Random Thoughts

There are a few things rattling around in my head so I figured I might as well blog them out.

First, with the news that Republicans now want to repeal an as yet to be signed into law financial regulatory reform bill which, lets be honest, is kinda weaksauce anyway, Democrats have a tremendous opportunity.

No its not that lame ass "Party of No" bullshit that Democrats have been screaming and nobody has been listening to.

Instead the combination of running on a repeal of health care reform and financial regulatory reform can be used against Republicans with a demographic which faitfully comes out to vote whether in midterms or Presidential elections. The elderly.

Why? Well first off most of them have already gotten their donut hole check and I'll bet they are pretty happy about that. And I'll bet that htey won't want to lose that or will they be happy that if health care reform were to be repealed the donut hole would open back up. Secondly Republicans in various races have started talking up privatizing Social Security again. You combine that with repeal of financial reform and the financial collapse of 2008 and hey you got some pretty good fearmongering material there.

Just saying.

For Seniors a vote for a Republican is a vote against their own interests and most of them actually get that concept.

As for Democrats running in the midterms worried about the recession holding them back. Trust me on this, IT WILL! So how do you combat that?

I have a very simple idea. Find a liberal economist, and believe me there are plenty of them. Then work with them on ideas of how to bring job creation to your district or your state. Come up with a price tag for it and then you are all set. Go to the press or on the floor of the house and propose your job creating ideas for your state or district in a bill. And in this bill you pay for your job creation with a percentage of the revenue that will be raised after the Bush tax cuts for the top percent are allowed to expire.

This works on a lot of levels. First and foremost it shows that no matter what Republicans and some asshole Dems think, YOU want to create jobs for your constituents even if it means spending money. Second it shows that you want to be fiscally responsible by paying for it which will appeal to the fake ass deficit hawks. But there is another element which may be even more useful.

See you can get a CBO estimate on how much revenue will be created by the Bush tax cuts expiring. Then when you say you are going to pay for your job creation with some of that money people will also start to notice just how much money we are talking about here. And more than that they will notice how that money can be used for their neighborhoods and communities. So instead of this abstract notion of "sharing the wealth" or "socialism" they get to see a real benefit from tax policy that mirrors what happened during the Clinton years.

So the people who really have been snookered will come around and get behind you. And the folks who don't will be exposed for the hypocrites they are.

Don't get me wrong, I doubt if the legislation will pass, but if enough Democrats get together and do this or even make one bill and have a bunch of co sponsors it WILL get attention and folks WILL notice.

On another note, the NAACP just made it easier to call the racism out in the Tea Party. Why? Because as much as folks reflexively recoiled at the resolution the NAACP passed, in subsequent days many news orgs have actually dug into the Tea Party and started to do the reporting on them and their racist elements that had been neglected up until now. And now that concrete evidence that they attract white supremecists and have leaders who regularly use racist rhetoric is coming out from straight reporting rather than opinion journalism then when you call them out you can do as Republicans regularly do and shield yourself by reading directly from various news articles. I mean they can't blame you if you are just reading what others write, correct?

What this does is puts Tea Party activists on notice that any more racist bullshit at their rallys and from their members will get them noticed for all the wrong reasons. Call me crazy but I can see the potential for this to create a huge chasm within their "movement" and possibly be the beginning of the end of folks taking them seriously at all.

Oh and for real Democrats running for election this fall, its time for you to do some Conservative bashing. That includes Blue Dog Dems. You see them doing all kinds of hippie punching in their campaigns and beating their chest out about standing up to their own party, well lets start sticking out our chest and saying we aint taking that shit anymore. The best person to beat up on right now is Ben Nelson. Ask Democrats if that's really who they want to see representing them, asking for the Cornhusker kickback, working to weaken every piece of legislation passed since President Obama came into office, and refusing to allow up and down votes on critical issues like unemployment benefits.

Want to fire up your constituents to come out and vote for you and give you a fighting chance? Then you better take your gloves off not only when it comes to your Republican opponents but also the obstructionists in your own party. I can just about guarantee you that you would have an Act Blue page full of donations and liberal and progressive activists on the ground helping your campaign if you came out slamming the Ben Nelsons of the world who only serve to make it harder for Dems to get elected.

One more thing. Find a way to get booked to the Rachel Maddow Show. She is the best in the business right now at interviewing and it raises your profile along with hers which can only help both of you.

PS One more thing, specifically for Senate candidate Kendrick Meek but its applicable to any other Dem running for Senate for the first time or whom have never supported a filibuster.

Filbuster reform is a major issue for Liberals and Progressives. That some members of our own caucus aren't allowing up and down votes is beyond frustrating. Its also killing some of the things we need right now even tough average Americans don't get that. They just see inaction and think its all the Dems fault.

A way to make this a campaign issue is to say something along the lines of, "I believe in debate, I believe that Democrats have the best ideas and I like to argue my case, but at some point the time for debate is over and when that time comes I believe in majority rule. I believe that the majority should be able to get an up and down vote on legislation they introduce no matter which party is in office. Because the truth is, in order to hold the majority in the Senate, you have to represent the majority of America and those people deserve to have their voices heard. There will be other elections after that for the people to decide who was right and who was wrong"

Seriously man, this is an absolute winner. Republicans talk about majority rule but they would never commit to something like that and neither would "centrist" Democrats.

Hey, just a suggestion.

McDonnell As A Whipping Boy In The Midterms

I have a great idea for Democrats in tough midterm election races. I know many races will have a Tea Bagging candidate running far to the right, but other races in purple districts will have Republicans trying to masquerade as moderates so as not to scare off voters. If Democrats are smart they will us Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell as a whipping boy to run against those allegedly moderate Republicans. Pointing out that McDonnell also billed himself as a moderate and then immediately upon taking office showed himself to be a big time right winger going so far as to celebrate a Confederate History Month and then tying him to those moderates would be like found money. Not only will it get voters to look at them suspiciously, it will also force the moderates to take stances on very controversial subjects potentially pissing off their own right wing base. That's what's called going on the offensive and I hope some Democrats at least have the same thought.

