On The Left Tip

Barack & Awe in Virginia

2008-11-09T21:48:00.001-05:00

(Cross-posted at Raising Kaine)

Update [2008-11-9 17:1:19 by RenaRF]: A commenter objected to the connotation of "Shock & Awe" in the title. But frankly, I couldn't think of a better title to characterize what went on here in VA. Thankfully, BobzCat gave me the perfect title: "Barack & Awe*. Diary titled edited with grateful attribution. :)

I've been planning a diary about what happened in Virginia for the last week. Finally, I have time to sit down and share my stories as well as some interesting analysis.

What happened in Virginia was an electoral version of shock and awe. It was nothing short of spectacular - and I was fortunate enough to witness it and participate in it on the ground for Barack Obama.

More over the fold.

First, many here know that I was very involved on the ground for Webb's Senate victory in 2006, along with other Kossacks. We wrote about it extensively - begged for money, begged for remote phone-bankers, and begged for local ground-level volunteers. We got all of that. This community absolutely responded and was an integral part of Webb's win over the disgusting George Allen, Jr. What people may have forgotten, however, is how very NARROW the margin of victory was for Jim Webb. He won by 0.39%. That's less than one half of one percent. It was close - too close.

So this cycle, building on the idea that nothing motivates quite like success (which we experienced in 2006), many of us got started early for Barack Obama. There were several phases of the ground game and canvass effort here in Virginia, and we were greatly helped by the existence of 50 or more offices across the state. The first two phases started during the primaries and picked up on June when it was clear that Obama would win the Democratic nomination. These were voter identification, where you knock on the doors of voters who affiliation you can't identify in an effort to fully identify lean and strong Obama voters, and voter registration, where you manned tables and/or knocked doors in Democratic areas to ensure registration of your voters. Sometimes, these two activities were done in a single canvass. Sometimes they were functionally separate. The voter ID and registration phases ended in the first week of October, and left the final month of the campaign for concerted get-out-the-vote efforts.

Every weekend that I was in town, I showed up to canvass. I chose, primarily, the Arlington and Alexandria areas, but I was also sent to Loudoun and down to Prince William. So be it. But let me fast-forward and talk specifically about the final, intense push from Saturday November 1 through the final voting on Tuesday November 4.

First - and people don't realize this - from July to poll closing on election day, every Northern Virginia office - in the city, suburbs, and exurbs - was packed. Those of us who had been at the canvass for a while knew that if we were to actually secure a canvass packet, we had to show up fully an hour before the canvass was scheduled to start and lay claim to a packet on the basis of hyper-punctuality. So complete was the volunteer saturation that they literally ran out of walk lists for the number of people who showed up. I saw this consistently throughout the offices where I worked.

Saturday and Sunday were no different. On Saturday, I did a North Arlington canvass and then went out and did a McLean canvass. Now - North Arlington is notoriously Democratic and deep blue regardless of the relative income level of the neighborhood. The canvass was primarily get-out-the-vote, but there was some holdover identification where previous efforts simply hadn't yielded a result. The voters who I spoke to in North Arlington were almost exclusively Obama voters and were vocally committed to waiting as long as it would take to vote on election day. The McLean canvass was weirder. I was in a high high dollar neighborhood. I'd say the homes in this particular area were in the neighborhood of $2M-$3M. So large were these lots that I literally had to drive to each house on the list. I didn't get a lot of people home - only four of the houses on my list had someone who answered the door. One voter - a 27 year old man - was definitely voting for McCain. That's not unusual in this particular area of Fairfax County. I chalked it up to money trying to protect money (sad but true). BUT - the other three houses not only contained families of Obama voters - they were families who had also voted early in-person absentee and went solidly for the entire Democratic ticket.

It was after that McLean canvass that I started to get super excited. Sunday saw me doing Alexandria. I particularly loved this canvass because I was able to take along a first-time volunteer who wanted to tag along with someone who knew how to canvass. Our first neighborhood was in Alexandria around the Masonic Temple (if you're familiar with the area, the masonic Temple is a well-known landmark). On our way over, I had a chance to speak with my new volunteer, Nico. Nico isn't a US citizen. He's here on a work visa finishing an advanced degree in astro-physics. I asked him why he felt the need to volunteer. His answer (which I'll paraphrase) was really interesting.

NICO: "I didn't have a strong opinion until the Republican Convention. When I watched McCain, I thought, 'this guy is crazy'. He scared me. What America does affects the rest of the world. In France, if we go along with whatever America has decided to do, we send people to war. And if we don't go along with it, we deal with the scorn of America. I figured I should do what I could to help Obama because I believe that he'll be good for the rest of the world."

Amen. About three doors into our canvass, after getting positive results, Nico was on fire. He was totally all about knocking on doors and talking to voters. It was really, really excellent. When we got back to the organizing location to fill in our tally sheet and turn in our packet, Nico pulled me aside and said, "We're doing another one, yes?". Yes. Ha. :) So off we went to the Del Rey area of Alexandria to get out that vote.

Monday was, without exception, one of the most awesome mobilizations I have ever seen. The goal was simple: place a door hanger on every single door across the state of Virginia where we had identified a lean or strong Obama voter. The door hangers gave the date of the election, provided some basic voting rights information, provided a number to call if the voter needed a ride or had other questions, and were stamped with the voter's specific polling location. Four shifts were scheduled to get it done. By the end of the second shift, every single door hanger had been distributed in Northern Virginia. Every. Single. One. The volunteer turnout was so massive that it was just done.

Amazing.

I wrote a diary earlier in the week about an "emergency" canvass we did late Monday - I won't go into the details here as you can read about it if you desire - but it made the day feel completely worthwhile and made the excitement build that much more.

I got up at 5:30 on election day. I brushed my teeth, threw on sweats, and rolled out to my polling location for the 6am open. It took me until almost 7am to actually cast my vote. I have NEVER seen the number of people I saw in line to vote in my 12 years of voting at this particular location. So although I was tired (Monday had been a late night - I went to a rally in Alexandria where they had a Jumbotron for us to watch Obama's Manassas rally), seeing the lines let me know that the final get-out-the-vote effort was critical.

I headed to Arlington. They were overwhelmed with volunteers. They asked if I would travel, and I told them I would (of course). They sent me to Dale City, in Prince William County. From there, they sent me out to canvass a predominantly Democratic area of medium-to-low income voters who don't always turn out. I did both a Pass 1 and Pass 2 canvass. A LOT of people were home. And of those people, about 75% had already voted and had voted for Obama. I could feel this victory.

After the canvass, I went quickly home - I phonebanked to other parts of Virginia via the web site, then changed my clothes and headed to the McLean Hilton, where Warner's victory party was to be held. It was actually a nail-biter, because Virginia didn't get called for Obama until about 11pm EST. When you looked at the results, McCain looked to be wildly ahead. I had my laptop and wireless card on me, so I pulled up the Virginia results site and saw that virtually NONE of the Democratic counties and cities had reported. I felt better, but we were all totally on edge. When Virginia fell, the whole election fell shortly thereafter.

Hallelujah.

So here's what's interesting about Virginia's numbers.

First, let's look at counties and cities that were won by Kerry in 2004 and also won by Obama in 2008 (2008 VA Presidential results can be found here. 2004 Presidential results can be found here - just use the drop-down box to select a particular city or county):

Look at how dramatically Obama improved over Kerry's numbers and how it came totally at the expense of John McCain. A M A Z I N G.

But here's one that's even more amazing. I pared down my list to those counties/cities that McCain picked up over 2004 vs. those Obama picked up over 2004. LOOK at this (Sorry - I intended to edit out Arlington in the second chart and now that it's a JPG, I can't remove it):

Obama picked up NINETEEN counties and cities over Kerry in 2004. NINETEEN. There were only EIGHT cities or counties - two of which are above - where Obama lost ground compared to Kerry's 2004 margin, win or lose. So what I'm saying is - even where Obama lost in a particular city or county, he did so by gaining over Kerry's 2004 performance at the expense of John McCain.

Obama won Virginia, at the end of the day, by 6.25% (link). Kerry lost Virginia to Bush by 8.2% (link). That's a 14.45% swing in four years.

The shock and awe, of course, started with the candidate himself. But really - credit is due to the impressive nature of the organization in Virginia and the selfless, repeated efforts by thousands of volunteers who showed up again and again.

Personal closing note: I really had intended to write this diary on Wednesday. Unfortunately, at 10:30am on Wednesday, I found out that I am likely to be laid off next week. My whole group is being dissolved. So, if you can spare some good thoughts, karma, prayers, whatever - I'd surely appreciate it!

"Yes We Can"

2008-02-02T16:33:00.000-05:00

This speaks for itself.

Save Them. Now.

2007-11-23T12:47:00.000-05:00

(Originally posted at Daily Kos.)

^{Humpback Swimming Underwater - Image © Greenpeace}

(Some images are used with permission of Greenpeace - many thanks to Rick Gentry for his gracious response to my request. Those images bear the Greenpeace copyright in accordance with their terms. Other images are taken from Wikipedia Commons, a freely licensed media repository.)

I have to say - I was very lucky growing up in that I got to travel to a lot of wonderful places and do things that many people don't do in their lifetimes.

One of the most indelible and wonderful memories I have was a trip my family and I took to Hawaii when I was about 14 or 15 years old. We went in February, and the highlight of the trip was a charter excursion we took to "swim" with the humpback whales.

Much, much more after the fold.My Humpback Whale Story

My mother was in high-tech sales - I've mentioned that in other diaries on other subjects in the past. She was very successful. One thing that any professional salesperson reading this knows is that successful salespeople and sales managers who meet or exceed their revenue quotas typically receive what is referred to as a "Club Trip". Essentially, the top and over-quota performers and their spouses are treated to a trip somewhere beautiful and warm at the expense of the company to thank them for their success and to bring them all together in mutual celebration.

One year the trip was to Maui in Hawaii. I don't know if it was because my parents didn't want to leave me alone (well-founded concerns on that front!) or that they really wanted to provide me the experience - I suspect it was a little of both - but they paid the extra airfare and room charges to ensure that I was included. That was how I came to go to Hawaii and to be included on this wonderful once-in-a-lifetime experience of whale watching.

^{Breaching Humpback Whale}

February is the perfect time to be in the South Pacific if you want even a chance of seeing the humpback whale. We rose early on that day and donned our bathing suits and headed for the boat. Once on board, we were told that we would be sailing for quite some time to get us in the proximity of the whale migration channels. We went really far out into the ocean. I remember feeling some measure of trepidation because by the time we got to where we would drop anchor and wait, we couldn't see land. At all. We were a speck on the vastness of the Pacific, bobbing gently in the swells on a near-perfect Hawaiian day.

The plan was to don our snorkel gear and fling ourselves into the ocean. We were given parameters - how far we could go, how to ensure we utilized the buddy system (which was mandatory), etc. I remember to this day some 25 years later feeling breathlessly nervous at the moment just before I eased myself into the water. While the South Pacific's waters are crystal clear, we were so far out and in such deep water that the ocean bottom was fathomless. As I slid into the water and felt the ocean close around me, I swam away from the boat towards the whale lanes the crew had indicated were our best opportunity for spotting the humpback. I stayed near to my parents, of course, but there was an overwhelming sense of smallness that surrounded me as the boat became smaller as our distance from it increased.

^{Breaching Humpback Whale}

We were out there, paddling around with our fins and snorkel gear, looking down into the water and out towards where we hoped we would spot a whale. It seemed as though an eon had passed as we furtively scanned the underwater landscape. The charter company made no assertion that we would absolutely see a whale - only that they would put us in proximity should whales be present on that day and at that time. Honestly, I think we had given up the idea that we were going to see a whale when, behind us, we heard people calling excitedly. We turned and used our fins to propel us to the spot. By looking slightly downward and out across the underwater horizon, we saw it: a mother humpback with her calf. Make no mistake - we were at some distance - the deal was not that you swam up to a humpback whale and fed it or pet it or anything - but even away from the whale you could see its sheer size. I already felt small, and seeing this giant creature made me feel even smaller. Yet there was no sense of vulnerability on my part. I can't describe it. Looking at that mother and her calf, I felt two things at once: the first was an overwhelming sense of peace, and the second was a connection to the fact that I was in the presence of intelligence.

She tolerated our presence - patiently. We stayed as long as we possible could until she and her calf swam off. There was a vague sense of emptiness upon her departure, but also a keen sense of satisfaction and connectedness - to her, to the ocean, to the earth. To everything.

Once we were back on the boat, removing our snorkel gear and getting ready to head back, the crew again verbally alerted us to something going on off the bow of the boat. We all moved forward and looked out to the ocean horizon. We were treated to a humpback - maybe the same one, maybe not - "breaching". It was one of the most amazing experiences of my life.

Japan is breaking a moratorium on hunting the Humpback for the first time since 1963.

From an article in Time magazine:

Under a loophole in the 1986 International Whaling Commission (IWC) ban against commercial whaling, Japan has continued to kill hundreds of whales every year for scientific research. Once a whale is killed, scientists collect data from the animal's remains on its age, birthing rate and diet; the meat is then packaged and sold. Japan maintains that the research is essential for managing the whale population. "Minke or humpback, we see whales as a marine resource," says Moronuki [Ed. note - Moronuki is a spokesman for the Japan Fisheries Agency. The fact that "moron" is in his name seems quite fitting.]. Still, most observers have long been skeptical of any benefits from the project. "I haven't met one person, pro-whalers or not, outside of the Fisheries Agency payroll who believe that these researches are useful," says Greenpeace Australia Pacific's CEO Steve Shallhorn. Tensions have been heating up in recent hunts. In February, a member of Japan's whaling fleet was killed in a ship fire following a series of confrontations with vessels from Sea Shepherd. Both Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd say that they are prepared to "chase, block, and harass" any attempts by the whaling fleet to harpoon humpbacks.

You don't have to have been fortunate enough to have seen an actual humpback whale in the wild to appreciate the beauty and intelligence of this creature. Killing them for any purpose is barbaric and it MUST be stopped.

What YOU Can Do.

^{Greenpeace Takes Action: Sign reads "Bush, Fukuda - End Whaling" - Image © Greenpeace}

- Use Greenpeace's site to contact your elected officials. Greenpeace really has this down. If you follow the link, you can input your zip code, provide your contact information, and then either use the letter they provide or edit it to include your personal comments and thoughts. Click "send" and it's away, no harm no fuss.

- Send an eCard to your friends and family. Let them know about the renewed Japanese whaling and ask for their help in ending it.

- Create your own Greenpeace fundraising page. This is a simple 2-step process where you provide your information, customize your page (if desired), and launch it. Send your fundraising link to people in your address book and help raise awareness and money to save the whales.

^{The Great Whale Trail - Image © Greenpeace}

- Make a simple donation to Greenpeace. Greenpeace is actively working to stop the Japanese whale hunts. In many cases, Greenpeace vessels and crew physically put themselves and their vessels in the path of the whaling ships and save whales literally one at a time. Won't you help them do this critical work?

I have created a personal fundraising page to help save the whales from Japanese whaling efforts. I would love, if you decide to make a donation, if you did so through my page.

PLEASE help save these beautiful and intelligent creatures from the caprice of mankind. Any combination of the above suggested actions will go a long way towards helping to end the slaughter. I thank you for your time.

^{Image © Greenpeace}

Just sharing.

2007-11-06T17:49:00.001-05:00

This brings tears to my eyes every time I listen to it. I can't explain it - but it connects to me. Enjoy.

Applause, Please.

2007-11-04T12:49:00.000-05:00

(Cross-posted from Daily Kos)

I'm serious. Before I get into it, let me say - if you don't know me (I've had almost zero time to write the past six months), I'll introduce myself. I'm RenaRF, and I first came to Daily Kos immediately following the 2004 Presidential election. If you're doing the math, that means I've been here in varying active capacities for three years. I would like to think that I would not be categorized as a Markos fawner. I don't crawl up his ass, and I frankly don't agree with him on a variety of different things.

Last night Markos was a panelist on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher. I watched the whole show, and I'm telling you - every member of this community should give him a round of applause. More after the click.

Bear with me and my thought process for a bit. If you follow this Archive.org link, you'll see what Daily Kos looked like in August of 2002. Note particularly that of the 12 entries on what was then the "front page" of Daily Kos, the most comments any one post received was three. Three! Anyone can visit Daily Kos' "About" page to learn how and why it came into being. This excerpt sums it up pretty nicely:

Markos Moulitsas -- a.k.a. "kos" -- created Daily Kos on May 26, 2002, in those dark days when an oppressive and war-crazed administration suppressed all dissent as unpatriotic and treasonous. As a veteran, Moulitsas was offended that the freedoms he pledged his life for were so carelessly being tossed aside by the reckless and destructive Republican administration.

Now fast-forward 5 years and a handful of months and Markos is a panelist on Bill Maher's HBO show. What started as a personal outlet has grown to a bonafide movement that inches forward in influence with every single post and comment.

Last night's Maher show was rife with people I would consider luminaries. Maher's lead-off, post-monologue interview was with Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame Wilson. His mid-panel via satellite interview was with Jeremy Scahill, investigative journalist and author of Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army. His panelists were Markos, Alison Stewart (host of NPR's Bryant Park Project and frequent guest host of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann), and comedian Martin Short. I think my only wish would have been that one of the more odious Republicans would have been on the panel - THAT would have been extra-fun - but all-in-all, this was quite a lineup and Markos had a key seat at the table.

In case you're wondering, Markos has been on Real Time before. It was on August 25, 2006 (Mr Met wrote a brief diary with many comments about it), and Markos was an interviewed guest as opposed to a panelist (the wonderful Al Rodgers kindly posted the video of Markos' appearance in this comment). I thought he did well in that appearance. But being chosen as a panelist is, to my mind, a far greater honor than simply being interviewed.

So let me turn to last night's show with some selected parts that I have transcribed from my DVR.

Topic #1 - Hillary Clinton, MSM CW, Debate Talk

Now - In the diary comments last night I saw a lot of outrage about whether or not, specifically, Maher and Markos were "carrying water" for Hillary Clinton. I don't believe they were. The central point that Maher made was simply that the media has turned on Hillary Clinton presumably as a result of the latest debate and that he (Maher) didn't think her performance was "that awful". That's hardly tantamount to "carrying water" for her. Here's a bit of the discussion:

MARKOS: I know [referring to stumbling in the debate]. There's a couple of things. One is that, clearly she didn't do as bad as people say she did. But, she did poorer than before. She was a machine the first few debates. She was perfect. So now she's a little less perfect...

STEWART: She let them see her sweat. That was the for the first time you've seen Hillary Clinton actually sweat a little bit. Especially in the last two minutes, and also in the middle. She really raised her voice. She'd gotten really good about modulating her voice - remember when she used to give her speeches and then she was like [raises voice], "I will tell you exactly what I think" - And so she clearly... [unintelligible] ...and then it came down and then through the debate [raises voice] she started talking to you like this again. And by the end, I was in first grade again.

MARKOS: But clearly it's nowhere near as bad, and I think the media wants a horse race at this point. They spent a year [crosstalk], they spent - what - the last two years...

MAHER: They have to change the story. It was getting boring.

MARKOS: It really was getting boring.

So all you water-carrying criers - come on. The essential point of this exchange was a knock on the MEDIA - NOT a pimping of Hillary Clinton.

Topic #2 - Immigration

I found this highly interesting, Markos notwithstanding (e.g., it was Maher's comments that caught my attention the most):

MAHER: ...but it's really part of the bigger issue, which is immigration. The Republicans have once again been able to creat a boogeyman out of complete cloth. It's astounding the way they're able to do this. They did it with Iraq. Nothing had changed with Iraq - when we went to war with Iraq - nothing. It was still Saddam Hussein with that corrupt regime. Ok - now they did it with immigration, and I read a poll this week that said independents - who the Democrat[s] need to get elected - for them, the #1 issue in this country is our broken borders. They've been listening to Lou Dobbs. And the Democrats could lose on this issue - this completely non-issue, because once again, nothing changed. Yes, there's 12 million immigrants doing jobs in this country.

MARKOS: I think that poll's completely bunk. Every - I mean, I swim in polls. It's my job. And every poll I've seen shows that independents and Democrats are almost eerily aligned on the issue. The poll actually asks for "unprotected borders". Who the hell is for unprotected borders? Nobody is. I mean...

This was where everyone jumped in and Markos got more or less drowned out. His point, and I thought it was a good one, was that the polls are skewed because of the nature of the question asked. Very few people will answer "yes" if asked if they support unprotected borders. The larger issue, for me, was the idea that immigration, while clearly something the US needs to address from a broad policy perspective, is not the issue Republicans are making it out to be. I hadn't considered that we're essentially being set up. Again. But I digress.

Topic #3 - General Stupidity of the Electorate, Mike Huckabee

I LOVED LOVED LOVED this exchange. Bear with me. Markos wrapped it expertly.

MAHER: Listen. Mike Huckabee, the Republican candidate says the reason we have to import so many illegals in our workforce - he said it might be that for the last 35 years we have aborted more than a million people. Hm. You see, there's your connection. Those people we aborted would have all been fruit pickers.

SHORT: It's a lovely thought. He's quite the thinker.

::snip::

MAHER: He's [Huckabee] lost the weight. He's also the one who doesn't believe in evolution...

MARKOS: This is perfect, though. Here's a guy who's really obsessed with abortion - you know, trying to tie it in to the border issue which is red meat for his base - but once these kids are born, they don't care. They don't give a damn. And so they veto healthcare for children but, before they're born, they care so much.

STEWART: But this shouldn't be a shocker about Mike Huckabee. He's so affable...

MAHER: I'm not saying this to attack Mike Huckabee, and he is a nice guy. What I'm saying is that it could work on the stupidity in this country. That's what worries me - is people actually hear that and go "Oh there you go. That's the problem. Our fruit would get picked if we hadn't aborted those people. Makes sense to me because I live in idiocracy."

SHORT: But that has worked. If we fight them... if we fight them over there we won't have to fight them here. That worked.

MARKOS: 24% still approve of George Bush. So you've got a quarter of the public that's going to be pretty stupid no matter what we do.

Hah. Perfect.

Topic #4 - Why Democrats Can't/Don't use Statewide Wedge Issues As Republicans Do

this was interesting because this was where Markos nailed Maher (rightfully). Relevant parts below:

MAHER: So why can't the Democrats do what the Republicans do - which is get on the ballot in states - initiatives that get their people out to vote. In 2004, famously, gay marriage got their crowd out there and while they were in the voting booth, of course they voted for George Bush. Why can't the Democrats figure out that same strategy. You know. Like here in blue state crazy California - I mean, if we had a - something on the ballot that said you get free ecstasy and that the government would pay for it and send it in your mailbox, I mean, people would come out and vote for that.

::snip::

MAHER: Even - what about a draft. You know, that would get young people - I mean the young people are all for the Democrats but they don't show up because they're asleep in a ditch on voting day.

MARKOS: You know, to be fair, last election cycle the youth vote actually came out in record numbers. And we've seen that for the last two cycles. They're getting to the point where they're actually matching the general population in voting trends. The draft wouldn't work. The draft is a Federal issue - it's not a state issue...

MAHER: No, you could draft for the state National Guard.

MARKOS: It's actually still a Federal issue. So but what you have is - you have Democrats that are doing minimum wage...

MAHER: [squinting and shaking his head at Markos] He's shooting down my premise. Mr. Reader [makes finger quotes].

MARKOS: We're not going to need ballot initatives to win this next election. If we can't point to what Republicans have done to this country in eight years and win, then we don't deserve to win this election.

::snip::

STEWART: I mean, what could be a wedge issue [this directed to Markos]. This is your world, you swim in polls...

MARKOS: I mean, right now, healthcare for children apparently a wedge issue. I mean, I can't believe it that they would veto this, but apparently, taking care of children is a wedge issue. Now you have the Republicans, their philosophy is, government doesn't work. So how can you possibly have a government that works if you're a Republican, because you would invalidate your own ideology. That's why Bush puts people like horse lawyers in charge of FEMA. Because you can't possibly work or...

MAHER: [laughing] Horse lawyers. That was a lawyer for a horse, wasn't it.

Excellent.

There was then general discussion about the media, how they handle the debates, and how it affects frontrunners and challengers. It was an interesting discussion, but there wasn't really anything I wanted to highlight from this segment. From there Maher went into his usual mid-panel schtick (this week it was Rummy's "snowflake memos", both real and manufactured) and his interview with Jeremy Scahill. Then it was back to the panel.

Topic #5 - Iraq. Lower death numbers. The surge.

Let me point out - Maher, to me, played devil's advocate for this part of the panel discussion, as he sometimes does. He set the stage by giving the latest numbers that are being touted about the two months worth of lower US troop deaths.

