jim Dallas

Matt Yglesias notes a particularly egregious example of the quasi-libertarian/corporate mouthpiece junkscience.com's "deny the problem exists" reflex.

It's arguable that Matt over-reaches here when he implicitly ascribes the pollyanna position to libertarians generally, but I think it has some merit. I'm come across too many people who are desperate to deny global warming or second-hand smoke or... whatever.

Matt asks:

[W]hy all the libertarian interest in these sort of debunkings (or, at times, purported debunkings) of public health research[?] Would the philosophy of individual rights suddenly become false if it could be conclusively proven that a 50 cents per bag tax on Doritos would improve American life expectancy?

And that's the thing. There are, as far as I can tell, three kinds of libertarian rhetors (and this template applies also to liberals and conservatives and... whatever... but in different ways):

(1) People who deny that problems exist, in the process making themselves look silly;

(2) People that acknowledge that the problem exists, but insist that any solution incompatible with their ideology be excluded from consideration on moral grouns; and

(3) People who are willing to constructively propose solutions that are compatible with their ideological views, and accept some solutions that are not compatible as compromise.

Needless to say, I have very little patience with the first group of libertarians (or liberals, or commies, or conservatives); I disagree heartily with the second, but respect them; and with the third I am in general agreement.

But it seems to me that (largely due to corporate influence, and John Stossel, I think) this first group predominates. And as long as that happens, I think it's clear that libertarianism is going no-where.

UPDATE: Sorry about the lack of clarity. Forgot to insert a key word in the last graf as I was reworking it.

If at first you don't succeed fail, redefine success failure.

By Jim Dallas

Kevin Drum's insight on the No Child Left Behind Act:

Later on the story quotes some suburban parents who are concerned that labeling their local school a failure will cause their property values to fall. This might actually be amusing if it weren't for the fact that labeling schools as failures isn't an unexpected consequence of NCLB. In fact, it's precisely the point of NCLB — at least for some people.

As I mentioned last year, NCLB mandates that each state has to set standards for student achievement, and by 2014 every single student must meet those standards. Any school with less than 100% success is deemed to be failing. What's more, even in the period between now and 2014, while pass rates are "only" 80 or 90 percent and we're still working our way toward the El Dorado of 100%, there's an absurd concoction of thinly sliced categories mandated by the act, and failure in any one category marks the offending school as a failure. It's pretty obvious that there are a suspiciously large number of ways to fail, and as the years go by the number of "failing" schools will slowly increase to 100%.

Should the U.S. House Investigate Abu Ghraib?

By Byron LaMasters

Republicans say no! Via the Stakeholder:

Four More Years? The vote to establish an independent House investigation was held on May 20, 2004. Out of 228 Republicans, 6 did not vote, 0 voted Aye, and 222 voted No, including:

Renzi (AZ-1); Beauprez (CO-7); Simmons (CT-2);
Shays (CT-4); Shaw (FL-22); Burns (GA-12);
Crane (IL-8); Hastert (IL-14); Nussle (IA-1);
Hostettler (IN-8); Ryun (KS-2); Northup (KY03);
Graves (MO-6); Terry (NE-2); Ferguson (NJ-7);
Wilson (NM-1); Gerlach (PA-6)

Don't forget about DeLay, Sessions and Neugebauer. All three Texas Republicans voted not to investigate what happened in the Abu Ghraib prison.

Send them a message by donating to Morrison, Frost and Stenholm.

Update: It looks like Charlie Stenholm is attempting to "fill the boot" by raising $10,000 online in September, so help him fill the boot.

How to Nominate a Minority Republican

By Byron LaMasters

I think its a good thing that Democrats and Republicans have collectively nominated five Hispanics and African-Americans for U.S. Senate (Obama D-IL, Keyes R-IL, Salazar D-CO, Majette D-GA, Martinez R-FL) in this cycle. While there are currently no Blacks or Hispanics in the U.S. Senate, there will likely be two or three next year. That's a good thing for the progress of race relations in America. But what's not good for America is the manner in which racial minorities campaign in order to win the acceptance of a party that is super-majority White, has no African-American congressmen, and only one non-Cuban Hispanic congressman.

In order to win the Republican nomination, minorities must prove to the base of the Republican Party that they can hate just as well as Tom DeLay, Tom Tancredo and Rick Santorum. For Vernon Robinson - who emerged from nowhere to almost win a GOP primary in North Carolina last month - it was about hating immigrants. For U.S. Senate nominees Mel Martinez and Alan Keyes, its about hating gay people.