Dem Media Strategy On The Stimulus

In my last post I took journalists to task for allowing Republicans to use a new talking point about the stimulus, that people don't THINK it worked, without pushing back on it and making sure their audience understood that a big reason for that is because Republicans have yelled from the mountain tops for months that it didn't work. But now after hearing about Jake Tapper carrying water for the GOP and bringing the same talking point to the White House press briefing I think its time for a coordinated strategy by Democrats to push back on a talking point we are sure to hear for the next few weeks, even in the face of all actual evidence to the contrary.

The key question is who is bringing up the talking point. It could be a friendly journalist teeing up a GOP talking point specifically for a Democrat to swat it away. It could be a journalist like Tapper trying to put a Democrat on the spot. Or it could be a Republican on one of the cable shows pitted opposite a Democrat which seems to be all the rage these days.

Now obviously the first category with the friendly journalist should be the easiest, but these days you never know. So my advice would be to start off with this strategy and then if the "friendly" journo turns out to be not so friendly, just transition to the category I strategy.

Category I

With a friendly journalist its usually best to make light of the situation before getting serious. I would advise coming up with several different examples of something that was once thought of as a consensus fact only to later be thoroughly debunked. In the earlier post I used the example of how everyone used to think the earth was flat. Others off the top of my head would be, the moon was made out of cheese, that the Sun orbited the Earth, and if you want to get a little snarky you can even point out that a majority once thought that Saddam had WMD.

After the witty comment quickly pivot into the meat of the issues. Quote several independent sources like the CBO on how many jobs were created with the stimulus bill. Then acknowledge that more has to be done and that the unemployment numbers are indeed a factor in the negative perception of the stimulus. Then, however, forcefully transition into a denunciation of the Congressional Republicans. Point out that they have said for months and months that the stimulus bill failed without every being challenged to quote a credible economist or study that backs up that claim. Challenge the friendly to ask them where they got their information that the stimulus failed the next time they speak to a Republican. Then tie it to Republican obstructionism in the Senate. Point out that while everyone else is focusing on getting the country back on track, Congressional Republicans are focusing on winning back Congress no matter what the price.

Make sure to differentiate with the term Congressional Republicans so as to not offend rank and file Republicans any more than they are already.

Category II

When you have an adversarial member of the media speaking to a Democrat one on one, whether it be at the press briefing with Gibbs, or just a rank and file Congressional Democrat or just a Dem strategist, the key is to turn it back on to the mainstream media. Yes this will make for a contentious exchange but it will be worth it. The one thing Republicans and their right wing base has become especially adept at is pushing the media to the right by claiming over and over and over again a mythical liberal bias. Now is as good a time as any to change that.

You will want to ask a question along the lines of what is the ratio of independent economists their news organization has asked about the stimulus versus how many politicians they have asked. How many quotes from the CBO director about the stimulus have appeared in their publication or on their news station versus how many statements from politicians have been used. The clear implication you want to try to make is that its the media, not the Democrats, who have failed to inform the American people. And that because our media almost exclusively covers politics the same as policy like a horse race, they are no longer serving their readers and viewers. If its a member of a right wing media outfit like FoxNews or the Washington Times you can even go as far as to ask them why their own employees have joined the Republicans in calling the stimulus a failure without ever having to back up that assertation with information from an impartial expert on economics.

Right at the end of your response make sure to note that while politics usually does have spin from both sides, policy usually has a right and a wrong. There are ways to measure whether the stimulus worked or not and if the majority of Americans don't believe it worked, but the overwhelming majority of credible, independent economists say it did then obviously our media is not doing their job well.

For sure this could provoke backlash at a later date, but I personally think it would be worth it.

Category III

I think pushing back on Republicans when Democrats are on one of those shows where supposedly both sides are represented should be the easiest job of all. Two words should sum up this strategy, interrupt and attack. Every time a Republican brings up public opinion on the stimulus interrupt them and ask them how many times they personally had said it was a failure. They probably won't respond but keep pressing the question until its obvious they do not want to answer. If they make the mistake of actually repeating the canard that it really didn't work or "it didn't create one job" then interrupt and ask them to give the viewers the source they are using for that assertion. Again, don't expect them to answer directly but keep asking the question until its obvious they won't answer it.

When its your turn to talk whether it be first or second have a list ready of economists and independent entities like the CBO which have said the stimulus bill created a million jobs or more. Read off the list and then ask the GOP adversary if they are going on record to say all of those people and organizations are lying. Further ask them, not the host but the GOP adversary, what their background is in economics. Do they have a nobel prize? Have they ever worked for the CBO? Ask them what standing they have to call the stimulus bill a failure other than their status as a politician.

At some point the host will probably regain order and you can tout all of the positive things about the stimulus. But before the segment is over make sure to address the GOP adversary directly again and ask them a question of this nature "Isn't it true that you and members of your party on the Hill believe that it is advantageous for your election prospects if the American people believe the stimulus bill failed even if it isn't true?" Of course they won't answer and the host may try to step in but keep demanding that they answer the question. Keep it up the pressure and keep them on the defensive instead of the other way around.

Now to be sure at some point the Republicans will come up with a new talking point to harp on and at that point the strategy to push back on them will have to change. But I am willing to bet that for the next few weeks we will hear this "the American people don't believe it worked" talking point over and over. Hopefully for once Democrats will be well prepared to not only shoot them down, but also make them run for cover.

