Congress Must Intervene

Via Dailykos.com, this is a great analogy about the Bush administration, and why the Democratic Party led Congress needs to intervene:

Netroots ‘06 candidate Gary Trauner (WY-AL) visited D.C. last week, and spoke to the Democratic Caucus on Iraq. He reports back in a diary to us:

I had the opportunity last week to spend some time in DC with the Democratic House Caucus as they debated the Iraq Supplemental bill.  In fact, I was given the opportunity to speak to the Caucus for a few minutes.  Against the advice of several "consultants" who wanted me to just show up, be bland and ask for financial support, I couldn’t let this golden chance slip by without giving them my take on the Iraq situation from a different angle….

I told our Dem Representatives that perhaps we should use the language of the free market so often used by Republicans and their corporate sponsors. The way I see it, Congress is the Board of Directors of the largest, most important enterprise in the history of the world - the United States of America - and the President is the CEO. But he’s a weak CEO surrounded by a bad management team. In these circumstances, there isn’t a company worth it’s salt in America where the Board should not step in to set strategic, and sometimes tactical, parameters. In fact, in these circumstances, any Board has a fiduciary obligation, a responsibility, to its shareholders – in this case, every American citizen – to intervene with purpose, decisiveness and conviction to change the strategic course of the organization. If we’ve learned anything from the recent corporate scandals at Enron, MCI, etc., it should be that while some of the scandals arose from bad people purposefully doing bad things, these corporate frauds were enabled largely because of ineffective Board oversight and unconscionable Board inaction.

In the business world, strong Board action in the face of a ineffective CEO/management team that is pursuing a rigid and ill-planned strategy isn’t micromanaging – its called good governance.  And, in my view, it‘s good politics.

I can tell you that the arguments I heard in the Dem House Caucus were by and large impassioned and heartfelt.  And leadership is working hard to come up with a solution.  But here in the west, after knocking on nearly 20,000 doors across Wyoming last year, I KNOW that people want straight talk and a Representative who will stand up for his/her convictions.

This is Congress’ chance to show the American people that they have the courage to hold others accountable, and that they have the intestinal fortitude to do the right thing regardless of political calculation.

That’s an important message for our Blue Dogs to hear. Gary ran in the reddest of the Red States–Wyoming. If the people in Wyoming think it’s time for the President’s hands to be tied on this war, maybe it is.

Signs of the Democratic Party Aristocrats

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.

Democratic Party, Not Democrat Party

During one of my blog excursions I came across the following:

Can someone please explain why it matters if a winger calls us the "Democrat Party"? I understand that it’s supposed to be a slur (I don’t really see how), but how does it impact anything? Why waste your breath on an "ic"?

which prompted me to write the following in response:

I find it quite amazing that a sophisticated observer of our national politics, as I’m certain you are, would ask the question as you did, "[H]ow does [use of the term 'Democrat Party'] impact anything?"

On its face your reflexive response on to the impact of the term ‘Democrat Pary’ seems quite reasonable. However, if one but takes one step back a larger and, admittedly, more complex image emerges. The image that emerges is control of the terms of the political discourse, where even seemingly inconsequential labels matter. Just to illustrate the point, look at the contentious press conferences that Rumsfeld held on what label should be used to describe the armed Iraqi opposition following the invasion: insurgents, terrorists, ‘dead-enders,’ etc. As long as Democratic Party supporters accept the labels that the opposition places on us, we concede ideological/public perception turf in the battle for the hearts and minds of the American public. And, in large part, this is what grassroots members of the Democratic Party are plain tired of: Democratic official and operatives that don’t stand up for the party and for the broad progressive principles that the party stands for. Democratic Party grassroots members simply want representatives that are willing and able to demonstrate some backbone when engaged by the opposition — even when it comes to seemingly innocuous issues such as the label of the party (which, by the way, is Democratic Party NOT Democrat Party).