MAHER. Look - I'm just going to be Fox News here for a second because I've got a panel of liberals. So what I saw all on the news this week is that things in Iraq are turning around. Fallujah, apparently, is a paradise. It's more secure than my own studio. Less than half the attacks than there were a year ago now. Iraqi deaths are down by two-thirds. Lowest US death count in over a year, only 29 this month - I mean it's 29, it's horrible, but by comparison - maybe - this thing is burning itself out. Is it possible that something good could now be coming out of Iraq?

MARKOS: Well actually this month - I mean this year so far is going to far outpace any year before it in the number of Iraqi deaths, in the number of American deaths. So...

MAHER: I'm talking about the last few months.

::snip::

MARKOS: [Regarding Fallujah] That was an ABC news report and two years ago, ABC News filed that exact same report. We've heard "mission accomplished" too many times.

STEWART: The Washington Post also reported on it.

MARKOS: Yeah. It's - there is - when you flood the zone...

MAHER: You're not rooting against victory, are you?

MARKOS: Of course not. When you flood a zone with troops you're going to get...

MAHER: More important...

MARKOS: Fallujah's been ethnically cleansed. You don't have the sectarian violence there that you used to have when actual people of different colors and different religions used to live there. And you have a case of whack-a-mole - you put troops in Fallujah, they all run somewhere else. They're all sitting back because we can't sustain this. Now when we went into the surge, the reason we did the surge wasn't to pacify Fallujah. It was for the Iraqi government to create space for reconciliation and the passage of this oil law and sort of the factions in the Iraqi government coming together and finding a solution for their country. That hasn't happened.

STEWART: Two things - I want to follow-up on something that you said [indicating Markos] and follow something you said [indicating Maher]. I've been a journalist for 16 years so...

SHORT: Anything I said? [laughter] [Short snuggles and kisses up to her with some crosstalk]

STEWART: Just to correct that you're talking to three liberals here, I'm a journalist and I try to be objective about things - hi boss -

MAHER: I do. That's why I'm asking the question.

STEWART: But just to follow up on the point you mentioned [turned towards Markos] - I think it's an interesting one and an important one when you talk about the idea of - if you're talking about the surge - and you say, ok, yes it did work, what happens when there's no more surge. And that means, is everybody going to stay. So we have to stay to make it continue to work. And are we preapred for that.

What I found interesting about this exchange was that Stewart turned her entire focus and attention to Markos. She did that numerous times throughout Maher's show. Short did as well.

Topic #6 - Iraq. Cost of the war. Post-9/11 Panic

MAHER: But even if it was a giant victory tomorrow, I read in the paper this week, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will cost in 10 years 2.4 trillion dollars. Which is on top of $100 billion dollars a year, so far, that we're spending on homeland security.

::snip::

MAHER: It seems to me that we panicked after 9/11. I mean, it was a bad thing 9/11. No one denies that. We should have had a response. It should have cost You know, we're again down this torture path because we're trying to...

::snip::

There are those who have said that the plan of the terrorists - they know they can't actually bring America down - but by scaring us with that attack, they could get us to bring ourselves down. We would get into this endless economic debacle and bleed ourselves dry. And it does seem like that is happening.

MARKOS: Man, I wish you would have said something about this after 9/11.

[Note: above said with complete sarcasm]

MAHER: [laughing] I get what you'e saying.

MARKOS: That's a perfect example of that panic! You couldn't even say what you said without repercussions. That's the reason people like me exist in this media and landscape now. People like bloggers - because nobody else could say the things that a lot of people are thinking. And logic led them to say that. And so I started my little site at the time because nobody else was saying that and it grew because people said "Finally somebody's saying this" and they can't fire me.

H/T Daily Kos. Just one additional excerpt from this segment and I'll wrap, continuing where I left off:

MAHER: So why can't you get your liberal troops to stand up and put the pressure on - for example - the Democratic Congress which today, again, caved in on this Mukasey guy.

[My note: Generally I love Maher, but that above shows that he doesn't read Daily Kos at all - the "troops" were doing everything they could]

MAHER: ...He's the guy that George Bush is trying to ge tto be the new Attorney General, and he will not say whether waterboarding is torture. And trust me - I've been waterboarded - it's torture.

SHORT: George Bush had threatened not to have an Attorney General. And how detrimental would it be [addressing Markos] for the country not to have an Attorney General.

MARKOS: Nothing. It'd be nothing.

STEWART: You think nothing?

MARKOS: We have an acting Attorney General.

STEWART: You think with that many people that are in temporary appointee positions...

MARKOS: Sure - why not? It can't be anything worse than...

STEWART: It could be a lot worse.

MARKOS: In what way?

STEWART: ...If you think about the differences between the kinds of Attorney Generals we've had, then you have someone who's an interim who is - who is somebody the President clearly thinks he's comfortable with - wouldn't you rather have somebody that the Congress has - at least that goes through Committee and goes through a vote? Rather than this temporary person who's in there?

MARKOS: ...To have somebody else that Bush is comfortable with. You know...

STEWART: But at least there's other people weighing in on it.

MARKOS: But they don't have a voice. They cave.

I thought Markos did really well in that segment. I understood his point - what the difference? Whether the person is a nominee or an interim, clearly s/he is somebody Bush is "comfortable with". And if the Democratic Congress caves, it doesn't matter a whit. It wasn't a contest, necessarily, between Markos and Stewart - but she and her 16 years of journalistic experience (and I like her) didn't win that point against Markos and his 5-year old blog.

Whew! That was a LOT of transcription - about two hours worth for that small amount. With that, I've highlighted what stood out for me. So...

In Conclusion

Listen. Markos it but one of a host of notable, intelligent, prominent figures in the Netroots and what I consider the "new" media. As I was driving home from the store today, thinking about this diary, it occurred to me that much of the RoA (Rest of America) still considers blogging an uber-geeky, basement-of-the-science-building, outlier and slightly weird thing to do. But then it occurred to me - 15 years ago that's what people thought about email. 10 years ago (roughly), that's what they thought about going online.

I think that Markos' appearance last night went a long way towards legitimizing, to the RoA, what we already know to be legitimate: that we are ALL a part of the "new" media and that we continue to help to shape what we hope will be "new" politics in America. I feel like Markos, on that show, helped the entire Netroots take a step forward in perception and legitimacy.

And for that, he certainly has MY applause. Are you standing up yet?

Update [2007-11-3 15:30:30 by RenaRF]: Miss Laura links to a video clip in today's Midday Open Thread.

Update [2007-11-3 15:43:42 by RenaRF]: VelvetElvis has posted a comment with a link to the Maher show's Torrent. If you're a torrent type, you can get it there. If you're not, you can Google Bittorrent and download stuff to be able to access it.

US Military Issues Warning: Plan to Get to Iraq Without Turkey

2007-10-16T12:51:00.000-05:00

(Cross-posted from Daily Kos)

CNN ran a "Developing" news story on the growing situation between the United States and ally Turkey. It appears that the US military has officially warned its own military officers and troops to plan for alternate routes that do not include the air base at Incirlik, Turkey.

Transcript and a little bit of my own two cents below the fold.

This is a live transcription from Barbara Starr's Pentagon reporting:

B. STARR: Well, Don, at this hour, in fact, a top General here in the Pentagon is meeting with reporters in the briefing room, taking questions about the latest developments in Turkey. Lt. General Carter Ham, the Director of Operations on the Joint staff - struggling to explain a bit about how involved or not involved the US military plans to get in this situation, especially in that border region where Kurdish PKK rebels launching out of Northern Iraq are attacking into Turkey and Turkey is becoming extremely concerned, returning artillery shell fire back across the border. The US military is simply trying to stay out of the way.

Look - if that situation wasn't enough, we have the second situation in Turkey - this business of a Congressional resolution declaring as genocide the killing of Armenians by Turks during WWI. As a result of that problem, the Turks are threatening to cut off access to the critical airbase at Incirlik, Turkey. What is the latest there today? Well, the US military has very quietly confirmed they have issued a warning order to troops - to US troops - to be prepared to look at alternative air routes into Iraq without having to go into Turkey. About 70%, Don, of US military cargo into Iraq goes through Turkey or Turkish airspace. If Incirlik is cut off, the US has to be ready with other options.

And now indeed, a warning order has gone out to be so-called "prepared to execute other options". We're talking about looking for aircraft, fuel, cruise lines, air supply routes out of Europe. It will be much more expensive and much more time intensive for the war.

I have to say - I really think that the resolution against Turkey at this time was really, really stupid. I agree with Philip Geraldi at HuffPo:

From the Turkish point of view, the United States is completely hypocritical. The United States became a great power through its genocide of the red Indians and is hardly in a good position to point the finger at others. It currently is fighting a self-declared and self-defined global war on terrorism in which it claims the right to attack terrorists anytime and anywhere.

::snip::

Embroiled in Iraq without any easy way out and heavily dependent on the supply line passing through southern Turkey, Washington has much more to lose than to gain by turning Ankara into an enemy.

It's the passage I bolded from my live transcription of Barbara Starr's reporting on CNN and the one from HuffPo that bothers me the most, though. The White House is on record loudly decrying the resolution in advance of its passage. In that respect, Pelosi et al have given Bush cover. More dangerously, however, is the idea that IF Ankara severs ties with the US and doesn't allow us to fly over Turkey's airspace nor use Insurlic air base, Bush can credibly blame the Democratic Congress for cost increases and time increases. And while Turkey should rightly have considered the Bush Administration and the former Republican Congress hypocritical, they had no reason to think so of the new Democratic Congress - that is, until they gave them a gold-plated reason.

Yes - I KNOW that that's ridiculous in light of how badly GWB and his entire Administration has bungled Iraq - but think about it - at a bare minimum, it gives him some measure of political cover or at least a bonafide distraction from legitimate criticism aimed in his direction.

In my opinion, this whole thing was stupid and totally avoidable. What were they thinking??

Evolution Shmevolution - Meet "Answers In Genesis"

2007-02-13T10:06:00.000-05:00

Ok. I realize that many serious writers on Daily Kos are writing about many serious things. Democrats and the 2008 elections, the Iraq War, the Libby trial, etc. and so forth. And I read those diaries and invariably learn something from those diaries. So much so, in fact, that I don't really even try to write about those subjects given that I have no particular expertise, only opinion, and that is best relegated to comments and not to my writings.

What I write about is largely observational. I see or do something that strikes me of particular interest and I write it up. Yesterday, feeling pretty lazy, I was looking for something to watch, and utilized my digital cable's "On-Demand" feature. As I poked around with what HBO had to offer on-demand, I landed on Alexandra Pelosi's Friends of God, a documentary about the present-day evangelical Christian movement. Believe me - there's plenty in this documentary to write about. But I'm going to focus on one specific area: Answers in Genesis (AiG).

More.

Picture an auditorium full of cute, bright-faced, wide-eyed children ranging in age from about four to twelve. They are watching whatever is going on the stage with rapt attention. I mean, they are riveted. Here's what they're listening to:

INSTRUCTOR: Well boys and girls - put your hand up if you've heard of the word "evolution".

[Cut to cute scrubbed kids holding up their hands]

INSTRUCTOR: Oh boy. I think just about everyone had their hands up. Hands down. Put your hands up if you've heard that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago.

[Another cut - cute scrubbed kids holding up their hands]

INSTRUCTOR: Dear oh dear. Hands down. Put your hands up if you've heard that people came from ape-like creatures or something like that.

[Yet another shot of scrubbed kids holding up their hands]

INSTRUCTOR: You know, I think just about everybody in the world has heard those things. And I want to tell you right from the start here that I don't believe that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. And I certainly don't believe that you came from ape-like creatures or any thing like that. I mean, did you grandfather look like this?

[Cut to picture of big screen of an ape-like creature with human features under which is written in big letters, GRANDFATHER? Children laugh wildly]

INSTRUCTOR: I don't think so. Did your grandmother look like that?

[Cut to picture now of same ape-like creature with more feminine eyes, wearing rouge and lipstick under which is written, GRANDMOTHER? Children laugh wildly]

INSTRUCTOR: No. Not at all. Boys and girls, I don't believe you come from ape-like creatures and I don't believe that millions of years (sic). I believe that what the Bible says is true. That God created the world, he created everything in six days, just a few thousand years ago. We don't believe in evolution. Evolution is the idea that some people have to explain life without God! No, I believe what the Bible says, actually, that God created everything and we're going to talk about that.

[Children now paying wide-eyed attention]

Aha!! So that explains this guy's irrational departure from all things scientific - evolution is (GASP) a way to explain things WITHOUT GOD!! It's an attack, I tell you - an assault on Christianity!! The INSTRUCTOR is Ken Ham, founder of Answers in Genesis (AiG). Pelosi's documentary lets us first know in a caption at the bottom of the screen that Ham speaks to 10s of thousands of children each year. A later caption also informs us that nearly 54 million people over the age of 18 do not believe in evolution. After Ham's portion of this is over, we cut to a pretty adult woman lamenting that "most people think Christians are ignorant". She then goes on to explain how the Bible and Noah's Ark just makes more sense, and that it's easier to explain to her children. So was the stork - just sayin'.

Then we get to Buddy Davis, who runs an AiG Workshop. He's an outdoorsy looking guy, with a bad Indiana Jones had and trim salt-and-pepper beard. He wears a guitar on a strap around his neck as he holds a microphone:

DAVIS: Boys and girls, I believe that the Bible is the history book of the Universe. What do I think - that the Bible is what?

CHILDREN: The history book of the Universe.

DAVIS: The Bible's the history book of the Universe. If you believe that man and dinosaurs did live together like it says in Genesis, then how come you can't find the word "dinosaur" in the Bible? Hey, if I look in the Bible, can I find the word "jet airplane"? [editor's note, by RenaRF] two words, but hey - accuracy is clearly a guidepost and not a rule with these guys.

CHILDREN: No.

DAVIS: No. It's a brand new word. Can I look in the Bible boys and girls, and can I find the word "computer"?

CHILDREN: No.

DAVIS: No. It's a brand new word and the word "dinosaur" is a brand new word, too.

Ok - so if the full-on smear of science directed at young children isn't enough to curl your hair if it's straight, straighten it if it's curly, or grow it if you don't have any, we move to this great song Mr. Davis has to share with the children. You have to picture this guy - hat, beard, guitar, microphone, in front of a multi-purpose room full of children. The children are standing, clapping hoe-down style, singing along. On the screen behind him are pictures of Biblical-looking people leading dinosaurs strapped into harnesses pulling ox-carts. I'm not making this up. And then the pictures go to sauropods. And here's the song, ala something you'd hear on the Barney show:

Let's look at the Bible.
Let's look in the Book of Job.
Turn to chapter 40
In verse 15, we're told
Of a mighty creature
That Job must have known
In the jungle of the reeds and ferns
Behemoth made his home

Behemoth is a DINOSAUR
A DINOSAUR is he.
"He eateth grass as an ox"
"His tail's like a cedar tree"
"His bones are strong as bars of iron"
"He's cheif in the ways of God"
Could BEHEMOTH be a DINOSAUR?
A mighty sauropod?

OMFG. Well, I guess so. And monkeys could fly out of my ass in about 30 seconds, but it's not very likely.

I am NOT a Biblical scholar. At all. I had never heard of the Behemoth before watching this documentary. So I googled Job 40:15. The issue is the "cedar tree" reference. The verses in question, from the King James Bible:

40:15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
40:16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
40:17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
40:18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
40:19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.

So the Barney-inspired Behemoth-is-a-dinosaur song is automatically dishonest, because the verse it sites is different than what the verse says in the Bible. Although the difference is subtle, "His tail's like a cedar tree" is far and away different than "He moveth his tail like a cedar tree". And the cedar tree reference folks, is the crux of the issue for Creationists: because how could it be anything BUT a dinosaur when known animals of the time period discussed by science did NOT have tails "like a cedar tree"? Oy.

Here's what wikipedia has to say about the Great Behemoth Controversy:

In the book of Job, both Behemoth and Leviathan are listed alongside a number of mundane animals, such as goats, eagles, and hawks, leading many Christian scholars to surmise that Behemoth and Leviathan may also be mundane creatures. Suggested animals include the water buffalo and the elephant, but the most common suggestion is the hippopotamus.

::snip::

Although the animal's tail "moves like a cedar" (40:17), an unlikely description for any of these animals, "tail' could be a euphemism for an elephant's trunk. Moreover, some suggest that "tail" is a euphemism for male genitalia. Support for this is based on another meaning of the Hebrew word "move" which means "extend" and on the second part of verse 17 describing the sinew around its "stones" (the Vulgate uses the word "testiculorum"].

[editor's note, by RenaRF] Clearly AiG isn't going to discuss the concept of a PENIS like a cedar tree. Perish the thought.

Others disagree, pointing to the fact that Behemoth is called "chief of the ways of God" (40:19), indicating that it is not a mere animal.

[editor's note, by RenaRF] As if the Bible is full of vague, fantastical references without explanation. Perish that thought, too.

Another proposal is that the Behemoth is a dinosaur. Some sort of sauropod is usually proposed since large sauropods had tails "like a cedar". Adherents to this viewpoint hold that it is more consistent with the literal application of the text. However, critics usually point out that according to paleontology, sauropods, unlike Behemoth, were tree-browsers that became extinct 65 million years ago, predating the appearance and rise of people or grasses. Additionally, opponents of this theory argue that the text is probably allegory at best.

But who needs, science, right? If the Bible makes some vague reference to a "Behemoth" and no animals of the time had cedar tree-like tails, it MUST be a dinosaur! Watson, get my pen. I have to write this down in verse.

I wish I had a constructive point on which to end this diary. Suffice it to say that groups like AiG are out there actively training children to discount science. Tens of thousands of them, according to the documentary. And these kids are being trained (brainwashed?) at a young age. Many will undoubtedly carry this crippled, dogmatic view of the Bible as an absolute reference forward with them as they mature. And in that, their path as Christians will be crippled as will their path as informed human beings and members of society.

We surely haven't seen the last of the evolution "debate". In fact, I would guess that what we've seen thus far is only the first warning rumblings of a Bizarro-world fight yet to be waged in the future.

Don't Say VAGINA

2007-02-09T07:54:00.000-05:00

This was originally posted at Daily Kos where it got almost 700 comments, some of them hilarious.

I almost couldn't believe my ears this morning as I got dressed for work. I go about my morning routine with CNN's American Morning on in the background. I don't usually focus too heavily on what they're talking about unless it's hard news, but a brief mention of a story this morning caught my attention and left me literally disgusted.

If you would be so kind as to follow me, you can bear witness to the Great Vagina Controversy of 2007.

Here's the blurb from CNN's American Morning. They were doing a teaser for the 9am show, CNN Newsroom, hosted by Heidi Collins (transcript):

S. O'BRIEN: "CNN NEWSROOM" just a couple of minutes away. Heidi Collins is at the CNN Center with a look at what's ahead this morning.

Good morning.

HEIDI COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning to you. Soledad. And good morning to you, everybody.

That's right, we have these stories coming up in the "NEWSROOM" today. Good grief, first winter wouldn't start and now it won't stop. You've heard Chad talking about it, some spots in upstate New York buried under six feet of snow.

And the fight over Nigeria's oil riches. Our Africa correspondent Jeff Koinange face to face with masked rebels. A dangerous and amazing piece of reporting that you've got to see. We'll show you that.

And sign of the times -- a critically acclaimed play causing a little southern discomfort, so the producers have changed the name of "The Vagina Monologues."

Tony Harris is with me in the "NEWSROOM" of the hour right here on CNN.

(LAUGHTER)

S. O'BRIEN: Oh, my gosh.

M. O'BRIEN: "The Hoohaa Monologues?"

COLLINS: You got it. Some people were offended, you know.

S. O'BRIEN: Oh, my goodness. I can see why. That's very interesting.

M. O'BRIEN: "Hoohaa" kind of bothers me.

COLLINS: No, I mean, they were offended by the original name.

S. O'BRIEN: No, no I get you on all fronts.

M. O'BRIEN: But you know, some people might have a "Hoohaa" problem. Who knows.

COLLINS: I'm done.

S. O'BRIEN: As am I. We're done.

Ok. So what we get from the teaser is that the critically acclaimed Vagina Monologues is sparking controversy somewhere in the South. So much so that a person was utterly offended by the title on a marquis in front of the theater and called the theater to complain. And with that, the title Vagina Monologues was changed to HOOHAA Monologues. I'm not making this up.

I googled and found that the southern state in question is Florida. From a short article covering the story:

Atlantic Theatres in Atlantic Beach, Florida, received a complaint from a woman who'd seen the advertised title as she drove past with her niece. She said that it had made her niece ask her what a vagina was.

The theatre's Bryce Pfanenstiel commented: 'I'm on the phone and asked “What did you tell her?” She's like, “I'm offended I had to answer the question.”

FYI, the link above will take you to a picture of the "new" marquis on the theater, post-rabid psycho complaint. I wasn't too far off in my memory-based transcription. Now, a few things leap to mind. First, the Vagina Monologues is a critically acclaimed play. I found a great little write-up in the BG News Online (Bowling Green State University) which had this to say:

The author, Eve Ensler, designed the play to be a rather creative way to express women's issues to the rest of the world. The results of the play have been tremendous on all women. Participants and viewers everywhere describe the Monologues as empowering and a step forward for women.

::snip::

One reason [that the play is so powerful] is that the Monologues are specifically an all-women production. This particular facet of the play ensures that there is no influence from a cultural patriarchy, as well as demonstrates women's more-than-capable ability to produce theatre.

In a culture where sexuality is shunned, it is often difficult, sometimes impossible to find information about your own body.

::snip::

Despite the Western view of human beings, we are not clouds of consciousness simply floating about. We are human beings with bodies. And if it is taboo to talk about vaginas, then how exactly are women supposed to learn about themselves? How are they to relate to one another as women with bodies?

::snip::

The amount of money donated to charity as a direct result of "The Vagina Monologues" is hard to argue against. With every dollar earned a step is made to help women in the most dire of circumstances.

But clearly, in Atlantic Beach Florida, Vaginas are the embodiment (hah) of evil.

Another thing that struck me specifically was the fact that the niece in question (from the complaint the theater received) can obviously read. If she can read, why the FUCK doesn't she know what a vagina is and that she has one??!! There is something fundamentally wrong with keeping a young woman who is obviously mature enough from know the appropriate anatomical name for the parts of her body. Does her family have euphamisms for ears? How about for eyes? Is not "vagina" the most approrpriate term for, well, a VAGINA??? Why is it that this girl should walk around thinking that it's called a "HOOHAA"?? I'm sure it has something to do with the fabulous "PEEPEE" to represent a penis, but the logic is escaping me at the moment.

So here you go, folks. Forward what follows to everyone you know who has a girl in their lives, from The Free Dictionary:

va·gi·na (v-jn)
n. pl. va·gi·nas or va·gi·nae (-n)
1. Anatomy
a. The passage leading from the opening of the vulva to the cervix of the uterus in female mammals.
b. A similar part in some invertebrates.
2. Botany A sheathlike structure, such as the leaf of a grass that surrounds a stem.

Ooooh... dirty, dirty BAD vaginas!! Of this we must not speak, especially to girls who actually have them!! And with that, I give you the HOOHAA MONOLOGUES, coming soon to a draconian theater near you in a neighborhood that wants you to grow up repressed, confused, and subliminally convinced that you are, in fact, dirty and disgusting.

Update [2007-2-8 11:55:6 by RenaRF]: First, I removed my memory-based transcription of the piece on CNN Newsroom because the article and link I found references the specific language. No need to confuse everyone.

Second, I strong encourage everyone to write a polite note to the Atlantic Theater. You can access their email by clicking this link. I would suggest a note encouraging the theater not to play into a destructive trend towards keeping girls and women ignorant about their bodies. I would reinforce that "vagina" is absolutely the most apporpriate anatomical term, and question why it needed to be removed.

Update [2007-2-8 15:16:58 by RenaRF]: Ok. Brusek posted this email reply from the theater in the comments:

Hi,

I think we are being misunderstood. "Hoohaa" was meant to be tongue in cheek. Having a 9 year old daughter and coming from a medical background I was furious that a woman would actually complain about having to explain to her niece what a vagina was after the child read it herself. My daughter knows the anatomically correct term but calls uses hoohaa. Yes, we know what free speech is and we are glad to be putting Vagina back up today. I am female and I support VAGINA!!!