The Boston Globe reports on Mel Martinez:

Martinez, a former secretary of Housing and Urban Development in the Bush administration who ran as a moderate, created a furor in the last weeks of the Republican primary campaign when he accused opponent Bill McCollum of being hostage to the ''radical homosexual lobby" because McCollum, a former US House member, supported hate crimes legislation. Martinez also said McCollum was antifamily because he backed embryonic stem-cell research.

[...]

But Democrats say Martinez's remarks about gays in a television ad and a campaign mailing reflect a ''bigoted" GOP agenda, followed by recent remarks by Alan Keyes, the Republican US Senate nominee in Illinois, that gays, including Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter Mary, were guilty of ''selfish hedonism."

''Why don't they have Alan Keyes, who said what he said about Dick Cheney's daughter, and Mel Martinez, who bashed Bill McCollum as a sympathizer with the 'extreme homosexual lobby,' on the podium? They can show the true diversity of their party: an African-American Republican and a Cuban-American Republican who equally hate gay people," said Brad Woodhouse, spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

In the Republican Party, supporting additional penalties for hate-related crimes is considered giving in to the "radical homosexual lobby". I can only see two possible explanations. Either the Republicans are soft on crime, or Republicans hate gay people. Any of my Republican friends care to answer that question?

In fact, Martinez's attack were so hysterical, that the St. Petersburg Times rescinded their endorsement of Martinez in the final week of the campaign:

The Times originally recommended former U.S. Housing Secretary Mel Martinez to Republican voters in Tuesday's U.S. Senate primary, but that was before Martinez took his campaign into the gutter with hateful and dishonest attacks on his strongest opponent, former U.S. Rep. Bill McCollum. The Times is not willing to be associated with bigotry. As a result, we are taking the almost unprecedented step of rescinding our recommendation of Martinez.

[...]

No matter what else Martinez may accomplish in public life, his reputation will be forever tainted by his campaign's nasty and ludicrous slurs of McCollum in the final days of this race. The slurs culminated with Martinez campaign advertisements that label McCollum - one of the most conservative moralists in Washington during his 20 years as a U.S. representative - "the new darling of the homosexual extremists" because he once favored a hate crime law that had bipartisan support. A few days earlier, the Martinez campaign arranged a conference call with reporters in which a group of right-wing Martinez supporters labeled McCollum "antifamily." Why? Because McCollum supports expanded stem cell research to find cures for deadly diseases - a position that is identical to those of Nancy Reagan, Connie Mack and many other prominent Republicans.

At Friday night's Republican Senate debate, McCollum confronted Martinez and called on him to repudiate his campaign's sleazy, homophobic advertisements. Martinez refused. Later, he said he "wouldn't be in favor of that kind of rhetoric." But the rhetoric calling McCollum "the new darling of the homosexual extremists" and accusing him of making "statements in order to appease . . . the radical homosexual lobby" was included in advertising paid for by the Martinez campaign. If Martinez failed to review the ads before they were sent out under his name, he was irresponsible. If he knew what was in the ads and is now trying to distance himself, he is being dishonest. Either way, Floridians deserve better in a U.S. senator.

We don't need any more hatemongers in the U.S. Senate. Donate to the Democrat in the race, Betty Castor.

As for Alan Keyes - it's pretty much the accepted conventional wisdom that he's a certifiable nutcase, but in case you missed it, he took the opportunity to attack Dick Cheney's family at the very convention that was renominating him for Vice President. It would have been comparable to Barack Obama calling Jack and Emma Claire Edwards "dumb, retarded little kids". Here's what Keyes said about Mary Cheney:

Alan Keyes, the Republican candidate for Senate in Illinois, told a radio reporter at the Republican National Convention that gays and lesbians are "selfish hedonists," including Mary Cheney, the lesbian daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney.

A spokeswoman for the vice president called Mr. Keyes's statements "inappropriate.''

Mr. Keyes, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000, made the comments in an interview with Sirius OutQ, a radio station aimed primarily at a gay and lesbian audience. Asked about his views of same-sex marriage, Mr. Keyes said he believed marriage should be limited to heterosexuals because it is grounded in sexual reproduction. Same-sex relationships, he asserted, manifested "selfish hedonism."