Words Of Wisdom

"If the Democrats run for cover, if we become pale carbon copies of the opposition, we will lose--and deserve to lose," he said. "The last thing this country needs is two Republican parties."

-Ted Kennedy

At some point either Democrats are going to wake up to the reality that people over the last two election cycle voted them in because we want DEMOCRATS running the country, or they will continue to try to look "centrist" and they will get their asses handed to them in November. Martha Coakley was a shitty candidate but even a shitty candidate wins that race yesterday if the legislation from last year, ie the stimulus bill and a health care bill, were more progressive.

Its really as black and white as you can get.

Consider The Game Changed

If liberals and progressives, both in Congress and as regular citizens, do not scream this information out loudly and repeatedly until somebody pays attention, then we don't DESERVE a public option in health care reform. Its all right there for the taking, but we have to actually get the word out.

From Ezra Klein:

According to Congress Daily, the CBO says attaching the public plan to Medicare rates will save even more money than originally thought:

In a bid to wrangle concessions from the Blue Dog Coalition on healthcare reform, House leaders Thursday released CBO estimates for liberals' preferred version of the public option that show $85 billion more in savings than for the version the Blue Dogs prefer.

Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, D-S.D., a Blue Dog co-chair, said any possible new momentum toward a public option tethered to Medicare rates is, in part, "because of the cost issue" and the updated CBO score.

The original House bill required the public plan to pay providers 5 percent more than Medicare reimbursement rates. But as part of a package of concessions to Blue Dogs, the House Energy and Commerce Committee accepted an amendment that requires the HHS Secretary to negotiate rates with providers. That version of the plan will save only $25 billion.

In total, a public plan based on Medicare rates would save $110 billion over 10 years. That is $20 billion more than earlier estimates, a spokesman for House Speaker Pelosi said.

There is absolutely no way for someone who calls themselves a fiscally conservative Democrat to argue against a public option at this point. And if they try it exposes them for the corporatist hypocrites that they really are.

Change The Conversation

For any liberals or progressives who have the honor of being on TV whether as a member of Congress or a Democratic strategist or a DFH blogger, there is one way to help change the conversation that I think isn't being utilized. Right now the Villager media conversation centers on whether the left in Congress will cave on a public option. First of all it should be noted that the overwhelming majority of Democrats in Congress, not just the progressive caucus, endorses the idea of a public option and one has been included not just in the 3 House bills but also in one of the two Senate bills. So what we should be striving to do is change the conversation to put the pressure where it really belongs, on the ConservaDems in the Senate. A few points.

1. Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has already said a health care reform bill will not pass the House if it doesn't include a public option.

2. The Blue Dogs in the House have already negotiated on a public option and have not blocked any bill from coming out of committee which includes one.

3. So far there have not been ten Democrats in the Senate who have come out and said they would vote against a bill which includes a public option so any speculation that it wouldn't pass in the Senate is just that, speculation.

4. Ted Kennedy's committee passed a bill out of committee in the Senate with a robust public option.

5. The question really should be would ten or so Democrats would really be willing to vote against a bill with a public option that the overwhelming majority of people in America support and the overwhelming majority of Democrats in Congress and the President support?

6. Majority rules in this country as Judd Gregg reminded us a few years back when he was fighitng for reconciliation, so what is wrong with Democrats using it?

7. If over 200 Democrats in the House and over 50 Democrats in the Senate are willing to vote for a health care reform bill with a public option in it, then wouldn't a bill without a public option actually be the fringe ideal?

8. Ask the question of any one interviewing, name ten Democrats in the Senate who have committed to vote against a health care reform bill that includes a public option. Make them name names or admit they don't know of ten Democrats who have committed to do such a thing.

I really believe that if we get this message out and change the conversation ahead of President Obama's speech we can help effect public opinion and push the momentum towards keeping a public option.

Democrats Are The New Repubicans

I want to fully associate myself with everything that is said on this clip from Bill Maher and also Cenk Uygur. At some points we are going to need for Democrats to get back to being Democrats and for the media to start being honest with their coverage of the health care debate!

Arlen Better Get His Weight Up

Looks like Joe Sestak is coming for the crown.



And uhmm CNN next time give TPM the respect they are due, assholes.

I Think I Might Agree With Tom Coburn (For Once)

The Hill has a story today about a letter Senator Tom Coborn sent to Attorney General Eric Holder questioning the continued funding of the National Defense Intelligence Center. The NDIC happens to be located in Congressman John Murtha's district and as such many people think its yet another pet projects of his that he uses to bring jobs and money home to his district in Pennsylvania. Now of course this could be seen as a partisan attack since you are pitting a conservative Republican in Senator Coburn against a Democrat in Congressman Murtha. And the word boondoggle is thrown out there kind of haphazardly by Senator Coburn to describe the NDIC. But having read the article and reading the Senator Coburn's report on the NDIC I have to say that without having any more information I am leaning towards agreeing with him.

Coburn sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder late last week reiterating charges that the center in Johnstown, Pa., previously known as the National Defense Intelligence Center (NDIC) is a duplicative boondoggle and asking for the explanation behind a recently proposed name change.

“I am concerned about both the costs and the motivation of this proposed name change,” Coburn wrote.

A spokesman for the Department of Justice (DoJ) said only that Holder’s office is reviewing the letter and will respond “appropriately.”

Murtha spokesman Matthew Mazonkey said his boss had nothing to do with the center’s name change, proposed in Obama’s budget, and noted that NDIC officials aren’t even sure it will happen.

Republicans and the Bush administration spent the last four years trying to eliminate hundreds of millions of dollars in Murtha-directed funding to the center. President Bush and Republicans in Congress labeled it a “Clinton-era pork-barrel boondoggle” that exists only as a jobs program in Murtha’s district, where it is located.