Thanks,
Kim (assistant manager)
-------------- Original message --------------
From: info@atlantictheatres.com

Tom Fallon

Managing Director

I believe them, and BRAVO. I will say, though, that the woman who called initially was NOT made-up. I have also seen in the comments that many of the V-Day showings of Vagina Monologues are being protested. Yes, protested - across the country. Peruse the comments a bit. So, I'm glad that CNN aired the story and I'm glad that the theater, along with virtually everyone here, sees how ridiculous it is to object to the word "vagina".

If You're Having Sex, You Deserve To Die.

2007-02-06T12:38:00.000-05:00

(Cross-posted at Daily Kos, My Left Wing and ePluribus Media)

I have an hour or so to post this diary so forgive me any misspellings in my haste to get this done and posted.

I generally watch Countdown with Keith Olbermann at 8pm on weeknights. Last night, however, I was out running errands at that time. MSNBC is not included in my Sirius Radio news coverage, so I was stuck listening to CNN's Paula Zahn Now (which I usually dislike). I heard an interview that almost made me drive off the road as I was traveling from point A to point B.

The subject was the cervical cancer vaccine. The arguments against this vaccine constitute some of the most egregious dreck I have ever heard. Follow me.

I had to wait until today after some morning meetings for the transcript to be available. Let's start there.

Now, if there were a vaccine that would protect your child from a kind of cancer that kills thousands of people every year, chances are, you would make sure your child gets it.

But the next story we're bringing out in the open is not that simple, because it involves sex, parents' rights, and women's health. The governor of Texas has just signed an order to require girls in sixth grade to get the vaccine for HPV, the virus that causes cervical cancer. And 18 other states are considering doing the same thing.

Ed Lavandera has story tonight from Dallas.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JULIANNE JACOBS, STUDENT: You should do it before you're sexually active.

LAVANDERA (voice-over): Julianne Jacobs is ahead of the class, one of the first young girls in Texas to receive a vaccine against the human papillomavirus. HPV is a sexually transmitted disease that can cause cervical cancer.

The federal government says, the recently approved vaccine can prevent most types of cervical cancer. Julianne's parents have told her it's not a free pass to start having sex.

JACOBS: And, because, you know, that vaccine doesn't guarantee -- guarantee safety. It can still -- you can still get past it, and you could get that disease, even if you have the vaccination.

LAVANDERA: But, when Texas Governor Rick Perry signed an executive order, making it mandatory starting in September of 2008 for sixth-grade girls to receive the vaccine, many parents were angry.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The government should let parents make their own decisions for things like this.

Oh yes? I beg to differ. The school district where I live requires the following:

- A physical examination prior to registration
- DPT, DTaP, Td, DT (diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus)
- Tdap (tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis)
- OPV, IPV (polio)
- MMR (measles, mumps, rubella)
- Hepatitis B
- Varicella (chicken pox)
- HIB (Haemophilus influenzae type B)
- PCV (Pneumococcal 7-valent conjugate)
- Tuberculosis screening

All of the above represent an attempt by the state to safeguard students from communicable diseases that are a danger to the public health and welfare. Should a parent be able to decide that their child receive or not receive a vaccination and place another child at risk in so doing? I don't think so.

Continuing:

LAVANDERA: Dawn Richardson is lobbying Texas lawmakers against making the vaccine mandatory, and also has a daughter of her own.

DAWN RICHARDSON, LOBBYIST AND PARENT: There's no proof that this vaccine is going to affect the rates of cervical cancer, because the vaccine is being administered to 11-year-old girls. It's only been tested for four years.

LAVANDERA: The FDA says, the vaccine is safe and effective, requiring three shots over a six-month period. But some critics worry that making the vaccine mandatory will promote premarital sex, instead of abstinence.

PETER SPRIGG, VICE PRESIDENT FOR POLICY, FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL: We feel it's very important that people not be told that this is a vaccine that will make it safe to have sex.

LAVANDERA (on camera): Governor Perry is a staunch conservative. And he says this idea protects life and promotes women's health. And he says parents will ultimately be allowed to decide whether or not their daughters get this vaccine. They can apply to opt out of if they object to it for religious or moral reasons.

(voice-over): The Republican governor is receiving support from unlikely places, Planned Parenthood and even many Democrats, who see this strictly as a public health issue.

BINGO. It's the sex, stupid!! So even though researchers are working hard to develop a vaccine to prevent or lessen the instances of HIV contraction, kids shouldn't be able to have it because (GASP!!) it's promoting SEX!!! (cue fire and brimstone)

Now get a load of the discussion with the panel of experts:

ZAHN: There are 10,000 cases of cervical cancel -- cancer, that is, every year, 4,000 deaths.

Out in the open tonight: the controversy over requiring sixth- grade girls to get the HPV vaccine to prevent the sexually transmitted disease that can lead to cervical cancer.

Texas has just started requiring the shots -- 18 other states also considering it.

Let's go back to tonight's "Out in the Open," panel, Clarence Page, with his mike on -- yes -- Tara Wall [RNC mouthpiece], Rachel Maddow.

ZAHN: So, Clarence, should this be mandatory...

PAGE: I think...

ZAHN: ... and made mandatory by state government?

PAGE: You know, what troubles me is making it mandatory before the public is adequately educated, because I saw what happened with Roe vs. Wade, which I personally support as a decision.

But I saw the backlash, which we're still feeling politically across the country, because it was imposed on the country. This is a very personal thing. Whenever government gets into something as personal as, say, 12-year-olds, like -- like, my 12-year-old niece, mandating that she has got to get a shot that many people think is connected to sexual promiscuity -- I don't think it is.

ZAHN: Sure.

I don't know what I think about Page's argument. Frankly, if the fundamentalist MINORITY in the US weren't screaming bloody murder about protecting women from CANCER for Christ's sake, there wouldn't be an education issue (as Page put it).

PAGE: But so many people think that, we obviously need a lot of public educating out there. So, it troubles me to do it do it too quickly.

ZAHN: But, even with public education...

MADDOW: Yes.

ZAHN: ... there is a strong view that you're promoting promiscuity. There are people think, since this vaccine has been around only for four years, that it really won't convincingly reduce rates of cervical cancer. So, what difference is it going to make if there's a time lag before you make it mandatory?

MADDOW: It's -- well, here's the thing.

If we were talking about a vaccine for any other kind of cancer, as a person in your previous segment described, we would be singing hallelujah right now. But the fact that this is a disease that is spread by sexual contact, human papillomavirus, which leads to cervical cancer, all of a sudden, we get hysterical and lose the ability to think reasonably about this.

(LAUGHTER)

MADDOW: Once you bring up sex, we lose all public health rationality about this.

And, so, I think that, really, what you need to consider is whether or not this going to be treated as a public health and safety issue, or whether this is going to be another thing about which we have a hysterical sex conversation involving teenagers, because we can't -- we have that debate.

THANK YOU Rachel Maddow. If you would like to thank her as well, you can use this form. Maddow nets it out - it's all about dirty nasty SEX and a vaccine somehow giving carte blanche to young women to have it.

ZAHN: But you know it will be a little bit of both of them.

(CROSSTALK)

WALL: Listen -- listen, you talk not having the buy-in, and the public not having the buy-in of the legislature. The governor did this on his won [sic].

The governor, whom I respect -- and, actually, he's my governor. I voted for him. But he's wrong.

(CROSSTALK)

ZAHN: He's a conservative governor. He is your governor.

WALL: He is. He has been a very good conservative governor.

But he's wrong on this issue. As my mother says, a person can be sincere, but they can be sincerely wrong.

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW: How can a vaccine for cancer be wrong?

And here we go.

WALL: There's -- there's no -- there's no -- there was no parental -- you're usurping parental rights. You're usurping the legislature.

(CROSSTALK)

WALL: Make it an opt-in, as opposed to an opt-out. There is an opt-out provision, of course.

I'm not a legal expert - but I found this article that talks generally about the legal basis for mandatory vaccines and it states pretty clearly that the process and procedure is ALWAYS to opt-out, NOT opt-in. What a ridiculous argument on Wall's behalf, that flies in the face of how every other religious or moral issue with a vaccine is handled.

ZAHN: Sure.

WALL: But why not make it an opt-in, as opposed to an opt-out.

See above. See the law. See a bunch of cases. But most importantly, see a shrink - because that's the only thing that's going to help you explain why you don't want to protect women from contracting cancer.

MADDOW: Would you do that for measles? Would you do that for rubella? Would you do that for polio? Would you do that for...

(CROSSTALK)

WALL: This has to do with a very sensitive...

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW: With sex.

WALL: Absolutely -- issue...

MADDOW: Right.

WALL: ... that is a family issue, that parents need to discuss with their children amongst themselves, and not to have the government impose upon them.

MADDOW: How has that been working so far?

(CROSSTALK)

WALL: That's not for the government to decide.

(CROSSTALK)

ZAHN: If you want to see how it's working so far, I want you all to look at the screen right now...

Here's where it gets good. Facts are a bitch, aren't they?

ZAHN: ... because this is a staggering statistic.

This is the incidence of HPV hitting young kids in this 14- to 19-year-old age group. We know that about a third of kids that are 13 to 16 are sexually active.

So, do you think parents have their heads in the sand?

(CROSSTALK)

PAGE: Well, of course, yes. Parents do have their head in the sands about sex and drugs. We know that.

But there's also the question about, do parents who want to take responsibility for their kids, should they be entitled to have opt-out or opt-in choices? I think that is really what at issue here.

(CROSSTALK)

PAGE: You talk about rubella and several other contagious diseases which you can catch without having sex, I mean, there's a reason to want to control a contagion that travels in the air, and -- and to mandate that.

Point of fact: Hepititis B is not transmitted in the air yet is mandated in (I think) 35 states.

MADDOW: But look at that figure.

(CROSSTALK)

PAGE: When you're talking about something that is more personal -- well, look at the figures...

MADDOW: This is -- it's endemic.

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW: If you're a teenager having sex, basically, you're going to get HPV.

(CROSSTALK)

PAGE: Just to play devil's advocate, which I'm very good at...

WALL: But what if you're not having sex?

(CROSSTALK)

WALL: What if you're not having sex?

(CROSSTALK)

WALL: There are plenty of teenagers out there who -- who -- who have had discussion with their parents who choose to remain abstinent or virgins until they're married, until... (CROSSTALK)

ZAHN: But you know what the manufacturers...

(CROSSTALK)

ZAHN: Hang on one second. The manufacturers of the vaccine say, that's a good thing...

Oooh!! Here come those pesky facts again.

MADDOW: Yes.

ZAHN: ... because they said that the vaccine is more effective when you're inoculated before you start having sex.

(CROSSTALK)

WALL: Well, the other factor is -- and my mother is a nurse as well. And some of the issues that are being raised is how new this is. It hasn't been tested and tried. It needs to be given some time.

The other portion, again, opt-in, not make an opt-out. Let parents decide. This is the government assuming parents don't know what's best for their children. I think that's a little bit elitist.

Ah... So it ISN'T about sex? It's about the relative newness of the drug itself and the safety of the drug? I thought it was about family decisions and the distinction between opting in and opting out... Silly me.

The fundamentalist Christian groups who oppose this vaccine are essentially making this argument: If you weren't having sex, you wouldn't contract HPV and possibly contract and die from cervical cancer. And if you ARE having sex and get HPV and contract cervical cancer, you deserve to die.

How's that for values? Jesus weeps.

Tony Snow: F---ing A---ole!!

2007-02-05T22:06:00.000-05:00

All right - I apologize in advance for the brevity of this diary but my GOD - Tony Snow's press briefing just literally made me wish I could jump through the television and strangle him.

There's only a short part that made me ridiculously angry, and I'll transcribe it after the flip.

From White House Press Briefing, January 29, 2007 (live transcription):

HELEN THOMAS: What did the President think of the March on Washington?

SNOW: I don't really think he thought a lot about it. It's nice to see Jane Fonda in front of the camera again.

[Murmurs in the press room at this]

SNOW: Uh... There were a number of people who were here making statements - that's perfectly appropriate. This is a vigorous Democracy.

HELEN THOMAS: You said something earlier this morning, though. Would you like to repeat that?

SNOW: Well that uh... It's simply that there were predictions of a larger audience than showed up for the protest. [shrugs, raises eyebrows]

HELEN THOMAS: Have you really counted heads?

SNOW: No. Did you? Did you see 100,000?

HELEN THOMAS: I do think they had a good turnout.

SNOW: Well you know, I didn't go there, Helen. I'm not going to characterize...

HELEN THOMAS: But with a statement like that...

SNOW: Well, because it's pretty clear from the press accounts that nobody attached six figures to the number that appeared.

Where do I start?

First - what kind of bullying-by-innuendo tactic WAS IT to bring up Jane Fonda like that? I don't even have a word to describe how ridiculous and disgusting it is to write off /every single participant/ in that peace march by boiling your first comment down to what he said about Fonda. What a fucking asshole.

I'm going to make the assumption that Snow made some remarks either off-handedly or in a gaggle to the effect that the crowds were "smaller than expected". First, I'd like to know: WTF does that have to do with anything? If the crowd /was/ smaller than 100K, does that make the crowd "small"? Is 99,000 small? Is there some reason that differing predictions and reports of turnout completely obscures the total repudiation of Bush's Iraq war and policy? What a joke.

And finally, Snow must not consider The LA Times a member of the press:

WASHINGTON — About 100,000 antiwar protesters from around the country converged Saturday on the National Mall, galvanized by opposition to President Bush's plan to increase the number of troops in Iraq.

They just mentioned six figures right there.

So I'd like you guys to do something, and it won't take long. Send a leetle note to Tony "Fucking Asshole" Snow. Tell him the following:

1. Your attempt to distract from the horrendously failing wildly unpopular Iraq war by bringing up Jane Fonda was ridiculous.
2. How many people is enough people to make a protest march "significant" in your book? Is that number, in fact, /always/ higher than the number that turns out?
3. Do you consider Fox News the only real "press source" in the country? What about The Los Angeles Times?

Thank you, Tony, for giving a big middle finger to the 60%+ of Americans who think your boss and therefore you, by extraction, suck. Good luck going back to a career in broadcasting.

Send to:
Comments@whitehouse.gov

That email address is going to have to do because cowardly Tony doesn't seem to have a dedicated press email address.

Douchebag.

I Sure Regret Marching.

2007-02-05T22:05:00.001-05:00

I have kind of a heavy job. I guess I should say that it's not so much heavy as it is incredibly busy. I wear multiple hats in my job which means that there's always something that needs to be getting done that does not, in fact, always get done. My home life is pretty similar - in addition to outside-of-work pursuits (in politics and music), I run the house - finances, upkeep, maintenance, decisions, you name it. It's certainly not a unique situation and it's one I imagine the vast majority of people reading live as well.

So when I decide to take and dedicate and entire weekend day to something that doesn't involve getting the myriad other somethings done, I have a good reason. That's why I spent my day at the Washington DC Peace March yesterday. But who knew that the message we were trying to send had already been received therefore making it entirely unnecessary to be there at all? I could have been doing laundry and paying the bills. Who knew. I'll elaborate after the fold.

Being at the march all day I was unable to watch the coverage of it. I was so bone tired (along with about 59 other Kossacks) when I got home that I had only enough energy to post a diary with the pictures from the march and some minimal commentary. I hung with the comments and then called it quits for the night when my brain finally hit the wall.

So it was with great anticipation this morning that I woke up and turned on the news. I wanted to see their video coverage of the march and the throngs of people that turned out and took to the streets demanding the end of the war (aside, great photos from The Washington Post can be found at this link). In fairness, CNN did cover it, though with a little less zeal and exposure than I would have liked. And then they followed the coverage with this comment from President Bush (delivered via a spokesperson and linked via North Jersey Media Group:

Bush says the troop increase is needed to secure Baghdad so the nascent Iraqi government has breathing room to function. He reaffirmed his commitment to the strategy in a phone conversation Saturday with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

"He understands that Americans want to see a conclusion to the war in Iraq, and the new strategy is designed to do just that," said Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman for the National Security Council.

So you see, he understands the need for a conclusion and, by extraction, acknowledges American citizens' desires to bring the troops home, and his new surge strategy of sending MORE troops is designed to do just that, to conclude the war and somehow lead to fewer troops.

I get it - it's like the theory that you have to spend money, even money you don't have, to make money. Who knew?

I would have definitely stayed home and paid attention to other life priorities if I'd realized the excellent brillance of this surge thing, a plan that essentially made the efforts of 100,000+ marchers entirely unnecessary. Who knows - I may have even had time to sit down and do nothing. I sure wish he would have been this clear in his magnificent strategic thinking before I gave up a day to take to the streets.

Someone should really tell the good news to Carlos Arredondo. You may not remember him, but back in 2004, upon receiving the news that his son, a Marine, had been killed in Najaf, he locked himself into the Marine van that carried news of his son's death and set it on fire.

"This is his scream that his child is dead. The war needs to stop," Melida Arredondo, who had rushed home from work when she heard the news, said Thursday on ABC's "Good Morning America."

Arredondo suffered severe burns in the 2004 incident. By all appearances from a Google search, Arrodondo has turned up at virtually every single major anti-war protest since his recovery, including yesterday's march (photo of Arrodondo is available at the Washington Post Gallery link provided earlier). I'm sure when he finds out that Bush agrees with him totally and that surging is necessary to bring everyone home, despite the obvious contradiction in logic, he would be relieved that he can finally lay down his cross.

2nd photo courtesy of carneasadaburrito. Thank you!

So I guess I've learned my lesson. Our President has it all under control. He understands. He gets "it". He's the decider, and he's decided that he's heard the American people and the countless Carlos Arrondondo's in this country and that sending more troops to allow for fewer and fewer troops is the way to go.

So I sure regret taking to the streets yesterday.

Note: The 1st photo is courtesy of photographer Martin Fuchs. It can be found in its original context here. Martin has graciously granted me permission to use this photo. His excellent work can be found at Journal of a Photographer.

Photo Journal of the Peace March

2007-02-05T22:02:00.000-05:00

I had originally planned to simply post these pictures to the comments of Timroff's diary, but there are too many pictures and too many comments in that diary already. So I'm going to take a crack at this myself.

For those who had been previously living under a rock and have only now just surfaced and your first news is what you see here on Daily Kos, there was a Peace March today in Washington DC. Many, many sister demonstrations were planned across the country, but the big one was in Washington.

After the fold, my pictures (and be warned - there are about 38 of them) and some commentary on the day.

First, I did this march's photo journal differently than I did the last one. The '05 march pictures were kind of navel-gazey in that most of the pictures were of fellow bloggers. Since we had so many people with so many cameras covering the Blogger's pre-event and marching, I decided to focus on random things that caught my eye among the throngs of people who attended.

As you know from Timroff's diary, we all met up at Starbuck's close to the rally area an hour before the rally was to begin. I got there at about 9:15 and bloggers were already in attendance. My last accurate headcount put our total, at the start of the actual marching, at aminimun of 58. Pretty damned impressive. I'll note also that in our group were folks from Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, Albama, and Iowa, in addition to the local DC/MD/VA attendees. Some rode 24 hours on buses to get there for this - truly putting their mouths, bodies and especially their feet where their principles were. I was proud to be associated with Daily Kos when I saw how committed many of these folks were.

So to the photos, in no particular order. I'll do individual pictures or groups of related pictures preceeded by a little bit of contextual commentary.

Washington DC Peace March, January 27th, 2007

A couple of children on the march caught my eye. The first young girl had obviously hand-made her own sign, and I had her show me both sides. She's our future leadership, and therefore the future looks bright. I find it sad, though, that even a child knows what our President and his administration don't seem to realize:

I was impressed with these two young boys, who had obviously gone out and gotten rocks that they had written "Peace" on in marker. They were selling these for $1 a piece, with proceeds to be donated back to the march organizers. I bought one.

Some of the signs were incredibly creative:

Some just made me feel encouraged about the future:

You can't tell from the picture, but the peace sign was covered in glitter and it shone brillantly in the sunshine:

Some signs were more than just signs - they were paper-puppets and headgear:

These signs told about where the carrier was from. I saw many signs from many states across the country.

I came across these guys who clearly have a high opinion of Jim Webb:

I liked this lady and her friend. It reminded me of the real lives living in worry about the welfare of a loved one in pursuit of a senseless, immoral war:

My favorite display in the whole march was the "Backbone". It was literally a backbone, many feet long. On it was written "impeach, indict, convict". It took many people to carry the backbone, and it was carried high over their (and our) heads:

The anarchists were out in force. They marched before the march actually began, changing "the streets belong to us". They were marching on streets that had not yet been closed. I saw them much, much later doing the same on Constitution Avenue long after the march had concluded and streets had been re-opened:

This many really stuck with me. He walked slowly, with a cane, but he walked:

There were these people who had this bicycle decked out with drums and percussion instruments who went around and grooved for peace during the rally:

There were a few others that I liked as well:

And here are the last ones, just general crowd shots as we made our way through:

And there, folks, you have it. Timroff was correct - it was really difficult to get going once the march actually started. I've heard the estimates of attendance, and I can't say how many were there - but we ringed the Capitol. We were /packed/ in with each other, all marching, all speaking out against the war.

Oh... and the counter-demonstrators were so ridiculous as to be insignificant. There were about 40 of them (I'm being generous) who were fenced off way back from the march route carrying signs like "Saddam was bad" and "I support our troops".

As if we don't. As if we didn't stand and march for six straight hours /because/ we support them.

Blogger's MARCH! Organizing Thread

2007-01-22T13:54:00.000-05:00

HELLO! If you're in this thread you got my email. Use the comments to make suggestions and ask questions so that the group can weigh in.

This is going to be great!!

There are some new links after you click to view the whole diary...

Dem in VA has kindly reminded me to post some links to photo albums of the 2005 Peace March. So here you go, the links:

From Dem in VA

Photo Album 1
Photo Album 2

From Think2004:

Photo Album

From Thom K in LA:

Photo Album

You can see we had a great time. So bring a camera!

Love Him or Hate Him, He Gets This One Right.

2007-01-19T11:55:00.000-05:00

(Cross-posted at Daily Kos, ePluribus Media, and My Left Wing.)

He's a blowhard. He's a DINO. He uses ten words when three will suffice. He's a DLC shill. He has hair plugs.

Figure out who I'm talking about yet? Joe Biden. While I may agree with all of the characterizations above, he got a few key essential things about Iraq and Afghanistan absolutely, completely right and did it on Hardball last night.

Just so I don't get a lot of "HOW can you support this guy?" questions, let me state for the record: I don't support him. If he runs for President, I'm not in his camp. But his interview on Hardball contained so much truth I have to share it. Follow me.

DISCLAIMER: PLEASE do not construe my agreement with what was said in the following interview with any support of Joe Biden's run for the White House. Although the source may be odious, it shouldn't diminish the power of the interview itself.

The transcript was just made available (thankfully, so I don't have to transcribe from the video):

MATTHEWS: Senator Biden, is your resolution a resolution of no confidence to the President's campaigning [sic]... running of the war in Iraq?
SEN. JOSEPH BIDEN (D-DE), CHAIR, FOREIGN RELATIONS CMTE.: The answer is yes, it is. If this were a parliamentary system, there would be-it would bring the government down, I believe. But obviously we`re not.
You know, look, Chris, what made me realize how fractured this was is when we had Condoleezza Rice before my committee, 21 members of the committee. It was stunning, and you reported on it. It was stunning that 20 of the 21 senators, meaning 10 of whom were Republicans, absolutely made it clear they were not at all supportive of the president`s new policy.
::snip::
MATTHEWS: When do you think you will have a vote so that the American people can watch you, members of the Senate, debate this question publicly? Will it be after the State of the Union next week?
BIDEN: Yes, I had a chance to do it before the State of the Union, but I thought that was inappropriate. We`re going to bring it up in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for a vote-excuse me-on Wednesday. I expect that we`ll be able to get that vote.
It will then be reported to the floor of the United States Senate. And my guess is that the majority leader, in conjunction with the Republican leader, will set a time.
The word is that the Republican leader is not going to even let us have a vote on it, that they`re going to filibuster it. I don`t know that to be true, so-but the point is, the debate will ensue by the end of next week is my expectation.
MATTHEWS: How long will it take you to get the debate to end, in other words, to get a cloture vote, if you can get one, so you could actually have a vote?
BIDEN: Well, you know, I really-I don`t know that, Chris. My guess is pretty quickly. If the Republican leader decides that he`s going to filibuster it, which I hope wouldn`t be the case-but let`s say he does. It still has the same political impact.
If it`s clear he`s not going to let a vote take place, then it`s still clear that it means he knows there is a clear majority of-a bipartisan majority that want the president to understand, Mr. President, please change course. Listen to your generals. Listen to former generals. Listen to the Iraq Study Group.