Asked if that meant Mary Cheney was a "selfish hedonist," too, Mr. Keyes said, "Of course she is," according to a transcript.

Memo to minorities running in GOP primaries (or wanting to get appointed to a nomination after the primary winner's divorce records are unsealed) - If you can convince the rank and file that you're one of them, talk about how much you hate gay people. It's a guaranteed winner.

OMFG.

By Jim Dallas

First we had the "national sales tax" trial balloon from Speaker Hastert. Now we have LaRouchie conspiracy theories. (Link to Off the Kuff).

Get this man away from the levers of power now!

In other news, I'm still emotionally mixed about the Zell Miller speech. As I've intimated, I think that this speech had some potential to "turn-on" some Republicans and right-wing independents. I say this because in the last year I've learned that, when it comes to rhetoric, insanity is relative. I was in the convention hall with Howard Dean during the infamous "scream" speech, and I liked it. So I guess Republicans and other kool-aid drinkers are entitled to think positively about Miller's blood-curdlingly bellicose speech.

(Has it ever occurred to you that the Internet is populated by extremely partisan hacks? Or am I just projecting?)

And as always, I feel mixed about the man myself. It's unfortunate, but this year I've pretty much lost all respect that I had gained for Zell after he stood up against the media for making fun of hillbillies.

(This is the point where I was going to compare Zell Miller to Al Sharpton, but then realized I couldn't say it in a way that didn't sound blithely politically incorrect).

The Alan Keyes drinking game

By Jim Dallas

DailyKOS: Alan Keyes is not making sense.

Every time he says the word "corrupt", take one shot.

Every time he implies Barack Obama "can't win", take two shots.

Stop it.

By Jim Dallas

TAPPED has a little ditty implying that John O'Neill should be disbarred.

There are lots of things which ought right to be done to John O'Neill (one of the Swifties), but disbarment, at least for the reasons cited in the TAPPED post, is probably not one of them. To begin with , 8.02 seems to apply strictly to judicial candidates - judges, district attorneys, and attorneys general. Why drawing the line there would make sense ought to be obvious. But if it doesn't consider the reasoning in comment 8.02.1 - "Assessments by lawyers are relied on in evaluating the professional or personal fitness of persons being considered for election or appointment to judicial office and to
public legal offices, such as attorney general, prosecuting attorney and public defender. Expressing honest and candid opinions on such matters contributes to improving the administration of justice." It is this duty to uphold the administration of justice that creates a special obligation for attorneys not to engage in gutter-campaigning against judges and other attorneys.

Second, 8.04 would, I believe, is extremely general, almost a sort of catchall "don't do bad stuff." And the thrust of it, as far as I can tell, is that it is aimed at stuff that lawyers do in their capacity as lawyers, or that would reflect upon their lawyering. That said, I think the Swifties stuff makes O'Neill look hackish, but that doesn't necessarily change my opinion on his other professional activities.

If you're going to start pulling rules out of thin air, oughtn't the Bar ignore you?

This is just silly. Stop the "hunting of the Bush lawyers" on flimsy grounds.

UPDATE: On the other hand, the case against Ben Ginsburg is looking pretty solid.

Rule 8.02 Judicial and Legal Officials (a) A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge, adjudicatory official or public legal officer, or of a candidate for election or appointment to judicial or legal office. (b) A lawyer who is a candidate for judicial office shall comply with the applicable provisions of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. (c) A lawyer who is a candidate for an elective public office shall comply with the applicable provisions of the Texas Election Code. Comment: 1. Assessments by lawyers are relied on in evaluating the professional or personal fitness of persons being considered for election or appointment to judicial office and to public legal offices, such as attorney general, prosecuting attorney and public defender. Expressing honest and candid opinions on such matters contributes to improving the administration of justice. Conversely, false statements by a lawyer can unfairly undermine public confidence in the administration of justice. 2. When a lawyer seeks judicial or other elective public office, the lawyer should be bound by applicable limitations on political activity. 3. To maintain the fair and independent administration of justice, lawyers are encouraged to continue traditional efforts to defend judges and courts unjustly criticized.

