What would happen if every blog published on the same topic on the same day? Blog Action Day aims to find out. On October 15 2007, bloggers around the world unite for one day to change the conversation. To find out more and get involved visit blogactionday.org.
[via YouTube, here; posted by BlogActionDay (August 14, 2007); length: 1:08 minutes/seconds]
This is one of those stories that has to be passed on as far and as wide as possible, but it really makes you wonder if some of these partisan, win-at-all-costs Republicans are actually some different species or something. Think Progress has done the work on this, so I'll just excerpt from them:
Two weeks ago, the Democratic radio address was delivered by a 12-year old Maryland boy named Graeme Frost. Graeme told his story of being involved in a severe car accident three years ago, and having received access to medical care because of the Children’s Health Insurance Program. He said:
If it weren’t for CHIP, I might not be here today. … We got the help we needed because we had health insurance for us through the CHIP program. But there are millions of kids out there who don’t have CHIP, and they wouldn’t get the care that my sister and I did if they got hurt. … I just hope the President will listen to my story and help other kids to be as lucky as me.
Now, you know what's coming – you just might not believe it. The right wing attack machine has, in response, gone after this kid and his family. And we're not just talking about a few easily dissmissable nutjobs here (although the smear did begin with an anonymous wingnut at freerepublic.com), the attack has been picked up and amplified by The National Review, Michelle Malkin, Wizbang, Powerline, the Weekly Standard blog, and House GOP leader John Boehner – and the attacks have crept into ABC's online site as well. The message is, as TP put it, “that Frost was actually a rich kid being pampered by the government” and that “Graeme and his sister Gemma attend wealthy schools that cost 'nearly $40,000 per year for tuition' and live in a well-off home”
The real message – given the above attacks and reports that the family is getting a barrage of harassing phone calls, and have picked up Michelle Malkin as a stalker into their private lives – is basically; don't open your mouth and screw with us or we'll come after you. Any conservative with any kind of conscience should damn well get out in front and condemn this twisted smear and intimidation campaign.
Here are the facts about the family, for the record:
1) Graeme has a scholarship to a private school. The school costs $15K a year, but the family only pays $500 a year.
2) His sister Gemma attends another private school to help her with the brain injuries that occurred due to her accident. The school costs $23,000 a year, but the state pays the entire cost.
3) They bought their “lavish house” sixteen years ago for $55,000 at a time when the neighborhood was less than safe.
4) Last year, the Frost’s made $45,000 combined. Over the past few years they have made no more than $50,000 combined.
5) The state of Maryland has found them eligible to participate in the CHIP program.
Desperate to defend Bush’s decision to cut off millions of children from health care, the right wing has stooped to launching baseless and uninformed attacks against a 12 year old child and his family.
“Electability” bedevils Democratic Presidential electoral politics like nothing else. It brought us John Kerry over “unelectable” Howard Dean. It brought us the Governor of the balanced-budget “Massachusetts Miracle,” Michael Dukakis. While it may seem a funny aside how the “electability” factor seems to keep leading us to Massachusetts, the fact is that it more often tends to lead us to failure, and that's because of what Democrats have really meant when they've said “electability.” From Kinsley last time around:
“I only care about one thing,” they all say. “Which of these guys can beat Bush?” Secretly, they believe none of them can, which makes the amateur pragmatism especially poignant.
Nevertheless, Democrats persevere. They ricochet from candidate to candidate, hoping to smell a winner. In effect, they give their proxy to the other party. “If I was a Republican,” they ask themselves, “which of these Democratic candidates would I be most likely to vote for?”
Kinsley only brushes up against the implicit inferiority complex in this mindgame. The subtext that leftist ideas can never win. That in a fair fight, the right will win because it's their country, not ours – but we're stuck here and have to put up with them. A big part of the almost messianic quality of Dean's following in '04 was his message that this was a bogus assumption; that we should be proud of our policies, programs and priorities because they are America's policies, programs and priorities, regardless of what the traditional media would have you believe and internalize. While the message didn't have enough power to turn the inferiority complex on its head in a single election season, it has undeniably altered the Democratic Party and begun chipping away at the greater media narrative.
Still, we are all again becoming concerned about electability, and speaking for or against candidates in implied terms of their appeal (or lack thereof) to GOP voters. What's different is that there are other, often more nuanced forms of electability being discussed this time around than in the past, and parsing out when these more nuanced arguments have merit, versus when they're simply a back-door re-entry to the same old losing patterns and inferiority complexes is trickier.
On the flip side is a quick list of why our candidates are electable and unelectable….
On Clinton's electability: She's a Clinton, and everybody loves a Clinton.