Let me pause a moment. I thought this particular line of questions and answers was very effective. In my diary last week entitled NO!, my primary complaint was that the media and administration were putting the onus on Democrats to propose an alternative plan for "success". By getting out in front of this issue and raising the potentially impending Republican filibuster, Biden shifts the onus back to the Republicans.

Continuing:

::snip::
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about a constitutional question, Senator. Stephen Hadley was on "Meet The Press" this weekend and sort of dodged the question. Should the president be required to get the approval of Congress before he attacks Iran, should he decide to do so?
BIDEN: Absolutely, positively, unequivocally. I have a second resolution-a law actually-that I`m in the process of drafting. I will be seeking bipartisan support, making it clear that the authorization for the use of force that the president got three-and-a-half years ago does not-emphasize does not-give him the authority to attack Syria or Iran. That would be a disaster.

Again - to me, this is the equivalent of a pre-buttal, laying the groundwork for any hostile activities towards Iran and Syria as being unconsitutional. It places a lens of "WRONG" in front of the whole issue, and automatically sets the bar very high for Bush to do such a thing.

MATTHEWS: But you don`t expect him to sign that bill, do you?
BIDEN: No, I don`t, but I expect it to generate a constitutional crisis were he to ignore it and to, in fact, him-for then attack Iran.
MATTHEWS: Suppose the president makes the case to the public that he is not attacking Iran because of its nuclear program, he is attacking it because of its involvement in Iraq, its supplying the forces against our men in the field-men and women in the field, and he says he is simply operating as commander in chief. And then it, of course, escalates it to a blowing up of their nuclear sites if he can find them. Can he go in under that cover?
BIDEN: No, he can`t do it Constitutionally, and I don`t believe the American public are willing, for a moment-for a moment-to trust his judgment to go into war against 72 million people in an adjacent country with 150,000 Americans tied down in the region, in a war that`s-a civil war that has bogged us down. I don`t think there is a prayer of him being able to convince the American people of that rationale.
MATTHEWS: One of your potential rivals for the Democratic nomination for the president is Hillary Rodham Clinton. Senator Clinton has said we need more troops to go to Afghanistan, although she agrees with you on the need to cap the troop number in Iraq. Do you agree we need more troops in Afghanistan?
BIDEN: Yes. When the president announced his surge, I made the case that he should be surging in Afghanistan, not in Iraq. Chris, I know you know a lot about this. Imagine if we fail in Afghanistan.
What that will mean is Musharraf will cut even a closer deal with al Qaeda and with the Taliban, and if he doesn`t, he puts himself in the position of being overthrown more than he is now. That is a radicalized country. It has nuclear weapons and it will be a disaster.

Let me interject here - this is a key point. Those of us out here who follow the news but are not by any means foreign policy experts (like me - essentially a layperson) should have gotten chills when they heard what was said above. The idea that the repeated unwillingness to ensure succes in Afghanistan to bolster a tragic decision in Iraq could lead to a nuclear Pakistan in a position where it HAS to cater to Al Qaeda and the Taliban is chilling. Utterly chilling.

BIDEN: If there was a totally just war since World War II, it is the war in Afghanistan, and we are not-we are not-dealing with it properly. We have diverted resources to Iraq from the beginning. And if anything, we should be increasing resources in Afghanistan which I called for three months ago.

MATTHEWS: You know, I was watching-or actually, I was listening in my car to satellite radio the other day, Senator. I know this will get to your heart. I was listening a young serviceman, a young kid, who had just been brought into a field hospital in Iraq, and the doctor was saying we`re going to have to take off that left leg.
And the poor kid is begging for his leg. He says can`t you try, doctor, can`t you try? And the doctor is doing his job, I guess, and just says no, we can`t save that leg. And then finally he says we can save the right leg, and the kid says good.

I mean, that kind of courage...
BIDEN: Well, I`m telling you what, Chris, I`ve been over there...
MATTHEWS: And I wonder-I just don`t know why we`re wasting those lives. I don`t know why. I mean, the human cost of this war seems to be something that nobody talks about. They talk about surges and escalations and all this nonpersonal language.

YAY! Love Matthews or hate him, he took a stand on this particular issue and injected his own personal disgust both that a) it's happening at all and for no apparent reason; and b) that the administration repeatedly tries to eradicate the human element from the conversation. Surge indeed.

BIDEN: That`s exactly right. Exactly right. Look, I have been there a total-counting Afghanistan-eight times. The fact of the matter is, these people are incredible. I know that sounds like so much malarkey coming from a United States senator.
But all you have to do is see these forces on the ground, see them in Fallujah, see them in Basra, see them in Baghdad, see them in Ramadi. And you see what they are doing. They are incredible.
And, Chris, what people don`t realize yet is that because we`re able to-use the fancy word-triage these injuries, meaning we have incredible medical capability, there are thousands of people coming back with severe head injuries and amputees in a percentage much higher than any other war since the Civil War who are living. Had it been Vietnam, they would be dead.
And what people don`t understand is the human cost that is going to continue, continue. If the war ends today, that`s going to continue for the next 20 years is amazing. And why? And now we`re putting 21,500 people, 17,000 of whom will be going door to door in Iraq?
I had five-four generals before me this morning on Foreign Relations, Chris, people you know, from Barry McCaffrey to General Odom to General Ahora (ph). These are commandants of the Marine Corps, et cetera.
And to a person-to a person-they pointed out that there is-and including the general who supports the surge, says we`re not going and supporting the Iraqis. We`re going to be in the lead. In a city of six-plus million people, we`re going to have young men in the middle of a civil war and women knocking on doors? This is absolutely, absolutely the wrong thing to do.
MATTHEWS: Senator, we had Congressman Duncan Hunter of California, the recently chairman of the Armed Services Committee in the House on yesterday. And he posed what looked to me like a strong political argument. He said if people try to oppose this surge, this 21,000 more troops going to Iraq, they are basically killing reinforcements on the way to protect our service people.

Pay attention - this is key.

BIDEN: Wrong. We`re not sending reinforcements. There are no forces knocking on those doors in those 23 neighborhoods in Baghdad now. Give me a break. Let`s talk about what the facts are.
If you talk about reinforcements for troop protection, that`s a fundamentally different thing than saying guess what we`re going to do now. We`re changing our mission. We are going to go in and take out the Sunni insurgency, and then turn on-as they are telling us-then turn on the Shia militia in a city of 6.1 million people. Chris, we are not doing that now. This is a change in mission. So Mr. Hunter-Congressman Hunter is putting a red herring out there.

I thought that whole line of discussion was absolutely critical. If there are any moves, following a no-confidence resoltuion, to revisit the AUMF, the simple fact that there has been a change in mission is critical to requiring a new authorization.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you a last question, Senator Biden. You are chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. You`ve got to be up to date on all this stuff. When we go to vote in November of 2008, will we still be fighting this war? Will it still look like it does this week with all these Iraqis getting killed, our guys walking door to door, kicking down doors, facing hell? Will we still be fighting this war when we vote in November of 2008?
BIDEN: Yes, if the Republicans do not make it clear to the president. Now, look, we`re in the majority by one. But what`s going to happen-you`ve been around this town a long time, like I have. The thing that brought Nixon down and made it clear that he`d hand over the tapes wasn`t any vote in the Congress. It was when a group of Republican senators got in the car and went down to the president, said, "Mr. President, the jig is up."
What`s going to happen here, Chris-and you know this town better than I do, living here-what`s going to happen is when the leading members of the House and Senate on the Republican side say, "Mr. President, no more of this. Listen to all the advice you got."
Think about it, Chris. You had a former secretary of state who`s a Republican. You had leading Republicans on the Iraqi Study Group. You had the chairman-you had the Joint Chiefs of Staff. You had the outgoing leader, General Abizaid, the outgoing leader, General Casey. You had-every single, solitary one of them told him, "This is a mistake. This is a mistake."
And every one of them said some version of the following: "Mr. President, you need a political solution. The only way you`re going to get it is get the region involved and make it clear to the president of the Iraqi government that we`re not staying, we`re not going to precipitously leave, but they`ve got to step up to the ball and make the hard decisions."
Every major voice on both sides of the aisle has said that to him. And the idea that he can make the case politically, that what he`s doing makes sense, I think is just divorced from reality.

Republicans, meet Onus. Onus, go sit with the Republicans. I thought that was masterful. I can't say whether or not it was intentional, but it served multiple purposes: It called on history to point out that an Act of Congress did not stop Nixon's activities. In that statement alone, It at least opened the idea that there are limits to what Congress can do. One of the big risks in running against the Iraq War, in my opinion, was that it would create undue pressure on Democrats to solve the Iraq War. As I argued in NO!, Congress is incredibly limited in what it can do, Constitutionally, to actually stop the war. This statement reinforced that simple fact while shifting the responsibility to leading Republicans to be honorable and to go to the President and inform him that all Congressional support was absent. And if you think about it, this isn't a very risky move for leading Republicans. We are in full 2008 election swing and these guys are severely worried about the blowback from the administration's decisions regarding Iraq. It's the right kind of pressure applied in the right place at the right time, and it's our best chance to get these guys out.

If the Republicans do go to the President, there is an appearance of Democrats as having led that strategy and call. And if the Republicans don't rise to meet the challenge, they set themselves up to fail in 2008.

MATTHEWS: Well, senator, we`ll have to bring back Hugh Scott of Pennsylvania to do that walk down to the White House. I don`t know if any of the Republicans are tough enough to face Bush on this one.
But thank you very much for coming on HARDBALL, Senator Joe Biden, candidate for the presidency.

Loved the last zinger from Matthews, because it really increased the size of the challenge being issued.

I'm no supporter of Joe Biden for Presdident and can't envision becoming a supporter under any circumstances. But he gets props from me for this interview, because he set up a LOT of necessary traps and baselines upon which Democrats can fight this war and this administration. Regardless of what we think about him, he spoke credibly and forcefully and, overall, I think it can only come to good effect.

DISCLAIMER: PLEASE do not construe my agreement with what was said in the preceding interview with any support of Joe Biden's run for the White House.

And if you've read this far, I thank you - this was a long one (sorry!).

NO!

2007-01-15T18:00:00.000-05:00

(Cross-posted at Daily Kos, My Left Wing and ePluribus Media.)

No, no, no, no, NO!

Sometimes an economy of words can express the truest, simplest of realities. I've just finished watching a replay of John McCain on Face the Nation from yesterday (yeah - I know I'm behind, here, but I'm trying to catch up). He is not the first Republican to try to put the onus back on the Democrats to offer a solution or to "put up or shut up".

The response necessary to these calls is simple and has, as yet, not been clearly spoken: NO. Make the jump.

It started with Bush's speech on Wednesday night. In it, he said:

In the days ahead, my national security team will fully brief Congress on our new strategy. If members have improvements that can be made, we will make them. If circumstances change, we will adjust. Honorable people have different views, and they will voice their criticisms. It is fair to hold our views up to scrutiny. And all involved have a responsibility to explain how the path they propose would be more likely to succeed.

No. It is NOT their responsibility to explain the path to "success". It is up to Bush to define a strategy that makes success likely. In absence of a strategy for success, then it is up to Bush to explain the least objectionable path. Those who oppose this war are not the Commander-in-Chief - there's only one of those. And he is, God help us, George W. Bush.

It continued in Sunday's Presidential Radio Address:

Members of Congress have a right to express their views, and express them forcefully. But those who refuse to give this plan a chance to work have an obligation to offer an alternative that has a better chance for success. To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible.

No. Members of Congress do NOT have this obligation. They are a separate branch of government from that of the executive. Someone should explain to Bush that the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch serve different purposes. The Executive, as Commander-in-Chief, is responsible for wartime strategies and plans. NOT Congress. That they believe and are saying they believe the surge is irresponsible, wrong-headed, and has nothing but past failures to predict future outcomes does NOT make them responsible to assume the powers of the Executive to propose tactics and strategies.

The President seemed to understand this basic separation of powers issue when he was on 60 Minutes on Sunday night, however (sorry - no link - I transcribed it myself during the show):

BUSH: And the reason I brought up the mistakes is one, that's the job of the Commander in Chief and two I don't want people blaming our military. We've got a bunch of good military people out there doing what we've asked them to do and the temptation is going to be to find scapegoats. Well if people want to find a scapegoat, they've got one right here in me because it's my decisions.

That hasn't stopped John McCain from reading, adopting, and then taking one step further the Republican talking points. His interview on CBS' Face The Nation shows the complete transformation of the Straight Talk Express to the Sell Out Express (transcribed from the online video):

SHIEFFER: Let me ask you about voting. The Democrats are preparing to bring to both the Senate and the House floors a bi-partisan - what they hope will be a bi-partisan resolution of disapproval. We hear that some of the Republican leaders are so worried about this that they may try to filibuster it. I must tell you, I have never heard of anybody trying to filibuster a non-binding resolution. Number one, will you vote - how will you vote on that and do you think it will be a good thing to filibuster this and not allow it to come to a vote?

MCCAIN: Obviously I would vote to approve a - against a motion of disapproval. I think it would be foolish to filibuster. The Senate runs in such a way that people can attach amendments all the time. I'd be glad to have that debate. But on this issue - and it's a very important one - if we voice disapproval and send our young troops on their way as the President will do, what message does this send to the troops? That we disapprove of what they're doing but that we still support them but not their mission? Look - if these people are serious that oppose this increase in troops and change in strategy then then should vote to cut off funding and that way they can then say "we tried to stop it". A motion of disapproval I view as purely a political ploy to do further damage to the President of the United States. If they're dead serious, then we should have a motion to cut off funding. And that happened in the Vietnam war and unfortunately about Vietnam as well as Cambodia.

No. McCain is trying to present two bad alternatives and compel the choice of the one that damages him the least. It's not the Democrat's responsibility, to show their veracity, to simply cut off funding. That's not the ONLY method left to them to try to compel some reality-based actions. This no-confidence resolution is one method. Senator Kennedy's proposal from Tuesday of last week is another such method. There is also talk about revisiting the AUMF as the mission has so clearly and substantially changed.

All of these are potential remedies within the Constitutional purview of the United States Congress. Saying that Congress has to either a) propose something that will be successful, thereby assumung the powers of the Executive; or b) choose only one of several Legislative alternatives is a poor-man's attempt to rope-a-dope.

NO. It's a really simple response.

"No, Chris [Matthews]. It's not our job to propose an alternative plan. That's the President's job. I'm surprised that after six years he hasn't learned the differences between the Executive and Legislative branches of government."

"No, Wolf. It's not our only option to suspend funding. We have other options that are within our Constitutional rights. We can move to re-authorize the use of military force. We can move to require the President submit detailed plans for his proposals including the monies attached to new and additional activities. Our only option is NOT to simply pull funding from the troops. I'm surprised Senator McCain doesn't realize that, what with his being in the Senate for so long."

I've seen Durbin, Dodd, and Obama all asked some variation of these questions. Their answers aren't bad, but they aren't a simple "NO." The false choices being presented to Democrats don't require that they respond as though they are being asked something reasonable. And sometimes, as with small children, a simple "NO" is the only answer that sinks in.

Googlebombing is In The Air

2007-01-12T15:27:00.000-05:00

Via this post by Chris Bowers on the recommended list at Daily Kos:

--1. Finding a recent new article from an established news sources that focuses on McCain's support of George Bush. I have determined that the first such article will be the beautifully titled McCain Defend Bush's Iraq Strategy from the Associated Press. It is hard to get any better than that. In fact, it was seeing that headline today that gave me the idea to conduct this campaign.
--2. For an extended period of time, several weeks if necessary, having as many people on the internet as possible embed a hyperlink to the chosen article whenever they use the word McCain, John McCain, Senator John McCain, McCain 2008, or any other popular search term on McCain.
--3. Having as many bloggers as possible place that same embedded hyperlink into the templates of their blog. Instructions on how to do this, and why it is important, can be found here. This will multiply the impact of any Googlebomb on McCain several hundred times. This process is also helped if people on community websites place the appropriate embeded McCain hyperlink in the signature line of their user interface.
--4. Monitoring the progress on the current McCain Googlebomb until it moves into the top five results on McCain in Google. Once this is accomplished, and it should only take a few weeks, we then start the process over again at step one with a different news article that tells the truth on McCain.

So Google Bomb John McCain. No McCain 2008, No John McCain, No McCain, no Straight Talk Express, and certainly no maverick can spew the party line and not get called on it.

This is how bad it's going to get.

2006-12-12T16:17:00.000-05:00

(Cross-posted at Daily Kos)

The Washington Post published an article yesterday that was, for me, a real eye-opener.

It seems that former government (specifically DOJ) lawyers are leaving the government in droves and heading to K Street firms to better defend the people they were supposed to (and sometimes did, but not nearly enough) investigate against the coming onslaught of oversight envisioned with the 110th Congress.

More after the fold.

From Jeffrey H. Birnbaum's /Washington Post/ column, K Street Confidential:

Deee-fense, Deee-fense Deee-fense.
You can almost hear the chant rising from corporate offices all over town. As soon as Democrats take over Congress next month, all sorts of businesses will no doubt face sharp-elbowed congressional hearings called O & I -- oversight and investigations. *And they'll need a strong defense*.

While we have embroiled ourselves over the raging debate of "to impeach or not to impeach", the drumbeat of oversight and investigations is taking root where it matters: with the stakeholders. The article continues:

So many inquisitions are about to be begun by the Democrats newly in charge that dozens of law and PR firms are bulking up with former insiders to cash in on all the trouble those hearings will create. Companies that were harassed in the past by smart young government lawyers have lately been buying the services of those same young lawyers, now in the private sector, for protection from their successors.

Indeed. As Mark R. Paoletta, chief counsel for investigations and oversight at the House Energy and Commerce Committee puts it:

"Democrats are going to be very, very active."

Let's hope so. In fact, I don't doubt it. Check out these gems from an hours-old article from The Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

Rep. Henry Waxman has spent the last six years investigating the White House and its corporate allies, focusing on everything from military contracts to Medicare prices from his perch on the Government Reform Committee.
In January, Waxman becomes committee chairman - and the lead congressional hound of an administration many Democrats feel has blundered badly as it expanded the power of the executive branch.

The challenge?

"The most difficult thing will be to pick and choose," he [Waxman] said.

There was also this item, which I found extremely interesting:

When he became top Democrat of the Government Reform Committee in 1997, Waxman realized that he didn't have to settle for playing defense like most in the House minority. He took advantage of the committee's large staff to hire talented investigators to pursue projects large and small.
He probed Medicare drug costs, steroids in baseball, and why the Taekwondo Union was allowing 12- and 13-year-olds to kick opponents in the head. He also investigated abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib and government contracts given to Halliburton, Vice President Dick Cheney's former company.

I'm certainly no expert, but what that last excerpt said to me is that a great deal of the groundwork for these important investigations has already been laid. In other words, he already has some measure of information to use as a basis for where he starts. Before we leave the Post-Intelligencer artcle, there was finally this:

As Government Reform chairman, Waxman's priorities will include probing government contracts for Hurricane Katrina cleanup, homeland security and the Iraq war.

Fertile ground. Now back to the Washington Post and the "K Street Defense":

So much better [the pay in the private sector], in fact, that just about every company on K Street is vying for a piece of the soon-to-thrive "crisis management" business. The law firm Holland & Knight is flogging its newly formed Congressional Investigations Response Team. Promotional literature highlights the many former insiders now eager to assist their former nemeses: "Our ranks include two former Members of Congress, a former Minority Chief Counsel to the Senate Government Affairs Committee, a former Rules Committee Counsel, a former Chief of Staff for the House Republican Conference, and a former Chief of Staff to the Attorney General, among others."
Two former aides to the House's Government Reform Committee are also forming a partnership partly in hopes of attracting clients who want to know how to defeat the kinds of investigations they once managed. Barbara J. Comstock and Mark Corallo are setting out on their new venture because, Comstock said, "it helps to know the history of the committee, its subpoena power."

Comstock is a well known conservative Republican operative and Corallo was with DOJ from 2002-2005 where he served as spokesman for then Attorney General John Ashcroft.

The Washington Post article is rife with references to former insiders from a variety of industries now nervous with the impending Democratic Congressional takeover. Energy/oil. Pharmaceuticals. Government Contracting. Labor. Hedge fund companies. Environmentally poluting companies such as utilities and the auto industry. The K Street machine of lawyers, consultants, PR and media firms are in full bulk-up to ensure they have representatives attractive to companies in these sectors who may fall under the microscope of oversight and investigations.

In short, a cottage indsutry has sprung up in lobbying, defending, and managing the public perception of companies that may be targeted by Waxman's committee alone.

Birnbaum closes with a statement of the obvious:

Sometimes a good defense is a vigorous offense.

All I can say is, I hope the reality of oversight and investigations is much, much worse than this investment indicates. And make no mistake - these firms are paying big money for these insiders because they KNOW they will see a substantial return on their investment. I don't know of any better indicator of how bad it's going to get than seeing huge sums of money flowing to people best poised to defend alleged or even suspected wrongdoing. It always does, essentially, come down to following the money.

I'm betting that Waxman isn't going to be fooled by well-crafted media messages and knowledgable defenses, though. And I would hope every other Democratic Congressperson with a dog in the investigations and oversight fight follows his already aggressive lead.

Pardon me as I wipe the drool created from anticipating the onslaught.

Bush is a ridiculous human being.

2006-12-07T16:36:00.000-05:00

Here's Why:

Now - tell me what he's wearing on his feet??! 'Nuff said. (Click picture to enlarge)

Dissecting the "Investigation" of NSA Wiretaps

2006-11-29T13:51:00.000-05:00

(Cross-posted at Daily Kos, My Left Wing, and ePluribus Media)

First and foremost: Hat tip to dirtroad for dropping a message in a message thread about an article that will constitute much of this diary.

I posted a diary yesterday about Jack Cafferty (CNN) picking up the story regarding DOJ's about-face on investigating the NSA wiretaps and parlaying it into his Question of the Day. The set-up, the question, and the responses Cafferty read are in the diary linked above.

It's important, though, to understand what they are "investigating" and prepare for the implications of any such "investigation". With that, follow me over the fold and we'll get right to it.

The article dirtroad was kind enough to highlight is by Thomas C. Greene from The Register. I'm going to pick and choose parts of the article, but the whole thing is worth a read.

DoJ investigators will examine how the data scooped up by the NSA is handled and applied when US citizens are affected. No doubt the government's practices will be measured against the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), although the Bush administration has claimed repeatedly that it answers to a higher authority.

My emphasis added. The first important thing to note is that this is not an investigation into the legality of the spying itself. It is an investigation into how the data is collected and handled. Right out of the gate, this assumes the practice itself is legal.

Continuing, an interesting observation:

This apparently proactive cooperation should strike Washington watchers as preemptive. If the Bushies are willing to concede the issue without a fight, it's most likely because they doubt there's much red meat to be had from it. That is, if they want this investigated first, it's because they want other things investigated last.
The media has made a great fuss about this program, so it should surprise no one if the combination of a whole lot of smoke and a small fire suits the administration quite well. If it keeps Congress and the press occupied, and only hurts the administration moderately, it's a Godsend.

Hm. Just, hm. I'm trying to work through what I think about that. Given first that the investigation is into the process and not the legality, I'm inclined to see the logic Greene applies to this, and I find it wholly consistent. Set a small campfire to distract people while the forest fire rages over the next ridge.

And the money quote:

The NSA spy scandal offers the administration many virtues as a national hobbyhorse. For one, it's painless and "clean"; no one has been bloodied, maimed, or killed by it. It doesn't melt anyone's skin like the incendiary weapons used in Fallujah; it doesn't blow up one's house and leave half of one's family deadU. It doesn't cause the premature burial of young Americans killed in Iraq, whose families need them far more than their country ever did. No one in Iraq is fighting for America, not even the Americans. The USA never needed that war; George W Bush alone needed it, and for a contemptible reason: he thought it would make him Great.
--snip--
Indeed, the NSA spy program could be *just the media obsession the administration is looking for, now that the balance of power has shifted.

Hm again. What's that, you say? A mass distraction with the media's cooperation to distract us from doing things that really matter? Perish the thought.

I also found this interesting snippet from The Albany Times Union:

So why is Mr. Fine (DOJ OIG] suddenly joining the fray, given his past refusal to look into the program? One has to suspect the timing. Come January, some of the harshest critics of the spying program will be part of the new Democratic majority in Congress, and in a position to launch their own investigations and issue subpoenas. Thus, Mr. Fine may well be on a damage control mission. If he issues a report claiming the material obtained under the program hasn't been abused, and that there are safe guards in place to protect the privacy of Americans, the White House will be able to argue that the Democrats' investigations aren't necessary.