The GOP critics are suspicious that the name change, which was mentioned briefly in a recently released DoJ Budget and Performance Summary, is a way to obscure the funding from additional public scrutiny.

Two years ago, an effort to strip money for the center from an intelligence bill sparked a nasty floor fight between Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and Murtha, who subsequently apologized publicly for threatening Rogers’s earmarks in retaliation.

Despite the very public fight, Murtha and Democrats on Capitol Hill have managed to keep funds flowing to the center. President Obama’s proposed budget for fiscal 2010 would provide it $44 million, place it under the DoJ’s umbrella and change its name to the DoJ’s Center for Strategic Intelligence (CSI).

To Coburn, the additional funding and proposed name change stand in stark contrast to findings in an oversight report titled “Justice Denied: Waste & Mismanagement at the Department of Justice,” which he commissioned last year.

The report found that throughout the last 15 years, NDIC’s purpose has frequently changed and duplicated the operations of 19 other government agencies and that “its data was not very useful to the other drug control agencies.”

Coburn’s letter also quotes two former officials at the center criticizing its work and mission.

“A former center director, Mike Horn, confessed, ‘I recognized that a lot of reports were God-awful, poorly written, poorly researched, and, in some cases, wrong,’ ” Coburn wrote. “Jim Milford, a former NDIC deputy, admitted, ‘I’ve never come to terms with the justification for the NDIC,’ and “ ‘the bottom line is that we had to actually search for a mission.’ ”

Coburn wants to know how much it will cost to change the name of the center, which he argued would require new signs and identification cards for the center’s 239 employees, new letterhead and the “rebranding” of all its documents and publications.

Here is the truth, we as Democrats have to stop overlooking Congressman Murtha's trangressions if we ever want to be able to not be seen as hypocrites. Murtha seems to be doing his dead level best to ruin the Democratic brand for everyone at this point. While just about everyone else acknowledges that its time to reign in spending this guy is out bragging about how many earmarks he sends home. It only takes one shady Democrat to tar the whole party. I think its about time folks walked away from Murtha and tried to ease him on up out of office. No matter what kind of leadership positions he holds he is starting to become too much of a distraction for the party at a time when we are trying to claim the high moral ground. Shipping tens of millions of dollars into a boondoggle in his district year after year just serves to play up the caricature of "tax and spend" liberals. Something is going to have to give soon because no one man is bigger than the party.

Jim Webb Chooses Politics Over Policy

I have had a lot of good things to say about Jim Webb over he past few months. His willingness to try to bring reform to our prison system and his keeping an open mind about legalizing marijuana made me somewhat a fan of his. But this morning Jim Webb was a major dissappointment. He embraced NIMBY as a political stance obviously because he fears Republican attacks on him and he rejected the idea of a truth commission.




First on the subject of the Uigyurs obviously Jim Webb contradicts himself. First he says detainees should get their day in court and then we should accept what happens. Then he says he wouldn't want the Uigyurs coming to Virginia. But Uigyurs DID have their day in court and a judge decided they were not guilty and not dangerous. Now coincidentally just the other night hilzoy had two really good posts on who the Uigyurs are and how they got to be conflated with terrorists in the first place. The first one focused on who they are.

Here's a description (pdf, see pp. 211-212) of the Uighurs from an FBI report filed in 2004, and describing a visit in 2002. It follows what seems to be an account of abuse of one of the Uighurs:

"The Uighurs are moderate Muslims who occupied East Turkestan, which was taken over by the Chinese and renamed the Xinjiang province of China. The Uighurs were offered land in Afghanistan in order to gather personnel opposing Chinese oppression. They were often inspired by Radio Free Asia, which [redacted] was often a broadcaster for. The Uighurs considered themselves to be fighting for democracy, and they idolized the United States. Although the Uighurs are Muslim their agenda did not appear to include Islamic radicalism. They claimed to have no political connection to Islamic terrorists or the Taliban. However, their camp in Afghanistan was bombed, and they fled to Pakistan. The Uighurs were captured by the Pakistanis, with half being transferred to US custody, and half being remanded directly to Chinese officials. It was alleged that the Uighurs who were transferred directly to the Chinese were immediately executed. At the time of my TDY, US officials were considering whether to return the Uighurs to the Chinese, possibly to gain support for anticipated US action in the Middle East. The Uighur detainees at GTMO were convinced that they would be immediately executed if they were returned to China."

That's not a defense lawyer speaking; it's an FBI agent, interviewing them about a year after their detention. These are not terrorists. These are people we picked up by mistake

And the other focused on who they aren't.

The Uighurs were at a camp, or a village, run by ETIM in 2001. Abdul Haq is supposed to have been a member of al Qaeda's shura since 2005, years after the detainees had anything to do with him. If there is evidence that he or his group were affiliated with al Qaeda in 2001, I do not know of it, and the Uighurs have consistently denied any affiliation with al Qaeda.

So Jim Webb is either ill informed or is willingly fearmongering so as to hold up the closing of GITMO. You know I hate to say it but when Democrats allow themselves to be played like this by Republicans then they actually deserve to get their asses kicked in the next election. There is no need for them to allow the right wing to dominate this issue in the way that it has but its going to take someone with brass balls to stand up to them. I kinda thought it might have been a guy like Jim Webb. Obviously I was wrong.

Democrats, GITMO Detainees, And NIMBY

I for one am getting sick and damned tired of hearing about the GOP ramping up a fear campaign against Congressional Democrats when it comes to National Security. Specifically, now they are going to try to hit Democrats with ads about closing GITMO and "ZOMG teh terrorists will be in America". This is the latest lame ass offering.