On Clinton's unelectability: She's Hillary Clinton and everybody hates Hillary Clinton.
(Okay, that one was boring.)
On Obama's electability: More personally inspiring than other canididates on either side, positive message/vibe.
On Obama's unelectability: Polling a bit lower in swing states in head-to-head matchups compared to Clinton and Edwards, fueling a “America still won't elect a black president” hubbub.
Obama is unique in that arguments on both sides are about who he is and how he plays, versus what he's saying. In truth, there is something to watch in that regard, inasmuch as it affects those last few percantage points of the electorate that takes pride in staying undecided before the TV interviewers and pollsters until Election Day itself. That crowd really doesn't care about policy, treating elections as a reality show. Unfortunately, they have an annoying tendency to sway election results. Maybe Obama becomes the best one to tip the balance of that crowd.
On Edwards's electability: Handsome southern white guy. Populist rhetoric appeals to independents.
On Edwards's unlelectability: Edwards had no categorical unelectability narratives against him until recently. His decision to go the public financing route has him put into a position, seen by many, as being straitjacketed by the restrictions and disbursement schedule of the public financing regime. As many see it (and rightfully so), it would put him extraordinarily vulnerable during much of 2008 in the current era of mega-political-fundraising (or as some have said, he's be bringing a knife to a gunfight).
Supporters have suggested that the Party and the 527 groups could fill in the gap, but to many that's not enough (and it's going in the wrong direction). Here's Markos of dKos, who has basically given up on Edwards after the news:
527s allow for unlimited contributions, and the donors don't have to be publicly disclosed.
Party committees, like the DNC, can take contributions of $28,500 per individual.
You can't claim your guy is a real mensch for taking a stand for publicly financed elections, then claim that the big dollars of the 527s and the DNC will bail your guy out.
What has the better chance of buying influence? Bundled $2,300 contributions, or bundled $28,500 ones? Or even better yet, a million dollar check to a 527 run by insider party operatives?
That's why I passionately believe in candidates funded by small-dollar contributions, beholden to people, not big dollar donors. And while we're not quite there yet, and have a lot of work to get there, Edwards isn't doing anything this cycle to get us there. In fact, shutting out small-dollar donors and pushing for bigger dollar ones to the DNC and 527 would be a step backwards.
It's a shame, since his nationwide matchups look pretty good, and he could expand the map beyond Obama or Clinton. But that won't happen after he gets hit with $150 million in attack ads over the summer from his opponent plus whatever the RNC and conservative 527s throw at him. The DNC and progressive 527s will be able to close some of that gap, but a disparity of $100 million or more is still likely. And I'm not willing to bet on poor GOP fundraising to bail Edwards out of his inability to respond.
It's compelling on a lot of levels (Philip – now do you get why I wanted to wait until all the facts were in before making an endorsement??? Sheesh…). It also leads into the current state of the “electability” argument as it applies to the rest of the field. Whatever global narratives primary voters may have made about the supposed unelectability of candidates like Kucinich (too wacky with all the new age stuff), Biden (the history of plagiarism), Dodd (too New England), Gravel (too much a party of one) or Richardson (too gaffe-prone to be ready for the big time), its the money issue that trumps all those arguments now. The conventional wisdom is that they simply can't win now because they haven't passed the ongoing money primary.
But there's also the ethical flip side of Markos's more practical argument. Sure, if Edwards wins and successfully diverts funding to these other sources, that's bigger money and less transparency – and that's bad.
On the other hand, accepting that implicitly locks in the money primary the most important part of the election – and that primary is decided before a single vote is cast.
It's a far more complex and nuanced “electability” argument than we've heard in the past, and is therefore harder to dismiss than electibility canards of the past (or for that matter, the paper-thin electability arguments currently leveled against Obama and Clinton). And I'll admit, its thrown me for a loop.
But I'm not quite ready to go there yet. Four years ago I eschewed categorical concerns over a candidate's electability on principle, and it still feels to me that that way lies madness. I'm going to cling to this notion that content matters – that the system fails us if we fail it, by not voting for the candidate we feel best represents us.
So my advice to other non-Obama or Clinton voters? The hell with the money. Vote for Richardson, Edwards, Biden, Kucinich, Gravel – whoever – if they're the candidate that speaks to you. Give the financial-electability questions no more heed than you would give the “he's too black” or “she's too Hillary” electibility questions as an Obama or Clinton supporter. That's not what it's supposed to be about, so let's do what little we can not to let it be about that.