Two different but potentially related speculations on the why of this "investigation". The first argues distraction; the second argues damage control. In the comments to yesterday's diary, many raised legal questions as to whether or not the "investigation" can be used to protect potential witnesses called by the Democratic-controlled Congress. The argument, repeated by several commenters, was that the administration would use the "subject of an ongoing investigation" (thanks, Scotty) as a reason to decline to provide potentially damaging information to Congressional committees.

Now - what if it's all three? Republicans may have failed in their much-feared ability to deliver elections, but I don't believe any of us have been lured into a false sense of security that they are totally off their game and now rendered suddenly unable to see the landscape and orchestrate the best possible outcome for themselves.

In researching this, I tried to find the original letter that 23 Democrats sent to Fine some unspecified amount of time ago. All I could find specific to illegal wiretapping was a letter to the President (PDF):

We urge you to immediately direct Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to exercise his authority under 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510 and 515 to appoint a Special Counsel to investigate recent reports that the National Security Agency may have conducted warrantless surveillance on U.S. persons in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. We know that the security of the American people depend on our law enforcement and intelligence agencies' interception of communications between terrorist agents. We believe that this surveillance can and must be performed according to the rule of law.
--snip--
Unfortunately, Mr. Gonzales' recent testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee did little to answer our questions or dispel our concerns. Rather, the Attorney General's opaque testimony simply left us with even more questions about this program. Mr. Gonzales repeatedly refused to discuss what he called the "operational details" of this program, refusing to inform the Committee of such "operational details" as whether the Department discloses to the FISA court its use of information garnered from this program in obtaining warrants from the court - in other words, whether the Department was pursuing prosecutions based on evidence gathered in possible violation of FISA and the 4th Amendment. Press reports indicate that, in fact, evidence gathered under this program may have been used improperly to obtain warrants from the FISA court.
--snip--

[Signed:]
Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)
Gary Ackerman (D-NY)
Rick Boucher (D-VA)
Lois Capps (D-CA)
John Conyers (D-MI)
Peter DeFazio (D-OR)
Anna Eshoo (D-CA)
Sam Farr (D-CA)
Raul Grijalva (D-AZ)
Mike Honda (D-CA)
Carolyn Maloney (D-NY)
Doris Matsui (D-CA)
Jim McGovern (D-MA)
George Miller (D-CA)
David Price (D-NC)
Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)
Adam Schiff (D-CA)
Bennie Thompson (D-MS)

The letter itself questions the legality. But the second paragraph I excerpted could reference the details echoed by Glenn Fine's letter - in other words, the process of collection and handling of information. I note also that, perhaps, this preemptive strike by DOJ is a way to get around what the Democrats requested, appointment of a Special Counsel.

So all you legal wonks out there - can Congress come back and reassert its request for a Special Counsel? If they do this, can they still conduct hearings and investigations of their own? And the larger question - should we even be paying attention to this?

I'll close with one thing from the article I began with, the one in The Register:

There are so many dark avenues for Congress to illuminate: arbitrary classification of "enemy combatants", indefinite detentions, extraordinary rendition, secret prisons, torture, military kangaroo courts, prisoner abuse, war crimes, phony intelligence used knowingly to justify a needless conflict. Along these avenues lurk unspeakable things involving blood and death, endless loneliness, profound loss, and enduring pain.

Greene essentially argues here that glomming onto this or any other warrantless wiretapping investigation utterly misses the point of what really matters.

The Last Throes of the Insurgency

2006-11-24T23:20:00.000-05:00

(Cross-posted at Daily Kos and ePluribus Media)

As recently as late June of this year our esteemed Vice President, Darth Cheney, stood by his assertion that the insurgency was in its "last throes".

This bears some investigation. Things are coming together in Iraq and in the Middle East. I am surrounded by an intense feeling that this is a pivotal period in Iraq that is coming to a head and doing so quickly.

Stay with me over the fold as I work through this.

Juan Cole kicks us off.

Friday, November 24, 2006
233 Dead in Civil War Carnage
Health Ministry Besieged
3,000 Widows Created Each Month
So as Thursday began, Sunni Arab guerrillas surrounded and attacked the Ministry of Health, which is dominated by followers of Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. The guerrillas trapped 2,000 employees in the compound and threatened to kill any who came outside. They also subjected the building to mortar fire. The ministry guards, who are probably Mahdi Army, kept them at bay but lost 7 men doing it. It took US and Iraqi forces 2 hours to respond, and the guerrillas were only finally dispersed by helicopter gunships. The siege probably came in revenge for the Mahdi Army attack on the Sunni-run Ministry of Higher Education two weeks ago.

If you're still recovering from your Turkey/Family Day, yesterday was a brutal and bloody day in Iraq. On a day where we were celebrating our national traditions, Iraqi civilians were brutally assaulted:

BAGHDAD, Nov. 24 -- A barrage of car bombs, mortar attacks and missiles battered the Shiite Muslim slum of Sadr City on Thursday afternoon, *killing around 200 people and injuring as many more* in the single deadliest assault on Iraqi civilians since the start of the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003.

This is yet another information point in what has long ago become a deadly environment for Iraqi civilians:

More than 1,000 Iraqis a day are being displaced by the sectarian violence that began on Feb. 22 with the bombing of the Shiite Askariya shrine in Samarra, according to a report released this week by the Geneva-based International Organization for Migration, a U.N.-associated group.
This increasing movement of Iraqi families, caused by the lack of security and by the growth of armed local militias and criminal gangs, is adding to the already chaotic governmental situation in Baghdad, according to U.N., U.S. and non-governmental reports released over the past weeks.

An email received by Juan Cole illuminates these events:

'It is desperate in Iraq, *worse then ever and there is no end in sight*. I had lunch with [a former high ranking medical educator in Iraq] two days ago. [He] noted that Iraq no longer has neuro-surgeons, no cardiac surgeons, few pediatric doctors - they are all gone, killed or fled to neighboring countries like him. He was given seven days to get out or be killed. He is one of the lucky ones. He and his family have an opportunity for a new life in the US. But what about all the others. Where are they to go?
Another friend, a Sunni sheikh of the Shammar tribe noted to me that *thousands of former officers are prepared to assault the G[reen] Z[one]*. It is no longer a matter of can they do it, they are *only mulling over the timing*. The breach of the Green Zone security the other day was a test of their ability to get in, and not a real attempt at a coup, though it is reported as such. Every Iraqi I talk to says unambiguously that the resistance attached to the former regime would take out the Shiite militias with barely a fight, but that the resistance will not commit wholesale revenge against the Shiite population. They just want to get rid of the "carpet baggers" from Iran.'

Chaos. Adding a twist to the entire situation is the latest ultimatum from Shiite Cleric Muqtada al-Sadr:

Powerful Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr is threatening to withdraw support from Iraq's government if Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki meets President Bush next week, an al-Sadr representative said Friday.
Such a move could jeopardize the stability of the administration of al-Maliki who has relied on the support of both the United States and his fellow Shiites.
The White House said talks between Bush and al-Maliki in Jordan next week would go ahead as planned. Al-Maliki's office has not responded to the threat by Salih al-Akeili, a member of the al-Sadr bloc in Iraq's parliament, that aired on Iraqi TV.
The move came as attacks on Sunni mosques were reported in apparent retaliation for a bloodbath in a Shiite area on Thursday.

This puts incredible pressure, as the article notes, on Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. Needing the support of both the US /and/ Al-Sadr, Al-Maliki will alienate one faction or the other if he either proceeds with his meetings with Bush or pulls out of those meetings with Bush. Al-Sadr's statement (or warning) is the throwing down of a proverbial gauntlet that Al-Maliki will have to address.

As I am writing this, CNN is reporting that a spokesman for Al-Sadr has said that Iraqi forces, backed by US forces, have entered Sadr city from the Eastern and Northeaster sides of the city to impose calm and control on the area. Coalition aircraft and helicopters are reported to be involved in this effort.

This just gets worse and worse. Iraqi civilian attacks and deaths are at an all-time high. The price these people are paying for our hubris is astonishing and shameful. I find it difficult to believe that there is even a /question/ about going big, going long, or going home.

I have a read a variety of even-handed voices arguing against going home. The basis for their argument is, of course, that to go home now will plunge Iraq into a pattern of violence and civil war that is unconscionable. I hear and understand these arguments. But at some point, the only choices left are bad ones. That is the state in which we find ourselves today. We have so badly botched the "liberation" of Iraq that not only are we faced with utter and complete defeat - we are faced with empowering other nations who seek to do us harm.

At let me be clear: we don't have to be attacked, at home or abroad, to suffer this harm. Case in point: Iran and Syria. Both are emerging as the only potential way out of the death and destruction our incursion into Iraq has created. Via the Boston Globe:

The Iranian parliamentary speaker, Gholam Ali Haddad Adel, told the official Islamic Republic News Agency that Saturday's summit in Tehran is designed to bring Iran, Syria, and Iraq closer together. "We hope the summit will boost relations between the three countries," he said.
--snip--
The United States insists Iran and Syria are helping fuel the turmoil in Iraq, and it wants Iraqi leaders to send a strong message to Tehran to stop interference. Iran is believed to give backing to Shi'ite militias accused in Iraq's sectarian violence, and Syria is accused by the United States of turning a blind eye to Iraqi insurgents that use its territory as a base.
At the same time, the Bush administration is under increased pressure at home to open a dialogue with Iran and Syria to help calm Iraq. The Tehran summit may be an attempt by the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to show that any dialogue over his country's role in Iraq will be on his terms.

Consider this: four years ago, could anyone, regardless of politics, have envisioned a /worse/ outcome? We are, despite our protestations, driving power and influence to Iran and Syria. They're no fools. Our administration likes to paint these two countries with language that leaves the impression of a backward people, archaic in their mindset and tactics. Yet every move we make in Iraq lends credence to the /idea/ that only Iran and Syria can exert influence that will help calm the bloodshed in Iraq. Iran and Syria are playing this /perfectly/. The fact that they are instrumental in creating the chaos they seek to assist in controlling is irrelevant.

We have allowed this.

There were a plethora of options as we planned our incursion into Iraq. I was adamantly against this war from the beginning. HOWEVER - once the war itself was begun, I resigned myself to wishing most aredently for excellent planning and execution on the part of the United States. I am frequently reminded of one of the best lessons I learned from a childhood neighbor who was also a Pastor at a local Methodist church. He encouraged my parents to bring me to his "Children's Sermon", which they did. In one of those sermons, he took a traditional tube of toothpaste and paper plate. He squeezed that toothpaste out onto the plate in front of the assembled children. He handed me the plate with the mound of toothpaste and said one thing:

"Now put it back in."

Of course I couldn't. And I am frequently drawn back to that lesson as events unfold in Iraq. We squeezed the tube and we can't put it back in. And we opened the door for Iran and Syria to come out with increased influence and position in the region as being the /only ones who can save the carnage/ that occurs every day in Iraq.

I choose "Go Home". The /best/ we're left with at this point is to apply a tourniquet to our reputation and simply stop the bleeding. We're going to lose the limb. There's no helping that. And it's going to take time and new leadership to allow us to be healthy again. I don't expect to see restoration of our reputation in the world in my lifetime. But we have to start working towards that end /NOW/ if there's any hope.

Apologize and leave. It's the only option left to us.

Impeachment is a Civic Responsibility

2006-11-18T13:45:00.000-05:00

(Cross-posted at Daily Kos and ePluribus Media)

I find it inherently interesting and often invaluable to hear other people's points of view as well as provide my own. I can't tell you how many times I have had my opinion expanded by simply turning an issue on its side and considering it from another's viewpoing, whether they are a person with whom I agree or not.

I was an early supporter of impeachment. In principle, it's the right thing to do. But politically, particularly after the November 7 election, I had gone somewhat softer. Right or wrong, I'm thinking politically and realizing that 2008 is right around the corner and a 1994-esque move (ala the Republicans targeting Clinton) to constantly subpoena, investigate, and potentially impeach didn't seem to serve political ends.

Richard Dreyfus changed my mind last night in his appearance on Real Time with Bill Maher. Make the jump.

I'm going to literally transcribe from my DVR Dreyfus' statement with respect to impeachment. It's powerful and everyone should read and at least consider it.

The general subject was whether or not ethics will be a central concern addressed by the new Democrat-controlled Congress. From there, though, it took a very interesting turn. All emphasis in the transcripts is mine.

MAHER: And you think he [the President] should be impeached? I mean, what would that get you? Cheney as President?
DREYFUS: The two reasons that one would argue against impeachment are the Vice President and the Democratic Congress. But I'm not in favor of impeachment. I am in favor of the process. And I believe that unless the society stands against certain things, they will have endorsed certain things. Like torture, leaving the Geneva Convention...
MAHER: Right. That is well said.
DREYFUS: ...and lying to the Congress about the reasons for war. And once the Republicans are placed in the position of having to endorse torture, you've got a bad problem on your hands. And we do not realize that this is not about impeachment - it's about the other branches of the government doing their duty so that you don't hand off to a liberal or a conservative - the President - swollen powers when no one ever turns power away. No one ever says "oh no thank you - we're not going to use that".
And so whoever gets to be President will use the power handed to this President. And we will rue that day unless we stand in some way against that, even in a minority report. Even if we... if you lose an impeachment hearing - whoever "we" are - then at least you have a body that says we stand against these things. And unless you do that, then you're for them.

One word: powerful. There was further discussion of a more general nature later in the show where Dreyfus also weighed in, and I really felt that his following commentary, coupled with his thoughts on impeachment, struck a perfect chord.

The lead-in was the discussion of the guy being beaten by the LAPD. One of the other guests, Tom Morello, was lamenting our numbness and wondering why we weren't in the streets with pitchforks and torches over such a thing. Dreyfus weighed in. This is a long transcription but it's worth reading every word.

DREYFUS: That's the constancy that you can learn. You can actually learn the constancy of curiosity, and the constancy of outreach. You can learn that it is ok to keep asking the questions, and to be dissenters. And if you don't - if you're not taught it - then you don't know it. But we owe ourselves and the United States that we will pass off to our children to re-learn the tools of reason, logic, clarity, dissent, civility, and debate. And those things are the non-partisan basis of Democracy and without them, you can kiss this thing goodbye.
It is up to us - it wasn't because of a conspiracy that that this left - it was thoughtlessness - and what you have to do is get it back. And what happens now in this partisan-addicted country of ours is that Democrats are afraid that if they send their kids to Civics classes they might not come back Democrats. And Republicans are afraid their kids won't come back Republicans. But Civics - the expertise needed to understand western enlightenment and civil liberties is not something you're born with. You have to learn it.
And we teach our kids what we want them to know and we don't teach them what we don't want them to know. And that's not a conspiracy - that's human nature. And you have to - WE have to remember - that unless we teach the ideas that make America a miracle in government - a miracle - that everyone knows is a miracle - unless we teach what that means, then it will go away in your kids' lifetime. And we will be a fable. We will be a tale told about this place that used to stand up for blah blah blah.
You have to teach it. You have to find the time and creativity to teach it in school. And if you don't, then you will lose it to fundamentalists of any stripe, you will lose it to stupidity, you will lose it to the darkness. And what this country represents is a tiny twinkle of light in a history of opression and darkness and cruelty and if it lasts for more than our lifetime or our kids' lifetime it is only due to the fact that we put some effort into teaching what it is.
The ideas of America - the idea of opportunity, mobility, freedom of thought, freedom of assembly - and if you don't teach it, it will go away and in the middle of the night when the towers fall, we will not say "what am I responsible for" - we will say "tell us what to do".

There's a lot to think about in that statement. First, I was struck by the obvious idea that we teach our children what we want them to know and NOT what we don't want them to know. It's self-apparent - but the cost is not something I had considered. I immediately thought of your typical pro-life person not teaching their children about sex and birth control, rather teaching abstinence and decrying abortion. But that shoe can be placed on either foot and we have to not fear people learning the other sides of the arguments we hold dear. It is, in fact, ESSENTIAL to the idea that we have a generation forming behind us that has the ability to cherish - to understand America and American values, and to stubbornly defend ALL points of view while nudging forward that which makes us so unique as a pure form of government. That is why the impeachment process is necessary. Not to punish - but to reinforce. To stand at last and go on record as to what's acceptable and unacceptable. To save our very Democracy.

And I was also very struck by the truth of his last statement: if we don't teach it - ALL of it - then we will morph to a populace that needs to be told rather than one that inherently knows what it stands for and what that means, in terms of responsibility, to each individual in the populace.

Incidentally, Dreyfus has been, for the last two years, a Senior Associate Member of St. Anthony's College, University of Oxford, learning (as he put it) how to teach civics.

There's a lot here to think about. And I, for one, am grateful that I heard it and am able to share it here.

One little extra unrelated tidbit I'll give you - Maher, of course, does his little schtick late in the show after his second one-on-one interview. This week, it was "celebrity fragrances", wherein he had men's cologne suited to politicians and celebrities, poking fun at their missteps. This one's just a bonus:

MAHER: [getting bottle of cologne] It speaks without thinking. Splash it on your red necks - George Allen's Macaca for Men.

Heh.

Cyrus Kar: US Citizen, Veteran, Abused at Abu Ghraib

2006-11-17T12:22:00.000-05:00

(Cross-posted at Daily Kos and ePluribus Media)

I did a diary search for the last month to see if anyone had written about what happened to Cyrus Kar, an Iranian American who went to Iraq to film an historical documentary. I didn't find a specific reference, but apologies in advance if this has already been diaried.

If you don't know Kar's story, it's both shocking and chilling and exactly the reason our new Congress has to conduct oversight activities on the conduct of the administration in the prosecution of the so-called "War on Terror".

No boogeying this time - step somberly over the bump.

I heard the story first this morning while I was heading to a meeting and was listening to CNN on my Sirius radio. It was covered on Anderson Cooper 360 last night as well, and that's where I found the transcript below. All emphasis is entirely mine.

RANDI KAYE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Cyrus Kar is an Iranian American who went to Iraq last year to film a historical documentary. It had nothing to do with the war. But just days after arriving, his trip took a stunning turn. Karr landed at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison where he says U.S. troops called him the American terrorist.
CYRUS KAR, FILMMAKER: I could hear them in what must have been their standard mantra, which was, you F-ing terrorist, you're here to kill Americans. You f-ing terrorist.
KAYE: So how did this Los Angeles filmmaker, who's lived in the U.S. since kindergarten, this Navy veteran, end up a suspected terrorist?
Kar says his taxi, driven by an Iraqi, was stopped at a checkpoint. The car's trunk was searched, and Kar, his cameraman and the driver were arrested for plotting to build roadside bombs.
KAR: They found three dozen washing machine timers.
KAYE (on camera): Did you know those were in there?
KAR: No.
KAYE: Did you know what they were being used for?
KAR: No.

Ok - So Kar, an American of Iranian descent, is traveling in an Iraqi taxi with his cameraman. When stopped, US officials discover items in the trunk widely used by terrorists to construct and detonate IEDs.

KAYE (voice-over): Washing machine timers are widely used by insurgents to trigger IEDs on roadsides. In time, Kar says his taxi driver would admit the timers were his.
But when Kar was handed over to U.S. forces, he says his hands and feet were bound and he was left to bake for hours in a cage in 120-degree heat. He remembers a hood over his head nearly suffocated him.
(On camera): Did you think you were going to die there at that point?
KAR: I remember I kept telling myself, stay awake, you won't die today. Stay awake.
KAYE (voice-over): Kar says he showed U.S. troops his passport and his veterans card, but they still took him to Abu Ghraib.
After Abu Ghraib, Kar says he was thrown into solitary confinement for two months at the same prison as Saddam Hussein. If Kar's story is true, why would the U.S. treat one of its own citizens this way?

Erm... could it be because the administration basically instituted any anything-goes policy towards suspected "terrorists", one that promoted "hold them, abuse them, torture them, and find the facts later" (if at all)?

MARK ROSENBAUM, CYRUS KAR'S ATTORNEY: Saddam Hussein received more due process than Cyrus Kar did.
KAYE: The ACLU's Mark Rosenbaum represents Kar in a lawsuit against Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and other high-ranking military officials. They say Rumsfeld's replacement will also be added to the suit.
The lawsuit claims the U.S. government deprived Cyrus Kar of his constitutional rights and violated the Geneva Convention.
ROSENBAUM: But holding people incommunicado, in the hell hole places like Abu Ghraib, that's not acceptable. And that's Constitution 101.
KAYE: A spokesman for coalition forces says, "Kar was treated fairly and humanely, consistent with the standards set by the Geneva Conventions." But Rosenbaum says Kar passed a lie detector test. And after all, the taxi driver did admit the washing machine timers were his. Still, he says, Kar was refused a lawyer.
(On camera): While Cyrus Kar was being interrogated in Iraq, he had no idea he was also being investigated back here at home.
In a midnight raid, FBI agents turned his Los Angeles apartment upside down. They confiscated two computers, credit card statement, phone records and airline tickets. None of it provided any evidence to warrant keeping him in Iraq.
Also, Kar says he was held for 55 days, 53 in solitary confinement. In fact, 49 days passed before he even had a hearing. Why did it take so long to free an innocent American?

See my comments above. Cyrus Kar is emblematic of a flawed policy that trashes the Constitution and Geneva Conventions and assumes guilt without any particular zeal to determine the truth. It's deplorable and unforgivable.

Does a lawsuit like this, though, really have any legs? I mean, you think about suing Don Rumsfeld, General Casey, do you really think you're going to get somewhere?
ROSENBAUM: The government is saying that what they did was perfectly lawful. And so I think this lawsuit is the only chance the citizens like Cyrus have in restoring what the basic principles are.
KAYE (voice-over): Secretary Rumsfeld and the other defendants have filed motions to dismiss the case. The Department of Justice argues, "the length of the plaintiff's detention was well in keeping with the exigencies of ongoing hostilities in Iraq and the need to ascertain fully and accurately his true status." It adds, "once the tribunal had assessed the plaintiff's case, military personnel took only six days to review the decision and make arrangements to release the plaintiff."
A hearing to determine if Kar's lawsuit will go forward is set for January.
(On camera): At some point while you were there, did you say to yourself, maybe I shouldn't have come to Iraq in the height of war to shoot this documentary about some Persian leader that's been gone 2,500 years?
KAR: You know, I think a lot of people might find me crazy for this, but no, I never regretted my decision.
KAYE (voice-over): Cyrus Kar's documentary would have been about a great Persian conqueror, a ruler considered by many to be the father of human rights. The irony was not lost on Cyrus Kar.
Randi Kaye, CNN, Los Angeles.

The US is, of course, seeking to dismiss Kar's suit.

In its response, filed Friday, U.S. attorneys cautioned the court to carefully consider getting entangled in military operations overseas. They said Kar cannot challenge the government's policies without "a realistic threat that he will again be subject to detention in Iraq by the United States military officers."

WTF? Are they saying that it should be dismissed because if he proceeds, he will again be "detained"? I don't know if I'm reading that part correctly, but how else could that be interepreted?

The Washington Post article concludes:

While imprisoned, Kar said he was at times hooded, threatened and taunted by U.S. soldiers. One soldier slammed Kar's head into a concrete wall, the lawsuit said.
Military officials have said Kar was properly detained as "an imperative security threat" and that the matter had been handled and resolved appropriately.

Now listen. Although it's known today that Kar did not, in fact, constitute a threat, I do not necessarily believe that it wasn't appropriate to detain him in the first place. But the administration's slip is dangingling below the hemline, here. They could have simply taken this man into custody and do what should have been done: assume him innocent until proven guilty. They could have held him humanely, allowed him to contact a lawyer and his family, and investigated. I'm also open to the idea that it takes some measure of time to determine innocence in a climate such as Iraq with issues of possible terrorism - I don't know if 55 days meets that criteria (seems long to me). But had they only held this man appropriately with some measure of due process and respect for his rights as a human being, this lawsuit wouldn't be necessary.

This lawsuit is entirely appropriate. They held this man, an American citizen (and veteran to boot!), without due process or access to counsel, his family or a hearing. They used strong-armed tactics against him, assuming immediately that he was "guilty" and a "terrorist" because of (presumably) his ethnicity and location.

I hope this, along with a suit filed against Rumsfeld and others finally and at last gets that slip back under the skirt. We can't begin to rebuild our world stature without showing that we are also willing to admit to wrongdoing and make appropriate reparations.