Media Matters has a nice summation of the issue:

The ungrammatical conversion of the noun "Democrat" to an adjective was the brainchild of Republican partisans, presumably an attempt to deny the opposing party the claim to being "democratic" — or in the words of New Yorker magazine senior editor Hendrik Hertzberg, "to deny the enemy the positive connotations of its chosen appellation." In the early 1990s, apparently due largely to the urging of then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) and Republican pollster Frank Luntz, the use of the word "Democrat" as an adjective became near-universal among Republicans.

…

Further, Hertzberg wrote that "among those of the Republican persuasion," the use of " ‘Democrat Party’ is now nearly universal" thanks to "Newt Gingrich, the nominal author of the notorious 1990 memo ‘Language: A Key Mechanism of Control,’ and his Contract with America pollster, Frank Luntz." While Hertzberg noted that Luntz "road-tested the adjectival use of ‘Democrat’ with a focus group in 2001" and "concluded that the only people who really dislike it are highly partisan adherents of the … Democratic Party," he also wrote that Luntz had told him recently that "[t]hose two letters ['ic'] actually do matter," and that Luntz "recently finished writing a book … entitled ‘Words That Work.’ " [URL]

And from the Hendrik Hertzberg article directly:

There’s no great mystery about the motives behind this deliberate misnaming. "Democrat Party" is a slur, or intended to be–a handy way to express contempt.

…

In the conservative media, the phenomenon feeds more voraciously the closer you get to the mucky, sludgy bottom. "Democrat Party" is standard jargon on right-wing talk radio and common on winger Web sites like NewsMax.com[.] [URL]

At the end of the day, it’s about who controls the terms of our national public discourse. Moreover, by using and accepting the derogatory label that the opposition bestows on the Democratic Party, we leave at the table whatever positive linguistic connotation we may gain in the public’s mind with the usage of the correct party label, Democratic Party.

FireDogLake Action Plan: “U.S. Constitution: Do Not Shred”

FireDogLake brings us a civic action for today’s busy and time starved activist:

The Rubber Stamp Republican Congress is about to get a wake-up call.

For Phase One:  The Senate Judiciary Committee will be holding more hearings on the illegal domestic NSA spying without a warrant on Tuesday.  They will also be holding hearings on Sen. Russ Feingold’s censure resolution on Friday.   We’d like to get their attention, and let them know that illegal actions of the President and upholding the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are issues about which Americans care deeply.

If you have ten to fifteen minutes today, please take part in FireDogLake’s "Citizen Action" plan.

Here’s the plan:

We’re headed back to the FAX machines this morning.  Please take some time to FAX the members of the Judiciary Committee and let them know how you feel about this issue.

But start with the following header, in big type, across the top of your missive:

U.S. Constitution:  Do Not Shred

[...]

Here are the FAX numbers for the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee:

• Arlen Specter, Chairman - Pennsylvania - Fax (202) 228-1229
• Orrin G. Hatch - Utah - Fax (202) 224-6331
• Patrick J. Leahy - Vermont - Fax (202) 224-3479
• Charles E. Grassley - Iowa - Fax (515) 288-5097
• Edward M. Kennedy - Massachusetts - Fax (202) 224-2417
• Jon Kyl - Arizona - Fax (202) 224-2207
• Joseph R. Biden, Jr. - Delaware - Fax (202) 224-0139
• Mike DeWine - Ohio - Fax (202) 224-6519
• Herbert Kohl - Wisconsin - Fax (202) 224-9787
• Jeff Sessions - Alabama - Fax (202) 224-3149
• Dianne Feinstein - California - Fax (202) 228-3954
• Lindsey Graham - South Carolina - Fax (864) 250-4322
• Russell D. Feingold - Wisconsin - Fax (202) 224-2725
• John Cornyn - Texas - Fax (972) 239-2110
• Charles E. Schumer - New York - Fax (202) 228-3027
• Sam Brownback - Kansas - Fax (202) 228-1265
• Richard J. Durbin - Illinois - Fax (202) 228-0400
• Tom Coburn - Oklahoma - Fax (202) 224-6008

Head over to FireDogLake for more on this action.