But you'll forgive me if I still remain very, very worried about Edwards's decision…
Remember the “Douglas clause” Bernie put into his bill that would clamp down on problem nuclear plants like the one in Vernon, held together with duct tape by Jim Douglas's buddies (and campaign contributors) Entergy? You know – the clause that didn't simply empower the governor of a state containing such a scary plant from calling for safety inspections, but also would empower governors of neighboring states to do the same? Well, never let it be said that concerns over consistency prevent Jim Douglas from helping a corporate contributor.
(On the Sanders bill this week…) Flip:
(Douglas) “I think it's a precedent that we need to be very wary of, to empower adjoining states to be able to have a role in the regulatory proceedings in one state.”
(…and on another familiar matter involving regulatory proceedings on power generation with cross-state implications) Flop:
Vermont’s leaders agree that International Paper should be required to install state of the art pollution control technology if it is going to burn tires for fuel at its Ticonderoga facility. Currently, the Ticonderoga paper mill does not have industry standard pollution control devices in place. “We are prepared to exhaust all available options to prevent this tire burn without appropriate safeguards in place,” Douglas added.
(…and another…) Belly Flop:
As part of the foundation for this administration’s clean air action plan, Douglas has urged the Vermont Attorney General to join other states in this appeal and he has offered his continued support to this effort.
“It is my hope that through unified action we will be successful in compelling these (coal burning power plants in mid-west states) to stop polluting our air,” Douglas said.
Yup. Call it “political relativism.”
Of course, I'm not sure what any of it matters if the Democratic Party can't even run a candidate against him. Hey! Maybe that means he can get the Democratic Party nomination as a write in, too! Just like we let him do for Treasurer one year, as I recall!
Oh how my heart beams with pride. (PS – ht to wdh3, and major ht to John Dillon for great reporting)
While the GMD primary poll has John Edwards as the leading candidate, the “inevitability” of Hillary Clinton keeps gaining momentum in the MSM, primary polls, and fundraising tallies.
The problem is, Clinton's ability to clinch the nomination is more likely than her chances of holding the White House for a two-term presidency. The baggage HRC will bring into the White House can easily translate into a challenging first term. We can already expect to see skeletons gleefully dragged out of HRC's closet early in her administration by Swift Boaters and their ilk. Assuming 1. that HRC doesn't clamp down the White House as intensely as GW Bush; and 2. that our bitterly divided nation suffers through another four years of needless vitriol cast at a President Clinton, it's easy to anticipate conservatives getting behind Newt Gingrich as a comeback kid for the Republican Party.
Crazy theory? See quotes and links below the fold.
Calling in to the Mark Johnson show on Thursday, I mentioned the possibility of a Gingrich run in 2012, basing my theory on nothing more than the “swinging pendulum” theory or gut instinct. What was really making me scratch my head was Newt's September 29th announcement of his non-candidacy only days following Bush's prediction that Clinton would be the Democratic nominee. It wasn't so long ago that Karl Rove seemed to be praying for the opportunity he might seize at a Clinton nomination. With all of this inevitabilty swelling up in the primary storyline — well, let's face it, the MSM has already intimated the general election outcome, too — there seems to be a loose end hanging with Newt Gingrich. Is he really passing on a presidential bid in his curious “won't run” press release, or is he writing a prelude in an attempt to clear the field for a 2012 opportunity?
If his plan is to wait out '08, then it's a classic retreat and regroup maneuver. All you need to do is look a few years down the road to see it all fall in place. Hillary muddles through the war, immigration, and universal health insurance, and a frenzied 30% of the population goes into advocacy overdrive with zealous attacks on both her character and her “ultra-liberal” policy decisions. All the while Newt Gingrich methodically makes the rounds on book tours (“A Contract with the Earth”), speaking engagements, etc., warming up his plate of leftover political capital and greasing over squeaky wheels from the 1990s.
Pure speculation? Absolutely. But I'm not alone: the theory is gaining traction.
Here's this at the non-partisan National Journal:
Meanwhile, with his prediction that Hillary Rodham Clinton will win the presidency in 2008 by a hair and his comparisons of the '08 race to 1976, the former House Speaker's decision to sit things out this time around has led some to wonder if Gingrich isn't hoping for the chance to play Ronald Reagan to Clinton's Jimmy Carter in 2012.
Minnesota conservative blogger Edward Morrissey rallies the troops:
Look for Newt in 2012. He will have his national constituency, a bipartisan reputation, and a record of providing practical solutions over vitriol. He will be positioned as this century's Teddy Roosevelt.