Press on those nasty Republicans

2006-10-24T05:58:00.000-05:00

--AZ-Sen: Jon Kyl
--AZ-01: Rick Renzi
--AZ-05: J.D. Hayworth
--CA-04: John Doolittle
--CA-11: Richard Pombo
--CA-50: Brian Bilbray
--CO-04: Marilyn Musgrave
--CO-05: Doug Lamborn
--CO-07: Rick O'Donnell
--CT-04: Christopher Shays
--FL-13: Vernon Buchanan
--FL-16: Joe Negron
--FL-22: Clay Shaw
--ID-01: Bill Sali
--IL-06: Peter Roskam
--IL-10: Mark Kirk
--IL-14: Dennis Hastert
--IN-02: Chris Chocola
--IN-08: John Hostettler
--IA-01: Mike Whalen
--KS-02: Jim Ryun
--KY-03: Anne Northup
--KY-04: Geoff Davis
--MD-Sen: Michael Steele
--MN-01: Gil Gutknecht
--MN-06: Michele Bachmann
--MO-Sen: Jim Talent
--MT-Sen: Conrad Burns
--NV-03: Jon Porter
--NH-02: Charlie Bass
--NJ-07: Mike Ferguson
--NM-01: Heather Wilson
--NY-03: Peter King
--NY-20: John Sweeney
--NY-26: Tom Reynolds
--NY-29: Randy Kuhl
--NC-08: Robin Hayes
--NC-11: Charles Taylor
--OH-01: Steve Chabot
--OH-02: Jean Schmidt
--OH-15: Deborah Pryce
--OH-18: Joy Padgett
--PA-04: Melissa Hart
--PA-07: Curt Weldon
--PA-08: Mike Fitzpatrick
--PA-10: Don Sherwood
--RI-Sen: Lincoln Chafee
--TN-Sen: Bob Corker
--VA-Sen: George Allen
--VA-10: Frank Wolf
--WA-Sen: Mike McGavick
--WA-08: Dave Reichert

What Did You Do Today? Molly Ivins Warns Us All

2006-10-21T12:16:00.000-05:00

(Cross-posted at Raising Kaine and Daily Kos)

It's really interesting sometimes when things come together organically. As many here know, I have a big funk band that performs from as far north as Baltimore, MD to as far south and west as Harrisonbug, VA. After a full day of work yesterday, I left my office in Silver Spring MD and headed up to Ellicott City MD, to a nightclub just outside of Baltimore and not even remotely close to my home.

I had finally paid the band, packed up gear, and gotten into my car by 2am. I walked through my front door at 3am. I'm not 22 any more - that kind of a long day takes its toll.

As I finally went to bed at a little before 4am (it takes me a while to unwind after gigs), I set my alarm for 9 the next morning. There was work to do with only 17 days remaining before the midterms. Follow me over the fold, and I'll tell a little bit about the day and how it came together with Molly Ivins' most recent column.

(All photos courtesy of Lowkell - thank you!)

There seemed to be two options today: work literature drops or work the Webb/Moran booth at Clarendon Day, a big event in Arlington VA. Of course - anyone could have also phone banked, but I opted for Clarendon Day for a few reasons. One, it's more personal than the literature drop and I had planned participate in a local literature drop tomorrow; two because it's more personal than the phone banking and I do that from home on weekday evenings; and three I wanted to see Ingrid Morroy's (imorroy here on dKos) band The Constituents play at Clarendon Day. So I dragged unhappily out of bed, scraped the sparkles and makeup off my face, washed the smoke from the nightclub out of my hair, left Mr. RenaRF to utterly fend for himself and headed to Arlington.

The first thing that was cool was that I saw a lot of the people I met at the fundraiser (diary here) on Wednesday night. While I was a total stranger to them before Wednesday, my attendance and subsequent diary had a lot of them coming up and giving very wonderful feedback about the event, the write-up, and the response from the Daily Kos community (YOU!). So - y'all made me look good and for that I really thank you. :-D

Clarendon Day is a big event. There are many food and beverage vendors, bands, and crafts available. They shut down the streets for it, and today was a beautiful clear October day with about a 70 degree temperature. Perfect.

I got to the Webb/Moran tent - VERY big tent with LOTS of people. When you walked into the tent itself and stood behind the table with all the information for Webb and Moran and more local candidates, you looked directly at the Allen/O'Donohue tent (O'Donohue is challenging Moran in VA-08). Where we had anywhere from 10-15 volunteers at any given time, Allen's small tent seemed to have about 5. It's tough being a Republican in blue Arlington, and I tried not to look all self-righteous for ONCE having the advantage as a Democrat.

Exactly halfway between the two tents was a crosswalk that people would use if there were traffic on the street - that was the invisible line as far as I was concerned. If they stayed on their side and I on mine, peace would prevail. It was unspoken that we didn't potty-mouth Allen at this event (THAT was hard).

I started out behind the table, handed out stickers and yard signs and answered questions to those who were more inclined to ask them. I stickered myself up - round Webb stickers on one leg, round Moran stickers on the other, and a full-sized Webb bumper sticker across my butt.

Shameless? You bet.

Then I slowly fanned out - first within proximity of the tent respecting the DMZ of the crosswalk, and then deeper into the festival itself (both campaigns were at one extreme end leaving a lot of territory to cover). I ran into Tom O'Donohue, who was there campaigning for himself. I used the Webb literature to do a maleodramatic mock show of hiding my face from him as I walked by, and he came over and talked to me. He was a nice enough guy in person - I have no idea what he stands for nor do I care, and I let him know that in a nice way - and ensured him that I would be voting a straight Democratic ticket on November 7 and working with every spare moment of my life between now and then to get others to do the same (somewhere one of Webb's or Moran's staffers has a picture of this conversation).

The day was pretty much like that - striking out, coming back to the tent, etc. I saw a few Allen stickers but MUCH fewer than those who wore Webb stickers. And a general, unscientific observation: The Allen sticker-wearers all looked like they should be vacationing in the Hamptons. Very white, quite wealthy-looking, etc. One Allen supporter had stuck a sticker to their DOG (e.g., Allen supporters torture animials - hah). When they encroached on the DMZ I and others would pleasantly and verbally move them back. :-) Ingrid's band was great as well - a real treat today.

(Note the Webb stickers on the band members - Ingrid also totally pimped Webb while she was up there!!)

So I'm exhausted. I go back to my car at about 4pm and listen to a voicemail from my very liberal mother wanting to know how the gig went and how the Webb stuff went. So I called her back - and this is where Molly Ivins enters the picture.

My mom and I were chatting about Webb's chances, Dem's chances, etc. She is fearful (as am I) that Dems are getting generally complacent with 17 days to go. She urged me to check out Ivins' column, and I have done so. It's worth a read and some excerpting.

The whole column, titaled Election Day Still a Long Way Off, can be found here.

Put me in the depressive Dems camp. We always look good going into the last two weeks, until we get hit with that wall of Republican money (though I do think Ohio is beyond political recall at this point for the R's). Of course, both sides always complain about unfair advertising, but I must admit that almost all political advertising strikes me as ludicrous and I don't notice the D's looking simon-pure. A little shading, a little emphasis here and there -- I'm hard to shock on political ads, but I do get more than miffed when they take the truth and just stand it on its head.

Reading that made me think of my own personal sense of anticipation and positive energy in the two weeks prior to the 2004 Presidential election. We all know how that worked out.

I'm the one who has been writing for two years that the American people are fed up with the war in Iraq and with the Bush administration's lies and incompetence. I'm the one that keeps beating the Washington press corps about the head over how out of touch it is. I'm the one who has been insisting there's a Democratic tide out here, and that the people are so far ahead of the politicians and the media it's painful to watch.
So how come I'm not thrilled? Because I watched this happen two years ago -- same rejection of the Iraq war, same disgust with Bush and Co., same understanding Republicans are for the rich, period, same polls showing D's with the lead going right into Election Day. And the same geographic gerrymander and same wall of money in the last two weeks. I'm not close to calling this election, and I'm sure not into celebrating anything yet.

My emphasis added.

I don't know what it is - but I am also fearful. I don't now that I would cite the same reasons, but the sense of unease is similar. Remember - The Democrats have to win where they win by a margin that sufficiently exceeds the ability of the Republicans to cheat. I believe that is possible in just enough races to shift the balance of power back to the Democrats, but not if we start believing our own poll numbers. Kerry's poll numbers indicated he was going to win... until he lost.

I'm going to continue to beat this drum. There are two things critical to regaining power:

1. Money
2. Get out the vote

As Caville and Roemer both said at the Wednesday fundraiser, we have to out-work them. We have to want it more than they do. It's going to take more than each one of us, individually, did in 2004.

So I'm not worried about the fear and unease, because it will make me work harder. Webb's not going to lose this because I (and many many others) were unwilling to give our time.

So what did YOU do today? Grassroots stories would be great - inspiring and encouraging to others who may need a friendly nudge.

Update [2006-10-21 18:48:26 by RenaRF]: Please check out aimeeinkc's diary for GREAT ideas on how you can do stuff to help Dems take back power.

Bloggers Just Sit on Their Butts Behind Their Computer Screen...

2006-10-19T11:30:00.000-05:00

(Cross-posted at Raising Kaine and Daily Kos)

"Bloggers just sit on their butts behind their computer screens. They spend their time just talking to each other and that's fine - but they're talking to a small audience."

Although not a word-for-word quote, this was something I heard at a fundraising event I went to last night. Bear with me - the whole evening was quite positive - but that interchange (which I will detail below the fold) stood out as the key mobilizing challenge for me and, hopefully, for anyone who reads this diary.

Follow me over the fold.

I have to provide you with context for the quote, and to do that, I have to go through the event. Please bear with me.

Last week, I got an invitation to attend a fundraiser hosted in the home of a prominent Arlington-area couple (Arlington Virginia). The invitation said that both Tim Roemer and James Carville would be the guest speakers at the event, and they were. I'm fortunate enough that I had the money to attend what would be considered a pricey event. I had always intended to make a sizable donation to add to my other donations, and what the hey - this way I could make the donation and get to stargaze a bit.

The event was sponsored by the Arlington County Democratic Committee, which falls in Virginia's 8th Congressional district.

See that big green area of the 8th? That's primarily Arlington County and Alexandria City. That's NOT where I live - if you go up into the off-shooty area north and west, as far as you can possible go and still be in the 8th, that is where I live.

So with that as a context, let me begin. Arlington County has a healthy and active Democratic party. In other words, it's always been super-blue. Where I live, it's more pale blue, but still blue (and hopefully gaining in blueness). I've been to some of these types of fundraisers before, specifically for Mark Warner and Tim Kaine. Everyone knows everyone at these things, except me. That's no problem - I set my mind to go, give my money, mingle, and meet some like-minded folks IRL.

This event was no exception - didn't know a soul. When I told people that I lived in Reston, I might as well have been telling them that I lived in France. Don't get me wrong - the reception was enthusiastic. I'm in the 8th as are they, and we're all pushing and pressing in the final days to overcome George Felix Allen and get Jim Webb (DONATE) into the US Senate.

It was uncharacteristically warm last night, and the overwhelming number of bodies in the house (which was a beautiful home, by the way) made it quite sticky. So I wandered out onto the patio and engaged the bartender (shocker - I find the bartender first!) in a conversation while I eat my lovely complimentary appetizers. The bartender is a young guy. I'd put him at about 22. He was a volunteer from the Young Democrats - ALL the staffers were volunteers from the Young Democrats. He was a funny, bright and open young man who clearly shows a sense of urgency around pushing Jim Webb (DONATE) over the hump. Being heavily involved in the campaign, his message was clear: Voter turnout will decide this race. Period. Given that Northern Virginia is any one of a number of shades of blue, voter turnout in this area especially is critical. Key to that crucial goal is on-the-ground volunteers. I couldn't agree more.

From there I went back into the big, airy living room (did I mention that the house was beautiful?) and sat down with my glass of Chardonnay. A lovely outgoing woman sat next to me. Meet Ingrid Morroy, Arlington's elected Commissioner of Revenue.

That's Ingrid on the right. We got chatting. In her eyes, of course, there are two big issues critical to getting Jim Webb (DONATE) elected on November 7 - money and turnout. Again, there was a sense of urgency in our conversation. It was a feeling like we are so close - the smallest things in terms of donations and GOTV volunteering will make the difference. Again, I couldn't agree more.

I had a small, purse sized notebook with me, and when we had a break in our conversation, I pulled it out and readied myself for the high-visibility speakers. I can't remember who asked me if I was a reporter - but I told them that I wasn't, but that I was a blogger and had every intention of writing up the evening. This turned us to the subject of blogs, and I was asked where I would post this - I told them I hoped to post it at Daily Kos and Raising Kaine, time permitting. Everyone knew Raising Kaine - lowkell has done an outstanding job of bringing in those who are not especially in the blogosphere. Some had heard of Daily Kos, but you could tell it was not a place where any (that I could identify) spend their time. Ingrid, however, was absolutely all for the blogs and for posting this at Daily Kos. I told her that I had hoped it would encourage those with even a small amount of money who live in districts where a Democrat doesn't need the funding to throw some of that money at Jim Webb (DONATE). She wholeheartedly agreed - every dollar is going to make or break the difference.

Then Alfonso Lopez, Governor Tim Kaine's Director of the Virginia Liaison Office in Washington, D.C., stepped up and began the introductions. He thanked everyone for coming and underscored the fact that this election required people to do more than just give money to succeed - they had to GOTV. He introduced Larry Roberts, Counselor to Governor Kaine who in turn underscored the GOTV message (seeing a pattern here?). Roberts then introduced the first guest speaker, Tim Roemer, current President of the Center for National Policy, member of the 9/11 commission, and former Representative from Indiana's Third district.

Roemer was an excellent speaker - very engaging, very focused on putting Democrats into Congress this election cycle. He's been travelling all over the country on behalf of Democrats, keynoting fundraisers and doing what he could do. A few key highlights of his talk:

He told a funny story about when he first ran for Congress. He said that people always confused him with then-Governor of Indiana Evan Bayh. So Roemer's at some state fair, by himself, handing out brochures trying to drag down votes. As he's standing there, a man comes up to him and says:
"Governer Bayh! It's great to see you here! If there's anything I can ever do to help you, let me know."
To which Roemer said:
"You know, you can help me. You can make sure you get out and vote for Tim Roemer for Congress." Heh.
He also related a story about Flight 93 that I had heard before, but not quite in this way. I found it remarkable.
He told about the Flight 93 passengers and how they seemed to think, immediately following the hijacking, that they were going to Cuba. As they were making calls, however (and we all know this story), they found out from their loved ones that they were likely not going to Cuba - that their plane had been hijacked and was going to be flown into buildings. Then, faced with this dire information, they did what Americans have done for 230 years: They voted. They took a vote and decided that they were going to do whatever it took to take back that airplane or die trying.
They voted.
Finally, he made an obvious point (at least obvious to anyone reading this) but in a way that really resonated. He talked about the 41 9/11 Commission Report recommendations, and about how only half of those have been implemented. Of those half, they have executed poorly. And he asked: if you have two children, is it OK for the government to say that it will educate only one of them? When your trash is picked up, is it ok if half of it is left at the curb?
I really thought that was a common-sense way to underscore the ineptitude of the Bush administration and the Republican Congress in a way that Joe Voter could fully understand.

And then it was on to James Carville. Let me digress by saying that, for a relatively small man, his presence dominated the room for the whole of the evening, whether he was speaking or not.

What was powerful about James Carville was not necessarily what he said - it was the power and conviction with which he said it. At times he was downright angry:

He was absolutely incensed at a Dick Cheney quote from Rush Limbaugh's show.
Cheney: "Things in Iraq are going remarkably well."
[audible groans in the room] Carville said that what made him angry was the utter contempt with which that statement was made by Cheney. Cheney knows its not going well - and the majority of Americans believe it's not going well. Yet he goes on Limbaugh's show and shows utter contempt for every American by saying this. I definitely thought he had a point - an obvious one - but I spend most of my time thinking Cheney's an asshole without necessarily communicating to others that he is a contemptuous asshole.

Then he told the story of the Cuban Missile Crisis that many have heard, but some may not, so I'll summarize:

In 1962, the U.S. was engaged in a game of chess with the Soviet Union, who were planning to put missiles in Cuba, a mere 90 miles from the U.S.
Then Presdient John F. Kennedy sent Secretary of State Dean Acheson to France to enlist the support of the French people. In a meeting with the legendary Charles DeGaulle, President of France, Acheson asked for France's support. As the meeting continued, Atchison started to pull some documents out of his briefcase. DeGaulle stops him - Acheson indicates that he has photos - proof - that Cuba was planning to have these missiles. Whereupon DeGaulle famously said:
"I don't need proof. I have the word of the President of the United States." (paraphrased)
Carville then stated passionately that the word of the POTUS today is "literally meaningless" and "discarded".

And with that, the event was over. Tim Roemer was incredibly gracious and stuck around to answer questions.

Now - let me say that I was taking copious notes during the remarks by the speakers generated interest. I caught sideways glances, not unfriendly ones, that looked askance. I was amused with the idea that someone might have thought I was "legitimate" press.

With that as a backdrop, I mentioned above that Tim Roemer stuck around to answer questions. There was a small respectful group gathered around him, and I went to join in to hear what was being asked and what was being said. Mr. Roemer was underscoring the critical importance of the GOTV effort in Virginia this year. He was basically relating his experiences with the Republican GOTV effort and said that, about two weeks before the election, a local Republican canvasser would knock at someone's door. And that canvasser would be the coach of the soccer team that the household's children played on. The canvasser would address them by name, ask after their children, and then ask how they would vote and pitch his case for his candidate. Then he would come back right before the election and ask how they were going to vote.

I can't remember who said it, but earlier in the evening this point was made: "We have to out-work them. We have to want this more than they do."

At this point I chimed into the conversation talking about the Netroots and the blogosphere and how much emphasis they are placing on the GOTV effort. That's when I got "the comment". (NOTE: The comment was made by another person like me - a donor and attendee - he was NOT affiliated with Roemer or Carville - just your average guy attending a fundraiser) I want each of you to understand, however, that this was in no way said scornfully - rather, it was just put out there as common knowledge:

"Bloggers just sit on their butts behind their computer screens. They spend their time just talking to each other and that's fine - but they're talking to a small audience."

Not this time. HELP ME prove this guy wrong. If you've given money, do more. Google your candidate and find the address and phone number for the campaign office. Call it. Show up there if possible. Demand that they put you to work. If you live in an area where the Democratic candidate is safe and there isn't need or organization for GOTV, go to ActBlue Netroots page and make a donation, no matter how small. Consider giving to Jim Webb - he needs it. Allen is saturating the airwaves with negative and misleading ads.

You also can phone canvass, even if your district or area is not competitive (e.g, you have an uber-safe Democrat running). Take Markos' advice and participate in MoveOn's Calls for Change.

Out-work them. It's what will make or break this election.

A special note for No. VA and DC area Kossacks:

Webb for Senate
1916 Wilson Blvd, Ste. 304
Arlington, VA 22201
Two short blocks from Courthouse Metro Station on the Orange Line
(703) 778-4080

Show up there - the canvassing I've done has been the result of just showing up. If you DO show up, though, be sure you take the phone number as you may have to call them to let you in. Demand they put you to work. Do more than you thought you could do - it's what will make the difference.

We have 19 days.

Update [2006-10-19 13:10:46 by RenaRF]: Edgery has left this comment below - FULL of information about Webb efforts across VA.

Mr. NASCAR Tells Me How He'll Vote

2006-10-15T12:10:00.000-05:00

(Cross-posted at Raising Kaine and Daily Kos)

So poor Mr. RenaRF has been working a lot lately. It's a good thing - as a contractor, if the work's there, he takes it and tries to book a backlog that will keep him busy into the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, sometimes the backlog is SO huge that he has to work weeks straight. The last few weeks have been like that.

Although Mr. RenaRF is not especially a football fan, if he's not working I'll watch the football game at home (Washington's my team - long may they suck). The last two Sundays, however, he's been working. Two Sundays ago I just watched the game in my empty house, shrieking and scaring the cats. Yesterday, though, I decided to watch at least the first half at a nearby watering hole with lots of sports screens.

That's where I met Mr. NASCAR.

I'm bar people - if you are also bar people, you know exactly what I'm talking about. I went through undergrad and the portion of grad school that I finished working at bars, and a great percentage of that working behind the bar. Mr. RenaRF and I are musical and have a band - which also puts us in bars a lot. You know those women who won't show up to a happy hour until WAY after it started because they don't want to be there if they don't know anyone? I'm not one of those.

So yesterday, I made my way up to the bar near my home to eat some lunch (the food is good in this place - lots of surprisingly healthy choices) and watch the game. I walked in and sat myself down at the bar in front of the screen that would be showing the Washington/Tennessee game. I ordered - the seat to my right and to my left was, initially, unoccupied.

As kickoff approached, however, the bar filled in. A very nice retired gentleman sat at my left. Two guys walked in and took the seats to my right. One of them was funny - he had a hysterically ridiculous Washington-themed old-style soft helmet he wore. Quite the conversation piece.

Both of them looked like hard-working guys. The kind of guys you would expect don't wear suits and work way harder than their paycheck rewards. Mr. NASCAR had a shirt on that had the Washington logo as well as NASCAR insignia. For those of you who don't know, Joe Gibbs, Washington's coach, left football to start a NASCAR team. He was very successful at this. So Washington fans who are also NASCAR fans tend to group the two together.

So, in the commercial break before kickoff, the local CBS affiliate ran George Felix Allen's latest debacle where he picks out Webb's words about Washington (of the political, not football variety) needing more revenue (DUH), which of course becomes a "Jim Webb will raise your taxes" scare tactic. The commercial then cites the cost of a tax increase ot the "average" Virginia family (totally squirrelly - I hope someone debunks those figures and soon), and concludes with "can you afford to lose that revenue?" or something like that.

I see it and I'm pissed. Fresh from my canvass earlier, I still had Webb stickers in my purse. I theatrically threw my napkin down and said "that's IT!" I opened my purse and pulled out my 20 or so Webb stickers and proceeded to affix a few to my Washington jersey (which I wear for good luck - may need to rethink its effectiveness).

Funny hat dude isn't playing. In a totally nice and conversational way he says, "oh no - politics, bars and football don't mix." I wasn't offended, but I also didn't give a shit. They fit in MY world.

Funny Hat dude's friend, though, is intrigued.

Mr. NASCAR: "Where'd you get those?"
Me: "I've been canvassing for Jim Webb. I got them at the campaign office."
Mr. NASCAR: "Door to door? Man - you're brave."
Me: "Not really. You'd be amazed how many people support Webb and went out of their way to let me know they supported him. It was a lot of fun, and I'll be doing it every weekend between now and the election."

A pause. We're watching the beginning of the game, attention elsewhere until the next commercial break. I decide that canvassing is a state of mind as opposed to a mere activity occurring over a set period of time. One can canvass, informally, in a bar.

Me: "Are you registered to vote?"
Mr. NASCAR: "Yeah. I haven't missed a vote since I moved here 15 years ago."

I pause, he continues.

Mr. NASCAR: "I've always voted Republican. My dad was a Republican, my grandfather a Republican. But not this time. I'm voting for whoever the challenger is this time. I'm tired of it - sick of the whole thing - the lying, the decisions. We have to get ALL of those guys out."
Me: "Where do you live?"
Mr. NASCAR: "In Sterling."
Me: "So you're in Frank Wolf's district?"
Mr. NASCAR: "Yeah. I don't even know who's running against him but I'll vote for him [whoever is running against Wolf]."
Me: "She. Judy Feder is running against Wolf. Will you vote for Jim Webb?"
Mr. NASCAR: "Yep. Like I said - all of those guys have to go and since both of mine are Republicans, I'm voting Democrat for the first time in my life. It's time."

NOTE: The conversation is paraphrased but I've captured the important points.

So... What we have here is kind of a mixed bag. Mr. NASCAR wasn't especially becoming a Democrat. Rather, he was in the "throw the bums out" camp. Had the bums been Democrats, he would have voted Republican. Since the bums are Republicans, he's voting Democrat.

I'll take it, and I was encouraged. This bar, and especially football people, always strike me as very "real" people. Not that other people aren't - but where I live, most of the bars and restaurants are populated with very high income people. The sports tend to bring out a greater mix.

Mr. NASCAR was serious, and barring a personal catastrophe (God forbid), he'll be at the polls on November 7 and pushing the button (we e-vote here - shudder) for Judy Feder and Jim Webb.

Do I smell a growing backlash? I sure hope so - keep the faith, folks. There are opportunities when you least expect it to convince and show your dedication, and to receive some level of validation in return.

Update [2006-10-17 0:25:39 by RenaRF]: The comments have been great - many are wondering how many NASCAR Kossacks we have, so I've updated this with a poll. Enjoy!

I lost my virginity today!!!

2006-10-14T18:04:00.000-05:00

(Cross-posted at Raising Kaine and my blog)

No - really! I did!