Here is the deal, Congressional Democrats have an opportunity here and they are squandering it. What they need to do is stand up and say that they would welcome the opportunity to house some of the detainees in their state. Not only should they project an aura of confidence that American jails can hold foreign terrorists, but also that the move could help create more jobs in their state. They should also point out that those who wouldn’t be similarly enthusiastic about helping to maintain our national security are COWARDS. This NIMBY bullshit that the Republicans are embracing is exactly the chance Dems have been waiting for for years to be able to wrest the mantle of “tough on crime” and “strong on national security” from the GOP. I can’t for the life of me understand why they are scared to take Republican on with this issue. The detainees will be in supermax prisons. They don’t have any frikkin superpowers to be able to break out. And by not confronting the GOP on this and in some cases actually agreeing with them that it would be dangerous to house detainees on US soild they are not only legitimizing what is at its core a nonsensical viewpoint, they are also opening themselves up to charges of being weak on defense of the homeland.

Fuck it, if the Republicans are going to use the issue anyway its time to make them pay for being the bed wetting pussies that they really are. I keep waiting to hear “Send them to us, we know just how to handle them” from ANYBODY in the Democratic caucus but it seems like they are just going to allow Republicans to frame this issue and then turn around and use it as a platform to run against them next year. I can’t tell you how stupid that is and how much it frustrates the hell out of me. We have the WTC bombers in jail in Colorado for pete’s sake along with the Oklahoma City bombers. We have a long and storied history of locking up the most dangerous people in our society and in fact the world in our prisons here. Why in the fuck should Democrats now show so little faith in their consituents that they run away from an issue that they could clearly win on? Somebody needs to step up to the plate and in a frikkin hurry.

Cloture

Every since Arlen Specter crossed the aisle last week I have been trying to point out the advantages of the move for Democrats. The biggest plus as I saw it was that Specter would become a reliable vote to invoke cloture and overcome filibuster attempts by the GOP. I know that a lot of people on the left are pissed off by the things he have said since then but I steadily maintain that if Specter votes for cloture on big issues then him switching sides will be well worth it. Now I have also pointed out that Democrats in the Senate really didn't give up anything to have Specter cross the aisle and that if he doesn't get with the program he will probably get the brakes beat off him in a Democratic primary. But I digress.

The reason why I bring this up yet again is because of something Harry Reid said today on MSNBC. Check out the video.



Did you catch it? If not go back to about the 1:20 mark.

When speaking on Arlen Specter, Harry Reid made this statement.

“On procedural votes he will be with us all the time”

Do you know what "procedural vote" means? Cloture, thats what. Now considering the amount of weaksauce Harry Reid exhibits on a regular basis you of course have to take this with a grain of salt. Still Reid made the statement with a confidence that seems to belie a deal having been made. Arlen Specter is no doubt a weasel and he has taken saying one thing and doing another to an artform. Still I don't care if he votes against certain measures as long as he votes for cloture and then as long as they get passed with a simple majority. This shouldn't make people jump up and shout but it should temper at least some of the dissappointment expressed thus far by the lefty blogosphere.

Deep Thought/"Pro Torture"

If the Democrats are smart they will start labeling the torture apologists in the Republican Party as being "Pro Torture". This will help them frame the debate and it will also stick the Republican Party with a label that will turn most voters off. Much in the same way the religous right has labeled Democrats for years as being pro abortion, using the term pro torture towards Republicans will force them to explain why they are so committed to using torture in principle. I will put them on the defensive for once and it will change the conversation from whether torture works or not (which it has been shown not to) to a debate over the morality of torturing another human being under any circumstances. I fully endorse this concept and hope it catches on.

The Numbers Say Independents Want Democrats To Be Democrats!

Greg Sargent has the breakdown on new polling numbers released by PEW today:

One frequent claim you hear from proponents of bipartisanship for its own sake is the idea that the party in power had better be careful not to get too partisan, lest independent voters get “turned off” and hold the ruling party accountable.

Well, today brings some new polling from Pew that sheds some light on whether this is, you know, actually true.

The poll finds that there’s been a sharp drop in the number of Independents who see the parties as working together. Only one-fourth of Indys say this, a big tumble from the 49% who said this in January.

Despite this, however, approval of Obama among independents has held steady, and approval of Congress among them has jumped substantially. A solid majority of 56% of independents approve of Obama’s performance. And 47% of independents approve of Congress’ performance, up 15 points since January.

Now let me put this in layman's terms. The less independents saw Congress as being partisan, the lower their approval rating of Congress was. Now that they see more partisanship in Congress they also have a higher approval rating and thats primarily because of their higher rating for Democrats in Congress not their rating for Republicans. And besides all that, independent's approval of President Obama was unharmed with the jump in percieved partisanship. When it comes down to it the only way you can possibly frame this is that independents want Democrats to be Democrats. When they voted for President Obama or any other Democrat they weren't just repudiating Republicans, they were also expecting a new course to be charted and new policies enacted. Hopefully now some of the Blue Dogs and Conservadems in Congress will see these numbers and realize that the only people who want to see Democrats act more like Republicans are other Republicans. The dynamic has changed and its time for the DINOs to get on board or get run over.

So much for Karl Rove and his "most polarizing" meme. These numbers show that he can take that notion and blow it out his ass.

Git Er Done

Congress stepped up and passed President Obama's budget last night.

From the Washington Post.

Congressional Democrats overwhelmingly embraced President Obama's ambitious and expensive agenda for the nation yesterday, endorsing a $3.5 trillion spending plan that sets the stage for the president to pursue his most far-reaching priorities.

Voting along party lines, the House and Senate approved budget blueprints that would trim Obama's spending proposals for the fiscal year that begins in October and curtail his plans to cut taxes. The blueprints, however, would permit work to begin on the central goals of Obama's presidency: an expansion of health-care coverage for the uninsured, more money for college loans and a cap-and-trade system to reduce gases that contribute to global warming.