Rule 8.04 Misconduct
(a) A lawyer shall not:
(1) violate these rules, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the
acts of another, whether or not such violation occurred in the course of a client-lawyer
relationship;
(2) commit a serious crime or commit any other criminal act that reflects adversely on
the lawyers honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;
(3) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;
(4) engage in conduct constituting obstruction of justice;
(5) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official;
(6) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable
rules of judicial conduct or other law;
(7) violate any disciplinary or disability order or judgment;
(8) fail to timely furnish to the Chief Disciplinary Counsels office or a district grievance
committee a response or other information as required by the Texas Rules of
Disciplinary Procedure, unless he or she in good faith timely asserts a privilege or other
legal ground for failure to do so;
(9) engage in conduct that constitutes barratry as defined by the law of this state;
(10) fail to comply with section 13.01 of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure
relating to notification of an attorneys cessation of practice;
(11) engage in the practice of law when the lawyer is on inactive status or when the
lawyers right to practice has been suspended or terminated, including but not limited to
situations where a lawyers right to practice has been administratively suspended for
failure to timely pay required fees or assessments or for failure to comply with Article
XII of the State Bar Rules relating to Mandatory Continuing Legal Education; or
(12) violate any other laws of this state relating to the professional conduct of lawyers
and to the practice of law.
(b) As used in subsection (a)(2) of this Rule, serious crime means barratry; any felony
involving moral turpitude; any misdemeanor involving theft, embezzlement, or fraudulent
or reckless misappropriation of money or other property; or any attempt, conspiracy,
or solicitation of another to commit any of the foregoing crimes.

Posted at 04:30 PM to National Politics | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack

Gosh darn it to heck!

By Jim Dallas

Looks like I'm gonna have to endorse Barack Obama after all.

They're giving me no choice.

At least in high school they had an "election" so nerds like Alan Keyes (and me) could get trounced by the popular kids the old-fashioned way.

Annoy Zigzag Zell

By Byron LaMasters

The good folks at Zellout spell it out for anyone who isn't already convinced that Zell Miller has turned into a not-so-closeted Republican. His office staff should have done what Rodney Alexander's office staff did when he switched parties, and resigned. They didn't, so take this opportunity to annoy his office staff by flooding Zell's email account in response to his nomination of George W. Bush.

Try the salmon.

By Jim Dallas

Brad DeLong presents us with a socratic dialogue at a buffet with the ghost of Daniel Webster (need I say more?).

And I ran... I ran so far awaay...

By Jim Dallas

Rep. Henry Bonilla (R-Texas) on why he loves New York City:

Favorite NYC Memory: "Going to see the band Flock of Seagulls in 1983 for only $1.00. After the concert we saw David Bowie walking down the street. It was a great night and great memory."

Via TAPPED.

UPDATE: The Stakeholder notes something a little more interesting about NYC-loving Republicans Rep. Richard Pombo (Calif.) and Gov. Linda Lingle (Hawaii).

Alan Keyes on Sex

By Byron LaMasters

Because, well, that's what Alan Keyes really likes to talk about, and what the Illinois Senate race should be about if you ask him:

''First, no study has made such a determination. . . . And I say that unequivocally. I've looked at the question many times. Second, we are all in a certain sense genetically and biologically predisposed to a kind of sexual promiscuity. We want to engage and indulge our sexual appetites in ways that have no respect for basic human requirements, conventions, family responsibilities and so forth. That's not just true of homosexual people. That's true of heterosexual people. Healthy, red-blooded males who are sexually attracted to every attractive woman they see, and vice versa.

''We as human beings cannot assert that our sexual drive is uncontrollable. If we do, civilization is ended. These are not things we can't control. Our passions are precisely subject to our moral will and our rationality. That's what makes us human. So if you're going to tell me that the sexual impulse of anybody -- not just homosexuals -- is uncontrollable and you've got to do it, then you have removed us from the realm of human moral choice and you have consigned us to the realm of instinctive necessity and animal nature. And we are not there. I will not deny our humanity.

''So I think that in this area as in all the areas of passion: our anger, our greed, our resentment, our jealousy -- these are all passions that can be very strong in us but which we know must be disciplined and regulated by our moral will for the sake of conscience and human community. And we have to expect that of one another. Do you realize that the very idea of freedom and self-government is absurd if we are, in fact, subject to uncontrollable passions? Then we're not free. We're slaves to our passions. But that's not so. We believe in this country, in liberty, in . . . true moral choice. And that moral choice is possible with respect to sexual action to such a degree you don't even have to engage in sexual activity. You can refrain from it altogether, if you think that is required by the dictates of moral conscience. And that capacity shouldn't be denied in any human being. And I don't think it's a question of homosexual or heterosexual. It's a question of humanity.''