Now get your mind out of the gutter. I know what you were thinking when you clicked on this diary. You probably even went and turned down the lights a little and got a glass of wine in preparation for reading this diary, didn't you...

But I lost my canvassing virginity today. Follow me over the fold.

I have to admit, I almost lost my canvassing virginity two weeks ago. I had gotten an email from the Judy Feder (DONATE) campaign (D-VA 10) that they needed canvassers for Judy and for Webb (DONATE). Although Judy's not in my district (I'm in VA 08), the campaign office was very close to my house and I showed up.

Unfortunately, there were NO other canvassers that showed up that day. Having never done it before, and feeling a bit intimidated and somehwat fearful, I declined. I really wanted to go out with someone who had canvassed before, someone who could show me the ropes. Kind of a grass-roots GOTV buddy.

So I woke up today and got dressed and decided to head to Webb's main campaign office in Arlington. My goal was not to canvass - I wanted to pick up yard signs and spread them all over my home town (Reston) where they were disappearing at a rapid pace.

Now - I've volunteered for campaigns before. I've done informational tables, handed out information at polling places, done phone canvassing, worked on database projects to focus specific messages for specific audiences, all of that stuff. But never the shoe-leather door-to-door canvassing.

As I got out at the Webb office in Arlington, I waited at the door of the building (we had to be let in) with another lady who was also volunteering for the Webb campaign. I went upstairs with her, following one of the campaign staffers. I got into a conversation with both of them about the near miss I had at canvassing two weeks prior when the volunteer turned to me and said:

"I'm going out to canvass right now. I've only done it once before, but you can come with me if you want."

I looked at my clothes - definitely not canvassing clothes. My jeans and top were certainly appropriate enough, but I was wearing black leather boots with about a 2 1/2" heel on them. But - you know what? They're pretty comfortable boots. So I decided: here's a person who's going to go out and canvass by herself offering to take me along and show me the ropes. If you want to get involved, you can't let the fact of uncomfortable shoes get in the way. So I was off.

On the street, Julie (my canvassing buddy) let me know the first address we would hit on our canvass. She knew the area (Arlington) really well, and I told her I would simply program the address into my navigation system and see her there. She walked across the street to her car, I got in mine, and we were off.

Julie gets in her car and I in mine.

And we were off. The area we were going to canvass was in North Arlington. Now for those unfamiliar with the area, Arlington itself is QUITE blue, and North Arlington is very affluent. I was kind of all warm and glowy inside as I drove to the first address, glad to finally get this activity under my belt so I could more confidently do it on my own in the days and weeks to come.

On the road to the first address in my canvass.

My trusty nav system in my marvy Hybrid wasn't going to let me get lost.

Before we started, Julie and I sat on the curb and discussed what, specifically, we were going to do. She showed me the voter information sheets she had which gave the street address, the name of the home's owner(s), and their date of birth. We were simply to do the following:

1. Verify that they were the person listed on the sheet
2. Ask "If the election were held today, who would you vote for for Senate? For the House?
3. What issues are most important to you?
4. Would you be interested in volunteering?

Those are the ones were supposed to get through. The list we were working from was of registered voters, which is good becuase the registration deadline passed on October 10. We also had additional information about the reisdent's polling place and how to submit an absentee ballot. All of the selection options had a bar code after them, and we were simply to highlight the bar code with yellow highlighter.

We were ready.

We visited a LOT of houses and, remarkably, many people were home. The first three or four houses we visited from our list all identified themselves as Democrats and Webb supporters. Their issues ranged from Education to Pro-Choice to the Iraq War to Health Care. After these first few, we had a lot of houses where no one was home. We simply left some Webb (DONATE) and Moran (this was his district) information tucked into the door seal and pressed on.

The most interesting house, however, we hit about half way through. It was a nice gentleman, mid-40's, who had a beautiful house. When he answered the door, we identified ourselves and he stepped onto his front porch. In talking to him, we learned that he was a reigstered Republican who identified himself as totally undecided on the Senate race. He had definitely been following it - he knew the candidates and high points of either campaign. One of the first things he said was this:

"You're campaigning for Webb? has he gotten over that article he wrote about women in the military?"

Now I want you to know - he was NOT confrontational. The question seemed genuine - he was curious that two women were out actively campaigning for Webb after what he'd seen on the Allen ads. I told him:

"That was in 1979, and he has apologized for the article."

My canvassing buddy, Julie, chimed in here:

"Let me tell you - I served in the military for 20 years, was one of the first women accepted to the ROTC program and Jim Webb's my man."

I added:

"You know, it's impossible to think that a person has no regrets about something they've said or done in their past. This was his distant past. Not only has he owned up and apologized for it, he opened more Navy billets to women as Navy Secretary then anyone before him."

NOTE: Shout out to the dKos community for writing about this so that I knew about it in one of Lowkell's excellent diaries.

He asked also about the economy, and wanted to know what I thought about that.

"Well, people who live in this area might say that the economy is doing well. But if you go to the grocery store and ask one of the porters how they feel about the economy, you're going to get a different view. Although Northern Virginia is one of the few areas that has experienced a nominal percentage growth in real wages over the past six years (.3%), the majority of Americans are seeing their real wages shrink. Health care gets more expensive, the increased fuel prices of summer hurt them, and their wages aren't keeping pace with inflation. The disparity between those at the top end of the income scale and everyone else is becoming a canyon. And I don't think the top end of the income scale will constitute a majority at the polls, and the average middle class voter is feeling pinched."

He asked us where Webb stood on the immigration issue. We didn't know specifically - so we told him we didn't know and we said that the campaign would send him more information about that subject. I found that interesting - it really relieved me that I didn't have to know every nuance of every issue - I could just say "we'll have Webb's campaign send you information about that. Thank you for the question."

Finally, we talked about the Iraq War. Our prospective Republican-leaning-Democrat voter is most disturbed about the Iraq War. Julie spoke for us this time.

"Jim Webb came out very early against the prospect of a war in Iraq and he's for a phased redeployment of troops out of Iraq to areas such as Qatar, Kuwait, UAE. He wants to get our troops out of the line of fire and let the Iraqis attend to their government."

The voter thanked us, reminded us to definitely send that information, and indicated that he really wasn't happy with the Republican party these past three years and would think very hard about how he would cast his vote.

I believed him. And I thought we really helped him with simple, human face-to-face contact and a sincere attempt to advocate for the person in which we believed.

The day pressed on and we got some people and didn't get others, chatted a bit about voting and reminded people to vote, left literature, and wore out our shoes. After almost three hours of stomping around, Julie and I parted ways.

If you haven't canvassed before, let me tell you: it was an alltogether pleasant experience. I didn't relish the idea of going door-to-door - I was worried about getting doors slammed in my face and getting hostile reactions. I didn't get any of that (though I'm sure it's happened). It was SO positive, in fact, that I'll be canvassing every weekend between now and the election, including tomorrow. I'm confident enough now to go out either by myself or to be someone else's first-time buddy.

One closing note: Finding information about the canvasses in your areas isn't always easy. Hell - finding the address for Webb's Arlington campaign office took some effort. But do that - find your local campaign office and show up. See what they need. And go out of your way to canvass. If you have an experience like I did, you'll see that it really puts you IN the process in a way I had not previously experienced. It's talking with voters - with people who vote, and participate, and seeing how and where they live and listening to what they have to say. It was /awesome.

Julie!

Many thanks to Julie, who was motivated to start canvassing over the summer when she heard the "macaca" comment and could only think of her son's best friend, and American born of Indian descent.

[editor's note, by RenaRF] DMOmaha points out in the comments that s/he also has a canvassing diary up - give it a visit!

YES!!! Finally a Reporter asks a question that MATTERS!!

2006-10-05T17:41:00.000-05:00

(Cross-posted at Daily Kos, My Left Wing and ePluribus Media)

I have a pretty intense schedule. I'm constantly here and there - going from my office to a meeting, from a meeting to home, from home to gig. My Sirius satellite radio is a boon, because I can listen to cable news coverage (CNN) even though I can't watch it. It helps me feel pretty current on what's dominating the headlines.

CNN cut into coverage of the White House Press Briefing by Tony Snow given earlier today. At the time that I was driving, a woman's voice asked a question and then engaged in an exchange that literally had me pumping my fist and yelling "YES!!" in my car. I was getting really strange looks from the cars around me, but I couldn't contain myself.

Follow me.

The question was this:

Q Okay. Does the President agree that the leaders should be under oath, to say everything that they knew?

Doesn't seem like much? Well, if you ask me, it was a setup. Because here is the answer and the series of questions that followed:

MR. SNOW: The President is not flyspecking. I'll tell you, you can decide whether you think people need to be put under oath. What I've said is, you need to find out all the facts. So you figure out the appropriate way to do it. But we're just not going to get into procedural stuff like that. It's not appropriate.
Q The President is very aggressive in calling for thorough investigations of things like leaks or --
MR. SNOW: And that's what we've called on.

Ha!!! Tony started to talk over this reporter's question, but it continued:

Q But when it comes to something that affected actual people's lives in a demonstrable way, he won't get into the details of how it should be pursued?

This was when Tony started to sound a tad PO'd.

MR. SNOW: Now, wait a minute. Number one, I don't believe that the President has ever gotten into saying, well, we need to get to the bottom of this, and we need to have people testifying under oath -- I don't believe he's ever gotten into that level of detail, walking through these things. What the President says, you've got to find the truth. The Justice Department is conducting an investigation. Presumably, they will do what they think is necessary to get the truth. The Ethics Committee is committing an investigation. Presumably they're going to do what they think is necessary
Q So from the podium, on the President's behalf, would you call for all the leadership to say everything that they know, come forward --
MR. SNOW: I would -- what we say is, you've got to get the facts out. And that's it. So you can figure out exactly --
Q Publicly?

MR. SNOW: I just said it -- I believe -- yes, we're public.

Woo hoo!! Such a fabulous question that literally connects the dots of this administration's selective use of investigations, laws, morals, values etc. That reporter simply called the administration on its bullshit and pointed out, in stark relief, the sheer hypocrisy. It was a beautiful thing.

And Tony Snow is really full of shit when he said, in his I'm-Tony-Snow-and-I'm-better-than-you peevish kind of way, that the President has not selectively asked for investigations or that people be placed under oath. Of course the President and the administration have used investigations or the threat of investigations to ensure that people remain "in line". Let's take just a cursory look at that whopper of a nose-grower, and when and where this pressure has been applied.

From a March 5, 2006 Washington Post article:

The Bush administration, seeking to limit leaks of classified information, has launched initiatives targeting journalists and their possible government sources. The efforts include several FBI probes, a polygraph investigation inside the CIA and a warning from the Justice Department that reporters could be prosecuted under espionage laws.
-snip-
President Bush has called the NSA leak "a shameful act" that was "helping the enemy," and said in December that he was hopeful the Justice Department would conduct a full investigation into the disclosure.
-snip-
Bush administration officials -- who complain that reports about detainee abuse, clandestine surveillance and other topics have endangered the nation during a time of war -- have arguably taken a more aggressive approach than other recent administrations, including a clear willingness to take on journalists more directly if necessary.

Target? The media, really. This was intended to put them on notice that if they reported leaked information, they would be the target of a Grand Jury. Beneficiary? BUSH. Even a mild seed of concern planted by the administration and its willingness to push these investigations would cause, at a minimum, greater caution on the part of journalists and, at worst, a total squelching of the free press.

A May 16, 2006 article on the ABC Blotter reinforces the investigatory willingness of Bush and his lackeys:

FBI Acknowledges: Journalists' Phone Records are Fair Game
Brian Ross and Richard Esposito Report:
The FBI acknowledged late Monday that it is increasingly seeking reporters' phone records in leak investigations.
"It used to be very hard and complicated to do this, but it no longer is in the Bush administration," said a senior federal official.
-snip-
...FBI officials did not deny that phone records of ABC News, the New York Times and the Washington Post had been sought as part of a investigation of leaks at the CIA.

Target? The media again - a stronger signal this time. Beneficiary? BUSH.

Every time one of Bush's illegal actions has turned up in the press, Bush "welcomes" investigations. What better way to continue breaking the law than to put those who would call you on it in front of a Grand Jury and/or in jail?

Here are the issues where Bush has not directly called for an investigation:

The events leading up to 9/11, 2001

Remember the teeth pulling it took to get an investigation into this? The administration would have you believe that they were all for the truth and their eventual (so they claim) exoneration from fault. But those who remember know that Bush fought the 9/11 investigation tooth and nail. Only the public and very emotional demands of the Jersey Girls brought any investigation at all.

Target? Government past and present; terrorists. Beneficiary? Everybody. The point is and was to learn who did what and who didn't do what so that the same mistakes would not be repeated.

The monumental failed response to Hurricane Katrina.

As people continued to be found, dehydrated and trapped in their homes in the days and weeks following Hurricane Katrina, Bush loudly and strongly decried the practice of "finger pointing". From Talking oints Memo:

MCCLELLAN: As I have indicated, this is not a time for politics. This is a time for the nation to come together for those in the Gulf Coast region and that's where our focus is. This is not a time for finger-pointing or politics. And I think the last thing that the people who have been displaced or the people who have been affected need is people seeking partisan gain in Washington.

Fingere-pointing would, apparently, include an investigation. None have been called for by the Bush administration to this date, 13 months after the hurricane struck.

Target? Bush administration, State of Louisiana's government, local New Orleans government. Beneficiary? Everybody. Lessons learned that led to the loss of life in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina would and still could go a long way to better equipping America to respond to emergencies and disasters.

The Mark Foley scandal

What? What's that you say? This is a legislative and not an executive issue? Go pick your nits elsewhere. This Congress has been nothing more than an extension of this administration, and the hubris has leaked over. Like a child does from a parent, Congress has learned its behavior from the Bush administration. The failure to call for immediate, meaningful and independent investigations is imperative. None of those things have truly happened.

Target? Congress. Beneficiaries? Everybody. Keeping our young people safe isn't politics - it's just the right thing to do.

Woodward Speaks.

2006-10-01T20:42:00.000-05:00

Cross-posted at Daily Kos, My Left Wing and ePluribus Media

I watched 60 Minutes tonight. I try to catch it, but miss it about as often as I watch it, unfortunately. Tonight, however, I wanted to hear Woodward's interview with Mike Wallace as it happened.

The teasers you've been seeing in the news regarding the interview were true. The soundbites are all there. But there's a bit more than that, so I've transcribed the interview (which wasn't overly long) and will present it after the fold with a little bit of commentary to close it out.

Make the jump.

CBS also has some of this content online. All emphasis in the transcript is strictly mine.

Introduction:
WALLACE: President Bush's former Chief of Staff Andy Card said that the Bush Presidency will be judged by three things: Iraq, Iraq and Iraq. Bob Woodward of Watergate fame reports that he has just completed his third book on the Bush Presidency - State of Denial, it's called. Woodward spent more than two years, interviewed more than 200 people including most of the top officials in the Administration and he came to a damning conclusion - that for the last three years the White House has not been honest with the American public.
WOODWARD: It is the oldest story in the coverage of government. The failure to tell the truth.
WALLACE: When you say the Bush Administration has not told the truth about Iraq, what do you mean?
WOODWARD: Probably the most prominent example is the level of violence.
[Cut to tape of (presumably) insurgent gunfire and activity in Iraq]
WALLACE: [Voiceover]: Not just the growing sectarian violence - Sunnis against Shias - that gets reported every day. But attacks on US, Iraqi and Allied forces. Woodward says that's the most important measure of violence in Iraq and he unearthed this graph, classified as secret, that shows those attacks have increased dramatically over the last three years. [On screen in a graph with an upward trend from May 2003 to May 2006]
WOODWARD: Getting to the point now where there are 8, 900 attacks a week. That's more than 100 a day. Four attacks an hour. Attacking our forces.
[Cut to tape of Woodward working at computer]
WALLACE [Voiceover]: Woodward says the government had kept this trend secret for years before finally declassifying the graph just three weeks ago.
[Cut to tape of The Decider entering a room full of adoring, clapping people]
WALLACE [Voiceover]: And Woodward accuses President Bush and the Pentagon of making false claims of progress in Iraq. Claims contradicted by facts that are being kept secret. For example, Woodward says an intelligence report, classified Secret by the Joint Chiefs of Staff concluded in large print that "the Sunni Arab insurgency is gaining strength and increasing capacity, despite political progress". And "insurgents retain the capabilities to...increase the level of violence through next year. [The report graphic is show with a date of May 24, 2006 as these quotes are read] But just two days later in public the Defense Department said just the opposite. "...Violent action will begin to wane in early 2007."

I think that this is key takeaway number one. Woodward had the secret chart, it clearly showed the trend from 2003 to 2006, and the classified report by the Joint Chiefs said that violence would continue to rise into 2007. Yet the Pentagon released its own unclassified "survey" making the last statement in the quote in direct contradiction to what it knew to be true in private.

WALLACE [to Woodward]: What are we supposed to make of that?
WOODWARD: The truth is that the assessment by the intelligence experts is that next year - now next year is 2007 - it's going to get worse. And in public you have the President and you have the Pentagon saying "no no - things are going to get better". Now. There's public, and then there's private. But what did they do with the private? They stamped it Secret. No one's supposed to know. Why is that secret? The insurgents know what they're doing - they know the level of violence and how effective they are. Who doesn't know? The American public.

That's key point number two. The only people it makes sense to hide this information from is the American public. It's not, as the Administration would have you believe, a means of protecting sources and methods or some other balderdash they spew. It's a matter of keeping us in the dark to keep themselves in power. Period. So simple, and so obvious once pointed out so clearly.

WALLACE: President Bush says, over and over, as Iraqi forces stand up, US forces will stand down. The number of Iraqis in uniform today, I understand, is up to 300,000.
WOODWARD: They've stood up from essentially zero to 300,000. This is the military and the police.
WALLACE: But US forces are not standing down. The attacks keep coming.
WOODWARD: They've stood up, and up and up, and we haven't stood down. And, it's worse!
[Cut to tape of John Negroponte]
WALLACE [Voiceover]: John Negroponte knows it's worse. He's the US director of National Intelligence, and according to Woodward, Negroponte thinks the US policy in Iraq is in trouble. That violence is now so widespread that the US doesn't even know about much of it, and that the killings will continue to escalate.
WOODWARD: He was the Ambassador there in Iraq and now he sees all the intelligence. I report he believes that we've always, going almost back to beginning, miscalculated and underestimated the nature of the insurgency.
WALLACE [interrupts]: Why? Why?
WOODWARD: There is the feeling, how can a bunch of guys running around putting improvised explosive devices in dead animals and by the side of the road in cars, cause all this trouble?
[Cut to tape of Rumsfeld, Joint Chiefs, Gen. John Abizaid]
WALLACE [Voiceover]: Woodward reports that a top General says Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has so emasculated the Joint Chiefs that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has become "the parrot on Rumsfeld's shoulder". And according to WOODWARD: another key General, John Abizaid, who's in charge of the whole Gulf region, told friends that on Iraq, Rumsfeld has lost all credibility.
WALLACE [to Woodward]: Now what does that mean, that he doesn't have any credibility any more?
WOODWARD: That means that he cannot go public and articulate what the strategy is. This is so important. They decide that Secretary of State Rice will announce what the strategy is. This is October of last year.
[Cut to tape of Rice giving testimony]
RICE: Our political military strategy has to be to clear, hold and build. To clear areas from insurgent control, to them securely, and to build durable national Iraqi institutions.
WOODWARD: Rumsfeld sees this [the testimony] and goes ballistic. And says now wait a minute. That's not our strategy. We want to get the Iraqis to do these things. Well it turns out George Bush and the White House like this definition of the strategy [Rice's] so it's in a Presidential speech he's going to give the next month. Rumsfeld sees it. He calls Andy Card the White House Chief of Staff and says "take it out - take it out. That's not our strategy. We can't do that." Card says "it's the core of what we're doing." That's two and a half years after the invasion of Iraq. They cannot agree on the definition of a strategy. They cannot agree on the bumper sticker.

Key point number three: These bozos have willingly marched us into a war that they can't agree, among themselves how to win. Mr. RenaRF likes to use the phrase "it's like watching monkeys trying to f--k a football." I think that visual fits perfectly.

WALLACE: General John Abizaid, commander of all US forces in the Middle East, you quoted him as saying privately a year ago that the US should start cutting its troops in Iraq&. You report that he told some close Army friends "We've got to get the F out." And then, this past March, *General Abizaid visited Congressman John Murtha on Capitol Hill.
WOODWARD: John Murtha is, in many ways, the soul and the conscience of the military.

Gotta interrupt here. I don't have a key point yet - but that is, without a doubt, one of the most elegant and apt things I have heard said about John Murtha.

[Cut to tape of Murtha making a statement]
WOODWARD: And he came out and said "we need to get out of Iraq as soon as it's practical." And that sent a 10,000 volt jolt through the White House. Here's Mr. Military saying we need to get out. And John Abizaid went to see him privately. This is Bush's and Rumsfeld's commander in Iraq. And John Abizaid held up his fingers, according to Murtha [Woodward holds up thumb and index finger about 1/4 inch apart], and said "we're about a quarter of an inch apart. We're that far apart."
WALLACE: Abizaid and Murtha.
WOODWARD: [Holds up fingers again] That far apart.

Key point number four: John Murtha is not and never was playing politics iwth the war in Iraq. We all know that - but the RWNM tried to swift boat him in this. John Murtha was acting directly on information he was receiving from the Generals, among them John Abizaid, the commander of all US forces in the Gulf region.

WALLACE: You report that after George W. Bush was re-elected hi s then Chief of Staff Andy Card tried for months to convince the President to fire Don Rumsfeld. Why?
WOODWARD: To replace him. Because it wasn't working, Card felt very strongly, that the President needed a whole new National Security team.
WALLACE: You write, "Laura Bush was worried that Rumsfeld was hurting her husband." Andy Card told you, the President seemed happy with Rumsfeld, and the first lady replied "He's happy with this, but I'm not." And later she said "I don't know why he's not upset."
WOODWARD: What's interesting is Andy Card, as White House Chief of Staff, every six weeks set up a one-on-one meeting with Laura Bush. Set aside an hour and half, to talk about what's going on, what are the President's anxieties - smart meeting. And in the course of these sessions the problem with Rumsfeld came up and she voiced her concern about the situation.
WALLACE: But Dick Cheney wanted Rumsfeld to stay. Why?
WOODWARD: That's right. Well, Rumsfeld's his guy, and Cheney confided to an aide that if Rumsfeld goes, next they'll be after Cheney.

I don't know if this is key point number five or not, but I found it interesting, the notion that Cheney would be worried that anyone would "come after" him. It does reinforce the whole suspicion that Cheney, who is unpopular, is running the show where IRaq is concerned.

[Cut to tape of Cheney in a crowd of military personnel; Kissinger file tape]
WALLACE [Voiceover]: Cheney stunned Woodward by revealing that a frequent advisor to the Bush White House is former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger who served Presidents Nixon and Ford during the Vietnam War.
WOODWARD: He's back. In fact, Henry Kissinger is almost like a member of the family. If he's in town, he can call up and if the President's free, he'll see him.
[Wallace in voiceover, split-screen with picture of Woodward and Cheney in preparation for audio tape] Woodward recorded his on-the-record interview with Cheney and here's what the Vice President said about Henry Kissinger's clout:
CHENEY: Of the outside people that I talk to in this job I probably talk to Henry Kissinger more than just about anybody else. He just comes by and I guess at least once a month I sit down with him.
WOODWARD: And the same with the President?
CHENEY: Yes. Absolutely.
WOODWARD: President Bush is, I understand--
CHENEY: A big fan of his.
WOODWARD: Now, what's Kissinger's advice in Iraq, he declared very simply: Victory is the only meaningful exit strategy. This is so fascinating. Kissinger's fighting the Vietnam War all over again. Because in his view, the problem in Vietnam is we lost our will. That we didn't stick to it.
WALLACE: So Henry Kissinger is telling George W. Bush - Stick to it. Stay the course.
WOODWARD: That's right. It's right out of the Kissinger playbook.

Key point number six should be obvious. Vietnam didn't go so well for a long time before people finally got a clue. One of the key advisors to this White House endorses and embraces a strategy that would have kept us in Vietnam. Plus, tying in the whole Vietnam parallel is helpful, I think.