The measures now move to a conference committee where negotiators must resolve differences between the two chambers, a prelude to the more difficult choices that will be required to implement Obama's initiatives. While Democrats back the president's vision for transforming huge sectors of the economy, they remain fiercely divided over the details.

There is no agreement, for example, on how to pay for an overhaul of the health-care system expected to add more than $1 trillion to the budget over the next decade, nor is there consensus on how to spend the hundreds of billions of dollars the government stands to collect by setting limits on greenhouse gas emissions and forcing industry to buy permits to pollute. Those issues will be decided in committees where lawmakers have begun the torturous work on the specifics of Obama's broad plans.


"Democrats in the House and, I think, the Senate are shoulder to shoulder with the president in trying to make the big decisions we need to make in this country," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.). But, he said, "Hammering out the details will require everyone to roll up their sleeves."

But all was not great on the Democratic front as Evan Bayh joined Ben Nelson in voting against the President's budget. Now this might seem as just electoral posturing but on closer examination that doesn't hold up. Steve Benen notes:

I've heard some see this as an act of political cowardice on Bayh's part, but I think that's wrong. Obama carried Indiana. There are many Senate Democrats in more vulnerable states who voted "yes." Bayh just made a decision of conscience and principle to stand with Mitch McConnell and Jim DeMint on the most important domestic policy vote of his career.

I think that's right, and I'd add one key detail. Just yesterday, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, effectively conceded that Republicans won't go after Bayh next year. "We have a sort of priority list," Cornyn said. "He's down on that."

Bayh, in other words, represents a state that supported Obama in November and he knew that no matter how he voted of Obama's budget, his re-election is all but assured in his home state.
Bayh didn't have to worry about impressing conservative voters back home; he didn't have to worry about fundraising; he didn't have to worry about a Republican opponent back home using this budget vote against him. Bayh was free to vote however he pleased.

And given all of this, Bayh still sided with a right-wing Republican caucus against the Obama White House.

Honestly I think I know the answer and it is this, Evan Bayh is the Democratic version of Mark Sanford in the Senate. He is making decisions right now not based on what is good for the country, but what will be good for his Presidential aspirations in 2016. He probably believes that if he shores up his conservative cred by voting against items that he knows will pass anyway, he will look more attractive when its "his turn" to run. But he is making the same mistake that the Republicans are. This is not your father's country anymore. As President Obama has said before, the grounds are shifting under the conservatives' feet. Evan Bahy is going to end up looking just as unappealing as Eric Cantor or Bobby Jindal by the time its all over with and for what? Just so he can feed his own ego? I think maybe its time to try to primary his self serving ass so he gets the message loud and clear. Its time for Democrats to be Democrats and if they don't like it cross the damn aisle. Otherwise we will end up letting the fringe of our party take it over just like the Republicans have just in the name of having more seats in Congress. I am personally not inclined to endorse that notion.

TNC Breaks It Down

Ta-Nehisi Coates has a great post up on his blog expounding on why he is a liberal/Democrat. The whole thing is worth the read but I wanted to excerpt just a piece and then I will follow up on his points.

I keep thinking about the big things that have always kept me from being a conservative--the knee-jerk worship of a past that branded me half a man, the elevation of the loud imbeciles who think science teachers should be using the Bible, the toleration and baiting of bigots who cloaked themselves in the garb of "States Rights," and now run under the garb of "protecting marriage." The common demonator here is an unreflective veneration of what was, a belief that tradition, no matter how backwards, can heal all. Thus it's only right, that Steele, Gingrich and Limbaugh make up the leadership.

It's not that I think liberals are without flaw, but to argue that our most strident members should be our public face, would seem silly. As Ross intimates, if most liberals thought it was good idea for Howard Zinn Randall Robinson, or Noam Chomsky to be a spokesperson for the Democratic Party, I'd think we'd all gone insane. If Democratic politicians were scared to disagree with Keith Olberman or Michael Moore, I'd be a man without a home.

But these guys think that they are America. They delude themselves with that "center-right nation" analysis, and then mask their losses by claiming they didn't really lose. They think the problem is their wardrobe, their slang, their hairstyle. This what black folks call Project-Bougie or--more aptly put--just plain trifling. The GOP is out shopping for a new dining set, a new couch, a flat-screen--anything to make the crib look a little more inviting. Meanwhile the water bill is two months past due. The lights are off. And the eviction notice is in the mail.

This is without a doubt the position of many if not most black people in this country when it comes to picking a political party. Republicans don't seem to understand that harking back to their good old days were bad old days for most of us. They do it so much that you can't help but feel like they think the old way of doing things is preferrable to what we have now. Maybe in their world thats true, but us minorities generally feel like having the right to vote, not being discriminated against in the work place and being able to dine where we want to are some advances that we would rather keep. Its also apparent now with the Rush Limbaugh two step they are doing that the Republican leadership has absolutely no back bone and not a hint of any courage. Now to the last point, and maybe the most important, these days Republicans just don't get that they are talking at us instead of to us. While they are screaming about earmarks and deficits, real people are struggling every single day and we don't hear a thing out of their camp explaining how what they want to do will help us right now. Unless and until the Republican Party gets their collective heads out of their asses and realize that preaching to their base is going to continue their downfall they have absolutely no chance of returning from the wilderness. I am not in the business of giving them advice but I do believe that just having one viable political party in this country is asking for trouble. At some point someone in the GOP is going to have to open their eyes and recognize that yesterday is gone and that its time to start living in today.

One Benefit Of CPAC

I have been railing about CPAC for the last few days basically because it exposes the major double standard that the mainstream media has for conservatives as opposed to liberals and progressives. There isn't a chance in hell that you could stage a liberal/progressive version of CPAC without the media trying to tear it down and delegitimize it. They already refer to MoveOn and dailykos as hate groups with no basis whatsoever to back up their claims. But let some of the biggest spewers of hate get on the microphone at CPAC and either the media won't report it or if they do they will act like its no big deal.