That's nice Alan. Now, why don't we go back to the real issues that people care about.

Red State / Blue State Suicide Rates

By Byron LaMasters

I generally find these type of statistics stupid. Both Republicans and Democrats will both take various statistics to prove that Blue / Red America is more advanced, patriotic, American, etc. than the other. Having said that, I found these suicide statistics interesting from the Boston Globe over the weekend:

WHEN DEMOCRATS and Republicans decided where to hold their national conventions, they probably didn't know that Massachusetts and New York have the lowest suicide rates in the nation, about 6.5 per 100,000 people per year. The national average is 10.7, and states with the biggest problem are in the 19 to 20 range.

Suicide rates in the United States generally rise as you go south and west. Earlier this year, I got interested in the exceptions to that rule, so I decided to create a map. States with lower than average suicide rates I colored blue; the rest I colored red.

And there it was: an approximation of the year 2000 presidential election map.

Thirteen states and the District of Columbia have lower than average suicide rates. All but one voted for Al Gore. Of the remaining 37 states, 29 voted for George W. Bush. The five states with the most lopsided Bush vote (Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, Utah and Idaho, with a margin of 25 percent or more) were all among the top eight for suicide.

[...]

In a 2002 study, Dr. Jean McSween of the University of Virginia found that people who identify themselves as Republican and conservative are less likely to favor government spending for mental health. Her research also showed they are more likely to fear violence from the mentally ill and want to keep their distance from people with mental disorders. It's not surprising that the Wellstone Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act has languished in the Republican-controlled Congress despite having numerous cosponsors.

I do think that there is a point here. Mental health should not be a political issue. It's a human issue that should be above politics. An arguement could be made from this research that more Democratic / liberal / blue states spend more on mental health and thus have less suicides and vice versa for Republican / conservative / red states. It's an interesting point, but there are surely many other factors at work here. Take it for what it's worth.

Oklahoma...

By Byron LaMasters

I went to Oklahoma on Friday to volunteer with the Brad Carson for U.S. Senate campaign. My only regret is that I didn't take a camera. It was quite an experience. I have a friend that is working on the campaign out of the Ardmore office, so I offered to canvass with him on Friday afternoon. Ardmore is only about an hour and a half from north Dallas, and I got out of the city before rush hour so it was a surprisingly pleasant drive. Of course, it wasn't my first time to Ardmore either. I made it up there a year and three months ago when 51 Texas Democratic state representatives made the Holiday Inn their home for a week in order to delay redistricting. I blockwalked in the town of Madill, OK, population 3502.

I've always liked canvassing (except when it's a summer job in 100+ degree heat as I did for Tony Sanchez in 2002). It's much more fun than phone banking, because you can interact with people personally, and try to make a personal connection and sales pitch on behalf of your candidate. Elderly people are especially responsive. I've told many people that canvassing and speaking directly to voters is more of an education about politics than any government or political science class. But Madill was a bit challenging for me. I'm very outgoing, so it's usually easy for me to connect with people when I canvass. I have a good deal of experience canvassing in urban and suburban areas. Canvassing urban areas makes me feel right at home. There's lots of minorities, gays, young people, union folks, etc. - Democrats, my people. Suburban areas aren't as much fun, but growing up in suburban north Dallas, I'm good at connecting as I can pretty much come off as just another neighborhood college kid.

But Madill, OK is rural. Very rural. So when I knock on the door and a woman wearing a "I heart Sunday School" t-shirt opens, I know I have a difficult task ahead. Then I tell her about Brad Carson, and ask about her party affiliation. Sure enough, about thirty seconds later she goes into a rant about "those lesbians kissing on tv and those gays marching around like it's nothing" and a comment or two about abortion. Here's a woman who lives in a tiny house in a town where the average household makes $22,457 a year and lives in a house worth $46,000 that cares more about her daughter or grand-daughter not seeing gays accepted on television than whether that child will be able to grow up in an America where they have guaranteed health insurance and a real opportunity to go to college.

