March 18th, 2007
I’ve seen Alec Baldwin appear on Faux News a couple of times, and have liked how he has performed against the belligerent Hannity and bloviating O’Rielly; and now I like what he has written here:
The low point in US politics (and it is the lowest point because of how close we all are to the lessons we should have learned from Vietnam, the first Iraq war, Watergate, etc.) has rendered us incapable of any real effort in the service real change. Americans, if not disgraced by their government, are enervated by it. And they hate it. I have never heard Americans speak so poorly of the institutions of our government as they are now.
Is a one-term Senator from Illinois the answer? Is a woman who is bright and strong-willed, yet in it just as much to rewrite her own epitaph as anything? Is she the answer? Could you ever vote Republican again? You’d have to pry all of their lips off of Bush’s ass before they could answer a debate question or kiss your baby. (Think about where all those Republicans lips have been before you even contemplate handing them that baby.)
There is a candidate out there who IS the answer. The only answer. And, in what I believe is the true American spirit, I would rather die under a government headed by such a man than live under one like we have now.
[...]
Think about it. One man. Smart. Experienced. Brave. Doing it for the RIGHT REASONS!
You want his phone number?
As others have speculated in response to this post by Baldwin, we’ve already got this mystery candidate’s number… DraftGore.com.
March 16th, 2007
Chris Bowers, of MyDD.com, has put together a nice list describing the characteristics of the Democratic Party establishment aristocrats that sold us out to conservative republicans over the past 20+ years. The characteristics of the Democratic Party establishment aristocrats are:
- Views primaries against incumbents as “purges,” especially when they come from the left. All Democratic Party officeholders should receive their party’s nomination by right of possession.
- Thinks the war in Iraq was managed badly, but ultimately wasn’t a bad idea.
- After reading one too many Mark Penn polls, makes up imaginary friends like the Baileys as the gold standard for the average American voter.
- Constantly argues that we should end the circular firing squad and focus our efforts at Republicans, while simultaneously triangulating against left-wing strawmen at the same time.
- Believes in concepts like the “radical middle,” or that American is fundamentally a moderate country, even though most people who consider themselves moderates are actually just low information voters and non-ideological.
- Considers Fox News to be a conservative, but still legitimate, news outlet. Will gladly go on Fox News to reach out to new voters.
- Believes cutting the defense budget is political suicide, and should not even be discussed lest Democrats look weak.
- Finds GLBT issues to unbelievably radioactive, and tries to steer the most cautious course possible in this area.
- In terms of cults of personality, hates Howard Dean and joined the efforts to derail his presidential campaign / try and push him out of the DNC; loves Joe Lieberman and decried the efforts to try and knock him off; is interested in Michael Bloomberg’s potential presidential run and subscribes to his newsletter.
- Thinks that the blogosphere, You Tube, MoveOn and other netroots developments are fundamentally negative for the Democratic Party. Such institutions are filled with a new generation of dirty fucking hippies who will lead the Democratic Party over the cliff of unelectablility due to our ignorance, foul mouths and unwavering adherence to a far-left ideology.
- Thinks that dissenting from the great, all-powerful left makes you a rebellious, cool “outsider.”
- Considers the conservative rise in elected power from 1978-2006 to be a natural result of the country turning to the right and which can be countered by turning to the right ourselves. Does not believe that the massive conservative political machinery constructed over the past few decades played a major role, or that progressive political machinery must be constructed to counter it.
- Thinks that all options must remain on the table against Iran, including the use of nuclear weapons, because threatening a pre-emptive nuclear strike against a relatively powerless country you are not at war with makes you look tough on national security issues rather than absolutely insane.
- Argued for censuring Bill Clinton as a political necessity despite his 60%+ approval rating, and against censuring George Bush, Jr. as a political necessity, despite his 35% approval rating.
- Considers those who oppose completely unregulated trade to simply be rubes, even if they are also part of the “radical middle” that must be courted at all costs.
- Speaking to the Democratic rank and file, rather than to swing voters, is fundamentally a waste of resources.
- Running a fifty state strategy and spending money on field or internet instead of only and ever focusing on TV ads in swing districts is a waste of resources.
- Even though he lost an open seat in an overwhelmingly Democratic year, believes that Harold Ford Jr. is the model for the future of the Democratic Party.
- Won’t read this post, or catch The Simpson’s reference in the Michael Bloomberg joke above.
March 15th, 2007
Via Crooks and Liars, after the Democratic Party take over of Congress after the 2006 elections it looks like Bush’s White House may finally be held in check:
“What you have here is a White House that has become an accountability free zone that is now facing the reality of checks and balances from Congress. For six years President Bush got pretty much whatever he wanted from a Republican-controlled rubber stamp Congress that refused to exercise any oversight of the Executive branch of government. Well, mercifully, that party appears to be over.”
March 2nd, 2007
And this is where we, Progressives, stand… establishment Democrats counting their few gold coins, while Roman soldiers point their lances in our direction…
With the announcement that Lieberman is going to give the Democratic radio response to Bush on Walter Reed, it’s pretty well confirmed that progressives are shut out of the Congressional halls of power. First it was Feingold’s defunding proposal being poleaxed, then Hoyer winning the Majority Leader contest, then it was Murtha’s plan sandbagged by Blue Dogs, then it was Reid allowing Fox News as the anchor for the Nevada Presidential debate, then it was Joe Biden and Carl Levin failing to do anything substantive on Iraq, and now it’s a full-throated embrace of Lieberman. And yes, this was Harry Reid’s choice.
From what I understand from talking to a few progressives on the Hill, the freshmen in Congress are being extensively ‘trained’ by Rahm Emanuel’s DLC band of consultants and pollsters, which is one reason they’ve been silent.
February 27th, 2007
A tough message from a prominent anti-war leader to elected Democrats:
A leading figure of the antiwar movement is warning that Congressional Dems are at risk of badly botching the public relations battle over Iraq and is urging Congressional Dems to move more aggressively to confront the Republicans in the political showdown over ending the war.
The antiwar leader, Tom Andrews, the head of Win Without War, made the comments in an interview with Election Central. His comments reflected what he said is a growing anxiety among antiwar leaders that Congressional Dems are so consumed with uniting their caucus that they’re neglecting to articulate a forceful enough antiwar message and thus risk fumbling the current PR war.
“Democrats have to fight,” Andrews tells us. “Where are the voices in Congress reflecting the majority view of the American people?”
Andrew says that Dems are being far too timid in the face of a fierce GOP propaganda assault that has for days targeted Jack Murtha in an effort to define his plan for attaching conditions to war funds as micromanaging the war and defunding the troops.