But there is a redeeming benefit of CPAC and that is the echo chamber that it creates for most of the Republican Party. They go there and here the same memes over and over again and basically they convince themselves that they are on the right track, election results be damned. You would think that you would hear a lot of "new" ideas coming out of CPAC this year but instead what do you get? A lot of the same talking points trotted out by John McCain's EPIC FAIL of a campaign as if a few months will make them sound a little bit scarier. The fact that they are being cheered on by their conservative following pretty much ensures that they will keep on doing what they have always done and they will get their asses handed to them once again next year.

What I really hope is that while they are at CPAC nobody points to this New York Times article. The truth is they would probably all just claim its evidence of the Grey Lady's librul bias anyway but I personally want their echo chamber to resonate from the hills so all of the Republicans in Congress and those contemplating a Presidential race in 2012 will be reassured of the efficacy of their attacks. To quote the article.

Americans identifying themselves as Democrats outnumber those who say they are Republicans by 10 percentage points, the largest gap in party identification in 24 years.

The gap has widened significantly since President George W. Bush’s re-election in 2004, when it was a mere 3 percentage points. But by the time Mr. Bush left office in January, less than a quarter of Americans approved of his performance.

These days, 38 percent of Americans say they are Democrats, 28 percent call themselves Republicans, and another 29 percent identify as independents, according to an average of national polls conducted last year by The New York Times and CBS News.

Shhhh. Don't tell these fools that they are doing it wrong. Just let them keep talking while the rest of the country passes them by.


(h/t Instaputz)

Why Reid Should Turn Specter

If Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid hasn't gone to Republican Senator Arlen Specter and asked him to cross the aisle and caucus with the Democrats he should have his head examined. Right now you have RNC Chairman Michael Steele threatening to back a to be named later primary challenger to Specter next year because of his vote on the stimulus bill and you have Republicans in Pennsylvania jeering him during an appearance. Now don't get me wrong, I don't believe for one second that it would be an easy sell but if we could get Specter to come over and bring the Democrats a supermajority (assuming Franken gets seated at some point) it would be well worth the effort.

Arlen Specter does not fit in with the majority of the members of his party in the Congress. He isn't real big on spouting off the false talking points of the rest of his party and generally when he opposes something its for real, principled reasons. He is pro life and he also supports civil unions which is more than you can say for some of the Democrats in the Senate right now. He also doesn't go with the flow when his conscious tells him not to. I won't resort to saying he is all mavericky and stuff but by in large Specter calls it like he sees it. This is now heresy in the Republican Party and he is being shunned by many in his own caucus because of it. The truth is if he holds true to form this will only get worse as time goes on. Now I firmly believe that Senator Spector wants at least one more term as Senator, and thats going to be a hard row to hoe if he has to defeat a strong opponent in the Republican primary. And even if he somehow survives that challenge he would still have to beat out a Democrat in a state that President Obama won by quite a good margin. So if I were Harry Reid my proposal would be two fold.

First I would promise Spector that as an incumbent Democrat he would be fully supported by the DCCC as well as the Democratic Leadership in Congress. This would help to assure him that he would have no problem in a Democratic primary. Hell if he is going to be the 60th vote for cloture for the next two years I would imagine that President Obama would even commit to campaigning for him. So with a wink and a nod Reid could effectively guarantee Spector another term in office.

The second thing I would do is promise him that he will keep his seniority and he will be in line for a plum chairmanship post during the next session of Congress if not sooner. If you can do it for Joe Lieberman surely you can do it for Spector as well.

Now honestly I don't think this would be all that controversial and the upside far out weighs any potential negatives. Before anyone says it, yes I know that Spector isn't a dyed in the wool progressive and yes I know that his voting record is a mixed bag. But I will tell you this much, if we can have that asshole Ben Nelson in the Democratic caucus I would think we could allow room for Arlen Specter. Especially if it moves progressive legislation through the Senate without getting it watered down like the stimulus bill. What does Harry Reid have to lose? If he isn't at least considering this option I think Senator Reid deserves to be fired from his post as Majority Leader.

Of course I think he should be fired regardless.

What say you?

YouTube Diss Tracks For Democrats

I and many of my liberal/progressive friends have been pretty pissed off by the disparity between Republican officials and Democratic officials on the talking head shows of late. Now mind you I for one acknowledge that the Democrats themeselves are at least partly to blame because they haven't been pushign hard enough to get on these shows. But the networks should be ashamed of themselves for allowing themselves to become the de facto mouthpieces of the GOP in an effort to make the story about the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act into a "horserace". Thankfully the bill still passed and most of the country still supports it but this is not a good sign with more partisan fights on the horizon. Universal healthcare, Social Security reform, cutting defense spending, investing in green energy and the employee free choice act are just a few of the issues that will have to be addressed that may similarly be framed almost solely by the opposition if the current trend holds. Well I have come up with a solution to our messaging problem. Its time for the Democrats to take a page from hip hop and start putting up youtube diss tracks.

What do I mean by that? Well nowadays instead of just limiting their beefs to mixtapes, rappers have started throwing up youtubes to disparage a rival. Whether it be to actually rap on the youtube or to talk shit about another rapper or to even in a few cases put up a cartoon to make fun of an adversary, rappers have changed the game using youtube. And really the reasons why they use youtube mirror the reasons why the Democrats should. For one its basically free aside from production cost so you can throw up as many as you want. For two you get direct access to your target audience without any kind of filter. Third and maybe most important is that just by using youtube you raise your profile and present yourself as someone who is up to date and not living at all in the past.