I am not so sure that Gingrich will be running this year or is now trying to set himself up to run in 2012. Had Thompson not declared I think that he would have but now there may not be enough room for him. He may be talking up the $30 million as an excuse to not run. In addition, I read somewhere that he said something about it taking 5 years to get a grassroots effort together to change the kind of vicious partisanship we are currently experiencing (of course he never said that he started it). That would fit right in to a 2012 candidacy. In addition, he may believe that after 4 years of a Clinton Presidency Republicans will be willing to back him despite his high negatives. I hope he does jump in now but wouldn't mind him popping up in 2012.
Finally, Here's Newt himself:
“We had a surprising number of people contacting us,” Gingrich said. “The first response was pretty encouraging. Whether we would have gotten to $30 million, I can't say. Whether we could win, I can't say.”
But he kept the door open when asked if he would consider a race in 2012.
“Make a note now,” he said. “Call me the day after the 2008 election.”
So the two-part question for me is:
“Is a one-term presidency worth the potential cost of an 'inevitable' Clinton administration?
Or should we dream a little bigger and try to change the MSM storyline about the Democratic primary?”
Respectfully submitted,
Nate Freeman
Loading ...
My frustration with the content of Sen. Obama's campaign overheated while reading the friendly exchange between Vermonter and JD.
The Obama critiques are being hijacked by perceived slights. This misses the chance to examine the inherent – and obvious – dangers of the campaign Sen. Obama is waging. For better or worse, Sen. Obama is the frontrunner and he (and we) only have so much time to salvage a campaign that is becoming more and more ruinous in its squander of an historic opportunity.
Senator Obama is running an “Up-With-People” feel good campaign which, given our situation and unfortunate place in history, is insulting. It dismisses the dire jeopardy into which Mister Bush has placed the U.S. It shows an alarming insouciance for the pain caused by Mister Bush's actions, and it glosses over the behavior of a congress, in which he has been inaudaciously silent, that blithely enables those policies.
The issue of how candidates campaign is just as important as what the candidates declare they want to happen if elected. There are a boatload of things we all want to “happen;” however, explaining the fundemental changes required to accomplish anything of value is the most critical responsiblity facing each of the major Democratic candidates.
JD 's recent diary starts with a the politically (and phenomenologically) valid observation that
I tend not to like candidates that have that cult of personality thing going on, because if he wins, and pushes through bad legislation or ideas, his most ardent supporters are going to go along for the ride, unquestioning. We already have that with Bush. I don't want it with Obama.
Predictably, out come the complaints that he is trashing the Obama supporters. Read it again.
The criticism is squarely on Senator Obama's campaign strategy of non-offensive playing-out-the-clock to a nomination victory instead of running and leading to earn a mandate. He is squandering a chance to lead his supporters and the rest of us to accomplish the change and earn the political capital to destroy the ingrained policies and institutions that have corrupted the future of our country. The criticism is against the type of support a painless and leaderless campaign generates. It is a stretch to read it as criticism of those supporting a campaign when we all generally share common ground with our supporter of the various serious Democratic contenders.
Granted Sen. Obama is running a campaign. It is hard to fault a guy for sticking with a winning strategy. (My take is that Obama is playing it safe because he knows he's the front runner in the same way that Sen. Clinton is saying what she thinks people want to hear rather than what they need to because she thinks she is the front runner). The point for us Democrats (and nauseous nose-holding but engaged voters like JD) is that we already own a winning climate, not because the Democrats earned it but because the Republicans have alienated enough of the hardened and ambulatory brain injuries, who typically vote GOP, that it will be hard for the Dems to lose in 2008. Unlike 2004 we do not need to defeat a Republican in November, we need a candidate who will defeat the ingrained pathologies that have killed any meaningful future this country might otherwise possess.
Our need is for a leader who will not merely undue the damage of the last six years generation, but we must demand one who will attack the system that led to our current fiscal, economic, health care, security, foreign relations and physical infrastructure decay. A leader will not successfully “build bridges,” as Sen. Obama keeps metaphorically promising, without explaining how the construction will occur, how the construction needs to occur and why the old engineering is so broken and corrupt that it must be abandoned forever.
The criticism of Obama's campaign is well taken. I highlight it because I take his frontrunner status seriously and I see a trainwreck of squandered opportunity at the end of the tunnel. We ignore at our own peril the substantive criticism of the insubstantial campaign Sen. Obama is waging. Our risk is a nomination barely worth winning followed by an opportunity we jointly squander with another leader elected official who will otherwise coast when he needs to be pulling.
Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), the House Majority Leader, postponed a press conference announcing new reforms of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act after progressive lawmakers banded together and said they would fight any legislation that did not include a set of eight principles on wiretapping that preserve the “rule of law.”