I understand wealthy people who vote on social issues. I mean for wealthy people it doesn't really matter. It doesn't really matter whether you can buy a house with four bedrooms or with five. It doesn't really matter if you can buy a second home or a yacht. But it does matter if you can afford quality health care, feed your children and take care of elderly parents. Maybe I'm just going on an unintelligible liberal rant. It's not that I don't understand why people can have different opinions on social issues than myself. I understand that. But I can't understand why poor people in communities across America allow their social concerns to trump their economic self interest. Especially in a state like Oklahoma where their senate candidate, Brad Carson is just as conservative on social issues as most Republicans.

Anyway, I'll have more on Oklahoma throughout the week. I have several more stories to tell, and I'll get to them as I'm able.

Solitaire was a big deal in 2002, but this?

By Byron LaMasters

Dallas County Democrats made a big deal of the fact that Judge Craig Fowler played Solitaire during court. Fowler's opponent, Lisa McKnight came within one percentage point of winning, and was one of the top Democratic vote-getters in the county.

Well, Oklahoma in 2004 has done us one better:

An Oklahoma judge facing removal over charges that he masturbated and used a device for enhancing erections under his robes during trials said on Wednesday he would retire from the bench.

Creek County District Judge Donald Thompson, 57, wrote to Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry resigning effective Sept. 1, a move that will allow him to retire with a full pension.

A former state representative and a judge for 22 years, Thompson was accused by state Attorney General Drew Edmondson of using a "penis pump" to enhance erections during trials and exposing himself to a court reporter several times while masturbating on the bench.

The state Court on the Judiciary was scheduled to hear a motion on Friday to suspend Thompson.

The judge has denied the charges and did not refer to them in his letter of resignation.

"I have greatly enjoyed my public service and offer my gratitude for the public trust reposed in me during the terms I served," he said.

*Insert your Oklahoma joke here*

More Alan Keyes Wisdom...

By Byron LaMasters

End the direct election of U.S. Senators:

Alan Keyes said he would like to end the system under which the people elect U.S. senators and return to pre-1913 practice in which senators were chosen by state legislatures.

The Republican Senate candidate in Illinois, asked about past comments on the election process, said Friday the constitutional amendment that provided for popular election of senators upset the balance between the people and the states.

"The balance is utterly destroyed when the senators are directly elected because the state government as such no longer plays any role in the deliberations at the federal level," Keyes said at a taping of WBBM Newsradio's "At Issue" program.

He said it was one of the reasons "there has been a steady deleterious erosion of the sovereign role of the states."

Now, I know that Republicans don't want people to vote, but it's a rare day when they'll actually admit it. So, kudos to Alan Keyes. He has the courage to say what Republicans actually believe, but rarely admit.

Go Haley!

By Byron LaMasters

It's always fun to be able to recognize friends for a job well done. Well, today is one of those opportunities. My successor as President of the University Democrats - Haley Greer is "Staffer of the Week" for Campaign Corps. Haley graduated from UT this Spring, and now she's working on a targeted state representative race in Oregon. Via email:

Now that the 40 Campaign Corps staffers are out and in the field and working hard, we will be recognizing the exceptional work of one staffer each week with the "Staffer of the Week" competition. Attached is the first winner, Haley Greer, of Alvin, TX (who, incidentally was recommended to the program by '03 Alumna Audra Tafoya).

Kudos to Haley!

In a totally serendipitous sort of way, Alan Keyes is making sense!

By Jim Dallas

Some say he's just crazy, but I say Alan Keyes is pandering to the key drum corps demographic.

With his stunning rendition of "Somewhere Over the Rainbow," Keyes has surely locked up Cavaliers fans in Rosemont. And you know after winning four straight DCI titiles, you can't ever underestimate those people.

(If you don't understand what I'm talking about -- that's OK, although I think it's testimony to just how under-the-radar Keyes' nefarious coded appeals to band dorks are.)

In other Illinois Senate news, I keep confusing this guy with John Kerry...

(Hat tips to Cap'n Redbeard and Max).

It's a Squeaker in Illinois...

By Byron LaMasters

To see if Barack Obama will defeat Alan Keyes by more than Paul Sarbanes and Barbara Mikulski did.....

1988: Sarbanes 62%, Keyes 38%.

1992: Mikulski 71%, Keyes 29%.

2004: Survey USA poll (PDF) - Obama 67%, Keyes 28%.

Personally, I'd bet on Obama between 62% and 71%, but then again you never know when Keyes compares himself to Lincoln, and Obama to slaveholders. The Illinois GOP could have at least tried to win this race, but this is more fun...