President Obama's team made very efficient use of youtube during the campaign, often making sure to put up any and all attack ads there so that even people who might have missed them when their air on Tee Vee could go there and see them. Also by putting them up on youtube it allowed many bloggers to embed them and spread the message across the intertubes. Now Obama and his team have transitioned well to life in the White House by putting up the Presidential radio address every week on youtube as well. Again you go an a lot of the bigger liberal and progressive blogs and you will see his address every week. For that matter many of the MSM folks post them as well at their websites. It makes the message so much more accessable and pretty much ensures that everyone who is interested gets a chance to see it and hear it. Well similarly if there is a message that needs to be delivered by the Democrats to combat lies and smears by the GOP/conservatives youtube can be masterfully leveraged to go around the media.

One of the problems with the stimulus bill argument wasn't just that Democrats were denied a voice but also that out of the few times Democrats were interviewed several times they were ambushed by lies. In the face of these attacks many of them wilted or came off as evasive and ultimately that was unproductive for our side. Now imagine for a moment that the day after John Boehner came out and made fun of the family planning provision in the bill that Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Shultz appeared in a youtube video explaining in very clear terms exactly why the provision was in the bill and how it would help stimulate the economy and then turned around and made fun of man with the last name "Boehner" getting it wrong about how stimulative the provision was. How quickly would that have lit up the interwebs? How fast would it have been picked up by CNN and MSNBC? Or imagine that after John McCain made fun of resodding the National Mall Dick Durbin had put out a youtube of him talking to an owner of a landscape company talking about how many people a job like that would employ and then turned around and wondered aloud how many people it took to resod the lawns at all of McCain's houses. Now its not like the House Dems aren't already positioned nicely for such such a media strategy. We already have househub up over at youtube giving a channel to all of the members of Congress But its no use having it if you aren't going to use it. And as we have seen several times lately the Republicans are lost when it comes to using technology so we need to be taking advantage RIGHT NOW while we still HAVE the advantage.


So anybody who knows somebody who knows somebody who KNOWS somebody that talks to our Democratic leaders, please pass on this message so we can prepare to fight the pr wars that are sure to be coming as time goes on.

Sneak Attack

Updated: With video

I am a little late getting to this one but I have to post about it to represent for my Tennessee Democrats. It seems that the Dems in the Tennessee House of Representatives have pulled off some what of a coup with the help of a moderate Republican. From the Nashville Post:

It is now official: There is a Republican speaker of the Tennessee State House. But his name is not Jason Mumpower.

The Tennessee House of Representatives officialy installed East Tennessee Republican Rep. Kent Williams of Carter County as the Speaker for 106th General Assembly.

Democrats pulled the old switcheroo and put Williams into office to cries of "traitor" from some members of the Republican caucus. Williams had been considered a target for a Democratic vote but had maintained all along that he would vote for a Republican. In the end, he did, voting for himself.

snip

Today's drama began when Democratic Leader Gary Odom motioned for a 30-minute recess after members were sworn in, to which Mumpower vehemently objected. As Speaker of the 105th General Assembly, Naifeh still presided and quickly gaveled for the recess.

Mumpower then called for a vote, which he lost when freshman Republican State Rep. Terry Lynn Weaver of Lancaster voted with Democrats. As the vote was made official, Republicans could be heard shouting for her to change her vote, which she did not do in time.

Republican legislators claimed after the vote that she had hit the wrong button. Nevertheless, it was an inauspicious beginning to her legislative career and the new Republican majority.

When the House came back, Mumpower was nominated by his colleagues. Then things became more tense when Naifeh recognized Republican State Rep. Glen Casada of Franklin. Casada called for nominations to cease, a motion that was seconded – all this before Democrats placed Naifeh's name in nomination.

snip

When the House came back, Mumpower was nominated by his colleagues. Then things became more tense when Naifeh recognized Republican State Rep. Glen Casada of Franklin. Casada called for nominations to cease, a motion that was seconded – all this before Democrats placed Naifeh's name in nomination.

Democrat leader Odom was outraged and called for "fair elections" and blasted Republicans for trying to close the vote before he could put forward a Democratic nominee.

snip

After a brief discussion, Mumpower withdrew his objection and then gave the floor back to Naifeh. Then came the surprise. Odom and the Democrats nominated Republican Rep. Kent Williams for the position of Speaker of the House. All of the Democrats voted together for Williams.

Now when you think about it thats some diabolical shit the Dems pulled off and definitely not the kind of move you would normally associate with liberals. But there are some other juicier details out there about this as well.

From Wonkette:

AMAZING! Acting in a clandestine pact, the 49 Democrats in Tennessee’s House shocked Nashville just one hour ago by nominating and then voting en masse for Kent Williams (a moderate Republican from Elizabethton in Carter County) for Speaker to lead the 99-member chamber. The official Republican nominee, Jason Mumpower (a wingnut from Bristol in Sullivan County) was left speechless, clutching the family bible that he had brought in preparation for taking the Speaker’s oath of office.

This is HUGE! The R’s had promised bans on gay adoption and fostering, new concealed weapons laws, new constitutional limits on abortion, new anti-immigrant legislation, and mandating the teaching of “intelligent design” in public schools. Because the Tennessee House operates under a strict committee system and the Speaker appoints all committee chairs, though, it is unclear whether Republicans will be able to get any of these measures to the floor of the House. In addition, the re-election prospects for the long-serving and widely-respected Comptroller and Treasurer (both Democrats) is now much more promising; the General Assembly votes for these constitutional offices tomorrow.

Now keep in mind that this is the first time the Republicans have had a majority in the House in Tennessee in decades. This is Blago level shit! Man all I want to know is who came up with the plan so we can send his or her ass to Washington to take Harry Reid's place. Thats some change I could believe in!


Damn I love youtube!