“What's most significant is that the Progressive Caucus came together and said to the leadership that all 72 of us require that these provisions be included,” said Caroline Fredercikson, Legislative Director for the American Civil Liberties Union. “This changes the dynamic significantly.”
Not sure what the bill was going to say, but all the scuttlebutt was bad indeed. Stoller framed it as another capitulation on civil liberties proposed by #2 House Dem Steny Hoyer and Rahm Emanuel designed to protect vulnerable freshman by passing something they didn't want (I suppose with an inferred “you'll thank me for this someday” subtext). Whether the caucus really sank this or not is an open question, but I choose to believe it's the case – if for no other reason than if enough people believe it, it grants the P-Caucus a bit more clout. The text of the letter (again via HuffPo) after the jump.
This, along with the other good news that Welch is the hardest working freshman in the House, leaves him with a mixed grade for the last two weeks after disappointing votes on Iran and the MoveOn kerfuffle. The dude does keep us guessing.
Progressive Caucus Official Position and Fundamental Principles Governing FISA Reform, as adopted
October 3, 2007
We, Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, fully recognizing we live in a dangerous world but proud of, and deeply committed to, the values that have made the United States an exemplar for the world, affirm the following principles to guide consideration over the debate regarding surveillance of foreign intelligence. We hold that these principles represent the pillars by which America gives no quarter to terrorists who would do our country harm, while at the same time ensuring fidelity to the distinctively American commitment to the rule of law, the dignity of the individual, and separation of powers.
1. It should be the policy of the United States that the objective of any authorized program of foreign intelligence surveillance must be to ensure that American citizens and persons in America are secure in their persons, papers, and effects, but makes terrorists throughout the world feel insecure.
2. The best way to achieve these twin goals is to follow the rule of law. And the exclusive law to follow with respect to authorizing foreign surveillance gathering on U.S. soil is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). As initially enacted by Congress, the exclusivity of FISA was unambiguous. Legislation must reiterate current law that FISA is the exclusive means to authorize foreign surveillance gathering on U.S. soil.
3. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) should be modernized to accommodate new technologies and to make clear that foreign to foreign communications are not subject to the FISA, even though modern technology enables that communication to be routed through the United States.
4. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) is indispensable and must play a meaningful role in ensuring compliance with the law. This oversight should include, where possible, regular judicial approval and review of surveillance, of whose communications will be collected, of how it will be gathered, and of how content and other data in communications to and from the United States will be handled.
5. Congress must have regular access to information about how many U.S. communications are being collected and the authority to require court orders when it becomes clear that a certain program or surveillance of a target is scooping up communications of U.S. persons.
6. Once the government has reason to believe that a specific account, person or facility will have contact with someone in the United States, the government should be required to return to the FISC to obtain a court order for continued surveillance. Reliance on the FISC will help ensure the privacy of U.S. persons' communications.
7. Congress should not grant amnesty to any telecommunications company or to any other entity or individual for helping the NSA spy illegally on innocent Americans. The availability of amnesty will have the unintended consequence of encouraging telecommunications companies to comply with, rather than contest, illegal requests to spy on Americans.
8. Authorization to conduct foreign surveillance gathering on U.S. soil must never be made permanent. The threats to America's security and the liberties of its people will change over time and require constant vigilance by the people's representatives in Congress.
Ah, never a dull moment at ol' GMD, where no freewheeling debate about Presidential candidates goes unpunished. It occurs to me that perhaps it's time to channel some of that anxiety into yet another poll!
That's right, it's been many months since our first straight-up presidential preference poll. Oh sure, we've had a few modified polls, such as the “vote for everyone you could stand to vote for in the General” poll, but I don't think we've had a straight up preference poll since waaaay back in early aught-six, when Russ Feingold was the choice out of the 40 or so votes cast.
Well, after taking a moment to read this wondrous diary from Hunter at dKos, come on back and vote to make your candidate the official (for now) Vermont Netroots pick in the Democratic primary for president! Yesiree, we'll keep this poll up for a week, so time to turn all that frustrated energy into emailing your fellow candidate-supporters to get on over here and vote fer yer guy or gal. Remember – sadly, only registered users can vote, so sign up and freep that poll, folks (and consider this an open thread).
Just a quick note to let people know about a new blog called Welcome Campground. It's about the environment, environmental politics, and the life of an unusually aware and thoughtful college student in Missoula, Montana.
Oh yeah, and if he looks familiar, that's my son Adam.
Just a quick note to let people know about a new blog I learned about last night. It discusses the environment, environmental politics, and the life of an unusually aware and thoughtful college student in Missoula, Montana.
Oh yeah, and it's my son's blog. Go over there and check it out.