[Cut to tape of Woodward's book rolling down the production line]
WALLACE [Voiceover]: In his book, published by CBS sister company Simon and Schuster Woodward reported that the first President Bush confided to one of his closest friends how upset he is that his son invaded Iraq.
WALLACE [to Woodward]: The former President Bush is said to be in agony, anguished, tormented over the war in Iraq and it's aftermath.
WOODWARD: Yes.
WALLACE: Does he tell that to his boy?
WOODWARD: I don't know the answer to that. He tells it to Brent Scowcroft, the former National Security Advisor.
WALLACE: You paint a picture, Bob, of the President as the 'Cheerleader in Chief', current reality be damned. He's convinced that he's got to succeed in Iraq, yes?
WOODWARD: Yes. That's correct. Now--
WALLACE: You believe that he believes.
WOODWARD: I do.
WALLACE: How well do you know him?
WOODWARD: I interviewed him for the first two books for hours.
WALLACE: And you know what? There are people who are going to say "Look - Woodward is savaging President Bush because he wouldn't see him for this book."
WOODWARD: That's not true.
WALLACE: Well he didn't.
WOODWARD: He did not. I asked, and made it very clear to the White House what my question were, what my information was. What could he say? That secret chart is not right? That these things that happened in these meetings didn't occur? It's documented. I've talked to the people who were there. Your producer, Bob Anderson, has listened to the tapes of my interviews with people, to make sure that it's not just kind of right, but literally right. This is what occurred.

Key point number seven: Bush was more than willing to be interviewed for the first two books because they were largely favorable. Knowing in advance the information and content of this book, however, Bush refused to be interviewed because he couldn't refute the information that Woodward had.

[Cut to tape of violence in Iraq, Bush chatting with soldiers]
WALLACE [Voiceover]: And Woodward says that no matter what's occurred in Iraq Mr. Bush does not welcome any pessimistic assessments from his aides because he is sure that his war has Iraq and America on the right path.

So sayeth The Decider. Kind of makes you wonder if he's having a flashback.

WOODWARD: Late last year he had key Republicans up to the White House to talk about the war. And said I will not withdraw, even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me. Barney is his dog.
[Cut to Wallace, snickering]
WOODWARD: My work on this leads to lots of people who spend hours, days with the President. And in most cases they are my best sources and there is a concern that we need to face realism. Not being the voice that says oh-no - everything's fine when it's not.

So there you have it. I'm sure there are nuggets in the book also. Woodward has redeemed some level of favor with me, and I will read his book after that interview.

I also think that this totally fits all the claims of "abuse of power" and Dems should be making these kinds of charges for the next 36 days. They now have two recent examples they can use:

Foley: A known sexual predator was reported to Republican leadership yet he was allowed to remain in his job and in contact with minors. To protect their power, Congressional Republicans allowed a sexual predator to continue his predation for a year.

Iraq: The Bush administration selectively classifies and declassifies information to control the "knowledge agenda". In so doing, they withold relevant information from the American public to ensure they can maintain their power.

I also wonder who in Congress has seen these classified documents and information. Forgive my ignorance, but I just don't know which committees (Intelligence? Armed Services? Both?) would have access to this information and whether or not it is required to be submitted to them. But given that Republicans control both houses of Congress (for now) and have performed virtually no oversight on these subject, I can't help but believe that real facts were ignored by leadership in an effort to maintain their hold on power.

So there you have it - thoughts are welcome!

I Will NOT Calm the Fuck Down (w/Updates).

2006-09-29T14:45:00.000-05:00

NOTE: I originally posted this late last night (September 28, 2006) over at Daily Kos with a cross-post at My Left Wing. I wasn't going to post it over here because it's really meta - for those of you not consumed by the progressive blogosphere, "meta" has to do with blogs and blogging without necessarily being about a universal issue. The diary was posted in response to another diary (linked below) imploring readers at Daily Kos and My Left Wing to calm down over the issue of the Torture Bill, passed yesterday without vitually any meaningful protest and without one rights-protecting amendment. What came out of me was pure rant. I posted it at 10:30pm EST last night and it remains on the dKos recommended list at this moment and has over 700 comments.

I decided that, although it's meta in that it's a response to another diary by another diarist, the topic is essential as well as universal so I'm cross-posting here.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

(Cross-posted at Daily Kos and My Left Wing)

I won't. My anger is righteous and I'm entitled to it.

Now let me say right up front: Not calming down doesn't mean "I'm abandoning the party" or "All Democrats can go fuck themselves", so all of you who want to hop on in here and and point your little judgmental fingers at me and accuse me of hand-wringing in the extreme can just keep on moving, because you're dropping your admonition in the wrong place.

But I will NOT calm the fuck down.

You know, it's about more than the torture bill - I know that much. It's such a dusty, static-filled white-noise dominated clutter right now, though, I won't be able to list all the reasons why it is more.

I appreciate Thereisnospoon's recommended diary enjoining me to calm the fuck down. For the record, I met spoon in person some months back and find that he's a wonderful and bright thinker, inspired writer, and dedicated activist.

But I couldn't disagree more with his argument. I'm not saying that what he is arguing is wrong - What I'm saying is what the fuck kind of argument is "they were torturing anyway"? What. The. Fuck?!

And do you know why, in part, that is the only argument left to Spoon by way of counterargument? It's becuase we've rolled over so many goddamned times that it's become the FIRST course of action rather than the last gasp of salvation. We are placed in a position where a fine thinker and writer such as Thereisnospoon is left only with "they were torturing anyway".

I'm sorry, Spoon, and all the Kossacks who think that I am hysterical or that I am making too much out of what amounts to public validation of long-standing private actions (torture). But now, for however long, this act will be willfully and openly done in my name. I will NOT calm down.

I wasn't asking for much, here. You need to understand that. I understand that a filibuster was not necessarily the best course of action and if you look back through my comments on the subject, you'll see that pushing for a filibuster was not among them.

What I was asking for was once - just once during this travesty that has been the Bush administration - that Dems get a fucking clue and realize that not winning doesn't mean they have to lose. They lost today - they lost BIG TIME. Not one amendment to that bill went through. Not one. And the thing is, the Dems can't stand there and say that they tried. Because they really didn't. Trying, in my book, would have included an effort to stand together, publicly, and clearly lay out their reasons for opposing the then-proposed legislation. Not Harry Reid making a brief statement that no one in the press really paid attention to, let alone ran on cable news... Not Nancy Pelosi spending what little airtime they gave her arguing that she's not giving "aid and comfort" to the terrorists (and thereby legitimizing Hastert's outlandish statmeent in the first place).

They needed to pick one person - then line up all the other Dems behind them, and let that person talk about the press release they just handed to everyone on the steps of the Capitol. And they should have done that weeks ago - and then done it again. And again. And THEN if they failed, they did their best.

Let me ask you something - would you, at this point, want any one of these people responsible for taking care of something that was a matter of life or death to you? Oh - we tried - well great, except now I'm DEAD.

I know this will wear off to a certain degree, but what the Dems did (or didn't do) to prevent this legislation or at least LOOK LIKE they wanted to prevent the legislation for Christ's sake pretty much killed my will to give a FLYING FUCKING SHIT.

I'll work for Dems - I have been, and I will do it. I'll live with this impotent, disorganized pack we have and I'll even continue to support their re-election. But when it's within my power and it's one of my Dems who let me down on this, I'm going to work to replace them with Dems that know what it means to represent a constitutuency.

Update [2006-9-28 23:22:31 by RenaRF]: If you're still not feeling calm on October 5th, why don't you join the nation-wide protests. CRome3 was kind enough to point out that there /will/ be protests at all and provided a link in the comments.

Update [2006-9-29 0:27:5 by RenaRF]: I am still livid. I will remain livid over this - did you ever have something happen to you where the anger never truly dissipated, only receded? That's what this is like.

Having said that. I want to thank each and every one of you who added something to the comments. This is one of the most respectful discussions I have seen here, particularly when the topic is so emotional, and you are each a testament to why this place is, at the end of the day, a great place. Even (and sometimes especially) when we disagree.

With that, I'm on the East coast, I have a job, and it's after midnight. Therefore I am off to bed. For a pissed-off, fitful sleep.

Update [2006-9-29 9:53:41 by RenaRF]: Wow. Although I didn't sleep a lot nor did I sleep well (I had a weird dream where I was in a lunch meeting shouting at Bush - huh), I was pretty surprised to see this diary still hanging out on the Rec list. Thanks to all of you - almost 200 new comments came in since I went to bed last night and I have been able to read about a 1/3 of them... so far, the excellent and respectful tone seems to have continued, and I thank you for that.

I have not calmed the fuck down, though. I was replying to a comment from RF in this thread and said the following, which I think is worth excerpting:

I haven't CTFD. I don't think that has to be a bad thing, RF. Essentially, I've done what people do every day as they gain experience with other people - they make judgments. They determine who is on their side and who is not, and who is working against them. The vast majority of those decisions and realizations do not involve a withdrawal from life or society or work - rather, they engender a different, more educated and savvy approach. That is precisely what we need. A canny awareness of the goal, to include remaking the Democratic party in the image of its members.
I will not CTFD. But I appreciate your comment.

And this is how I feel this morning. Uncalm, still pissed, but ready to do something useful with it.

White Pride? You Must Be Smoking Crack.

2006-09-26T12:33:00.000-05:00

(Cross-posted at Daily Kos, My Left Wing and ePluribus Media)

I got an email today. It was all about "white pride". I got it from someone I know. It was so... Jeez. I don't even have a word for what it was. It was so wrong on so many levels, that I decided (as challenged at the end of the email) to pass it on. Only I added some commentary and factual clarification.

The email itself is in blockquotes below the fold.

Let me know what else I should add.

As I said in the intro to the diary, the email is chopped up (in order) and in the blockquotes. My responses come after each point made by the emailer.

Someone finally said it. How many are actually paying attention to this?
There are African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Arab Americans, Native Americans, etc. And then there are just Americans.

I'm paying attention.

You pass me on the street and sneer in my direction. You Call me "White boy," "Cracker," "Honkey," "Whitey," "Caveman" ... and that's OK.

I don't really know how to respond to this. I don't have this experience. I literally can't remember being addressed in a way that singled out my race. I have been addressed in a way that singled out my gender, but that's another story.

But when I call you, Nigger, Kike, Towel head, Sand-nigger, camel Jockey, Beaner, Gook, or Chink ... you call me a racist.

That would be, simply, because if you address another person in this fashion, you ARE a racist. The same goes for the epithets directed to a white person above. To characterize another person in terms that are largely considered profane, hurtful and reprehensible is to invoke racist language. Sorry.

You say that whites commit a lot of violence against you, so why are the ghettos the most dangerous places to live?

This is literally one of the most ridiculous and uneducated arguments I've ever heard. I don't know about whites committing "a lot of violence" against you (presumably minorities, as in all non-whites), but I DO know that whether or not whites commit "a lot of violence" against minorities is totally separate from the fact that ghettos can be dangerous places to live.

I would further point out that ghettos are not delineated by color. There are white ghettos (go to Appalachia, for starters), hispanic ghettos, black ghettos, etc. and so forth. The common thread in a ghetto is poverty. I'm frankly distressed that when you think of a ghetto, you think of ethnicity and not of poverty. Perhaps its the long-standing tendency of the powerful to refer to the poor as being poor because of their color that has you confused - has it occurred to you that it's strange for you to think of the color of a ghetto first before you think of the tragedy of poverty? Is it remotely possible that those who don't want to deal with the issue of poverty have made it an issue of race in an effort to divide and distract us?

You have the United Negro College Fund. You have Martin Luther King Day. You have Black History Month. You have Cesar Chavez Day. You have Yom Hashoah You have Ma'uled Al-Nabi You have the NAACP. You have BET.
If we had WET (White Entertainment Television) ... we'd be racists.

Wow. Where do I start.

Regarding the United Negro College Fund, you might visit this page on its website for a better understanding of its history. Suffice it to say that the UNCF was founded in the 1940s to address DIRE inequities in access to higher education by people of color. The reason there is not a United White College Fund, historically speaking, is because white children were not denied access in the way that black children were. Plain and simple. Further, you might enlighten yourself somewhat and understand what the UNCF does today, to include keeping black Universities solvent. Oh - and the reason there ARE black Universities, at a very simple level, is because blacks were denied access to white Universities.

Regarding Martin Luther King Jr. Day, your argument is ridiculous. We also have President's Day to commemorate the birthdays of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, two white Presidents (as if there's been any other kind). The designation of the Day is to commemorate a great American. It's sad - you've totally missed one of Martin Luther King Jr.'s key points from his "I have a dream" speech - that people be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. The designation of Martin Luther King Jr. Day was that principle in action - his character made him a great American and granted him a Day like other great Americans.

Regarding Black History Month - are you really that shallow? Do you even know how or why it was established? Black History Month was the progression of Negro History Week, which began in 1926. Negro History Week was a response by prominent African American Carter G. Woodson to the misrepresentation of negroes in history. It was an attempt to RE-EDUCATE with the correct facts. It was also an effort, over time, to breed tolerance and unity. It came out of everything good as far as intentions are concerned and, thankfully, continues to this day. The fact that Black History month offends you is precisely the reason we need to have it.

You might also be interested to know what other celebratory months are out there:

- January: Bath Safety Month; Blood Donor Month; Careers in Cosmetology Month; Cervical Health Awareness Month; Eye Care Month; Oatmeal Month; to name a few (source)
- February: American Hearth Month; American History Month; Candy Month; Canned Foods Month; Friendship Month; Library Lovers Month; Potato Lovers Month; to name a few (source)
- March: Foot Health Month; Frozen Food Month; Irish-American Heritage Month; Social Worker's Month; Women's History Month; to name a few source)

I won't drag you through every month (if you want to see the list, click here and scroll down a bit to find the links). Hopefully you see how ridiculous it is to be annoyed about the designation of a month or a day or a week or a year of observance. In the next part of your email you talk about others related to religion and/or ethnicity, highlighting them as a bad thing. I hope one of two things happens after you read this: first (and best) you don't EVER complain again about such ridiculous things; OR you apply your outrage equally and send an email about how Noodle Month is unfair to whites or how Potato Lovers month is unfair to Potato Haters, etc. and so forth. Do you have nothing better to do?

Continuing.

If we had a White Pride Day ... you would call us racists.
If we had White History Month ... we'd be racists.
If we had any organization for only whites to "advance" OUR lives ... we'd be racists.

We HAD "white pride" days. They looked like this:

In fact, the White Pride movement that dominated American history was so strong that Southern whites, full of pride and believing that southern blacks didn't deserve to vote (despite the fact that the law guaranteed them this right), murdered in the name of white pride anyone who stood in their way:

This history is not all ancient, either. If you Google the issue you'll see that "white pride" marches and demonstrations continue to this very day.

We're all just trying to survive your "white pride".

We have a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, a Black Chamber of Commerce, and then we just have the plain Chamber of Commerce.
Wonder who pays for that?

Well, in the case of the Chamber of Commerce, individual members pay for it. This link to my local Chamber of Commerce swhows the dues. This link (PDF) shows that the Black Chamber of Commerce is also paid for by member dues. And this link for the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce shows that it is paid for by membership dues.

Does that answer your question?

If we had a college fund that only gave white students scholarships you know we'd be racists. There are over 60 openly proclaimed Black Colleges in the US, yet if there were "White colleges" THAT would be a racist college.
In the Million Man March, you believed that you were marching for your race and rights. If we marched for our race and rights, you would call us racists.
You are proud to be black, brown, yellow and orange, and you're not afraid to announce it. But when we announce our white pride you call us racists.

Perhaps you should refer to the discussion of the United Negro College Fund on the issue of the whites v. blacks and college access, admission and monies. A little research may help you better understand that a huge chunk of American hisotry is all about the United White College Fund (and the United Male College Fund, for that matter). I'm at a loss to understand why a private foundation to help achieve parity in college admissions is a bad thing.

I'm not sure where you are getting your information on the Million Man March, so I went to their website and saw this, excerpted from their Preamble:

"This historic event brought nearly two million men to the Nation's Capitol. It demonstrated the willingness of Black men to atone to God for our shortcomings as men, husbands and fathers; it demonstrated our willingness to reconcile differences at home, school, church, organizations and in the society in general; it demonstrated our willingness to accept responsibility to change our behavior and to strive to make our communities a more decent place to live."

My emphasis added. I don't know where to begin to point out how roundly this contradicts other things you have said in your email. Perhaps you should make even a small effort to understand what you write before you write it.

It also seems to me that being proud of one's heritage is a good thing. I'm proud of my French-English-Irish-Cherokee-Mexican heritage. I'm also proud to be an American. If you are really so very affronted by the idea that you can't have a "white pride" demonstration, you need to blame those who came before you (see KKK picture and Mississippi Burning reference above) - not minorities.

You rob us, carjack us, and shoot at us. But, when a white police officer shoots a black gang member or beats up a black drug-dealer running from the law and posing a threat to society ... you call him a racist.

This is wrong on so many levels I don't know where to begin or if I should even bother. You say in this one statement that all minorities are criminals and violent thugs. Do you know any black people? How about Hispanic people? Have you ever seen a white person charged with a crime? The blanket you throw over this community is racist. That's why it's called such.

I am proud. But, you call me a racist. Why is it that only whites can be racists?

Where do you live? Again, I'll ask you: do you know anyone who is a minority and, if so, have you ever taken the time to talk to them about the subject? I had a very dear friend in college who was very light-skinned. She was bright, hard-working, and had made her way on merit. She would frequnetly tell me about racism within the African American community related to the relative lightness or darkness of a person's skin. As a white person, this had really never occurred to me and I was curious, so I asked her for examples. She told of being invited to be a bridesmaid in a wedding for a very distant acquaintance. The reason she was asked was because she was light skinned. The bride's family wanted only light-skinned people in the wedding party.

I can't personally relate, being white and all. But a simple conversation with someone who is non-white would help you understand that racism exists in all directions. What a stupid thing to say.

There is nothing improper about this e-mail.
Let's see which of you are proud enough to send it on.

There are many things improper about the email. For one, the logic used to make your "argument" is faulty at best and ridiculous at worst.

What makes it almost funny, though, is that it's an email basically asserting that you are not a racist, that your "white pride" should not be construed as racism, yet is is laden with racist, separatist overtones. Your outrage that there is a fund for (gasp) blacks to assist with college is one of those overtones. Your digusting and blanket accusation that minorities "...rob us, carjack us, and shoot at us" is offensive in the extreme.

Your email is the very reason we need the NAACP, UNCF, Black History Month, the Black Chamber of Commerce, Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, etc.

Funny how that worked out.

Not only am I proud enough to send this on - I'm sane enough to correct you and to call you what you are.

A racist.

An Enemy to the Rule of Law

2006-09-19T20:16:00.000-05:00

(Originally post at Daily Kos. Also posted proudly at My Left WIng and ePluribus Media)

Do you ever have one of those proverbial lightbulb moments? Some place or time where you hear or see something that makes /so much/ sense you can't believe you missed its essence in the first place?

I just had one. And it came watching Keith Olbermann on /Countdown/. It wasn't one of his special comments - those are certainly gold - rather, this was an interview with Johnathan Turley on the subject of Powell, Warner, Graham, McCain, and Bush on the subject of torture and the Geneva Conventions. It was enlightening - so much so that I'm transcribing it below the fold.

By way of background, the interview is with Jonathan Turley, a Constitutional scholar and professor of law at George Washington University. All emphasis in the transcript is solely mine.

OLBERMANN: Secretary Powell, in defending his recent criticism of the Administration also said in the Washington Post:
"If you just look at how we are perceived in the world and the kind of criticism we have taken over Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and renditions, whether we believe it or not, people are now starting to question whether we're following our own high standards."
OLBERMANN: Do you think that on this issue, did Powell just raise the stakes again?
TURLEY: Well I think the most important thing is how uncharacteristic this is for Powell. I mean, he is the ultimate conservative player - the team player - this is so much not like him and I think that what motivates someone like Powell to come out like this is when he believes there is a real clear and present danger to the country. I mean, people don't realize that whatever benefits this Administration thinks it gets from torture, the costs are enormous. This is a very dangerous neighborhood to walk alone. And I think what is Powell is saying is that we need these people... We need allies if we're going to win this war. And we've become the greatest recruitment tool for terrorist organizations.

Now - I know that many here (inclouding me) have their own opinions about Powell (see BarbinMD's excellent diary from earlier today for that discussion). Stay with me here without going cross-eyed over Powell. Turley's comments evolve and expand from this point.

OLBERMANN: We haven't even addressed and for time's sake, now, there's study after study that indicates that torture presents falsely positive information. People will say anything they thinkt he torturer wants to hear. But... about again the layout between Bush and McCain: one question being asked a lot that I have not heard definitively answered anywhere... Is there reall a difference between what the President has proposed on this and what the McCain/Warner/Graham version? Are they both torture? Aren't they both redefining the Geneva Conventions to some degree?
TURLEY: Well you really hit, I think, the most salient aspect of this. Whatever comes out of a compromise, it does seem to be an effort to redefine the Geneva Conventions because otherwise, why are you doing this? You don't need to redefine the Geneva Conventions - you don't have to do anything with it. It's a treaty. We're a signatory. We've never had to do this before. We've gotten along just fine, as has the world, with the language of the Geneva Convention. If we make any effort at all to try to redefine it or tweak it or to amplify it, the world will see that as our effort to lawyer the Geneva Convention to try to create some type of loophole or excuse for conduct.

Well no shit, right? Only frankly - this is the first time I've heard the whole issue put so clearly. I'm glad he said it out loud.

OLBERMANN: You'll remember Mr. Gonzales' description of this five years ago as "quaint" - the Geneva Conventions or portions of it -
TURLEY: [laughs] Right -
OLBERMANN: - to some degree. Last Friday here you were telling us that some of the detainees from the secret CIA cells, when moved to Guantanamo, might have the opportunity in the immediate future to talk to the Red Cross about their own interrogations, is there anything more to the possibility that that's going to happen, which might explain the President's anger and his rush over this as having more to do with what his Administration has already sanctioned and not about what is yet to come?
TURLEY: It has all the indications that that is exactly what is happening. The Administration for years has conspicuously attempted to get things like waterboarding approved as non-torture. Waterboarding, when you convince someone they're going to drown by drowning them. At least to the point of death. And waterboarding is defined as torutre around the world.
Now obviously the Administration has not gotten that thus far. But there is a strong suspicious that we have indeed been engaging in torture. Remember, some of these people were captured when the White House had signed a memo that defined non-torture as anything short of organ failure. That they believed that as long as they didn't cause organ failure or death, they were not engaged in torture. That shocked the world.
So what has happened in the past in our name has many of us wondering. But there is a feeling - and I am one of those people that has it - that we're about to hear some accounts coming out that our President may have ordered American personnel to become torturers. And that is so serious it is almost beyond definition.

I'm shocked and I'm not. We all knew it was going on. We'd hear the Abu Ghraib stories and the rendition stories but nothing was ever concretely hung around the President's neck - yet Turley is saying that information is coming out (he thinks) that will show definitively that the President ordered it. Be still my heart.

Olbermann gets right to the heart of the issue:

OLBERMANN: How serious would that be for the President? Are there elements of the Constitution that refer to international treaties that make and American President violating international agreements like that liable or subject to criminal action within this country, let alone internationally?
TURLEY: It is a violation of both domestic and international law. But more importantly, torture is a moral under every major religion. That you cannot fight a moral war with immoral means. And if we're ready to embrace immoral means, if that's how we're going to fight this war, then we have lost. And no one will come to our aid. Wil will be alone. And that's what happens when you become - in the view of many - an enemy to the rule of law. And we cannot afford that to happen [sic].

In a diary I wrote yesterday, I tried, inartfully, to put my arms around the moral questions and the Golden Rule and commented on the irony and hypocrisy of our messianic President forgetting that one truism. But Turley - with that one response above - put it all in context. Why it's wrong. Why it matters. What will happen if we do this wrong thing. Where we'll be - and how alone we'll be as we stand there.

And we'll deserve it.

You can contact Mr. Turley by sending him an email. I've already written him thanking him for his frank and chilling assessment of what really matters on this issue.

It's a Question of the Golden Rule

2006-09-18T10:33:00.000-05:00

(Originally posted at Daily Kos. Cross-posted at ePluribus Media and My Left Wing.)

I am sick to death of this ridiculous "clarification" issue regarding Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

For a President who has so wantonly and willfully hung his cowboy hat on his Christianity, one who makes vague and not-so-vague messianic references to our war against terrorism, and who has very recently indicated that he believes the United States is in its "third awakening", I find it utterly ridiculous that he hasn't referenced The Golden Rule.

Make the jump.

There is a great deal of information one can get about The Golden Rule when one runs a Google search. I found a great synopsis of the Golden Rule as it appears in world religions from a particularly interesting site:

Christianity - All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye so to them; for this is the law and the prophets. (Matthew 7:1)
Confucianism - Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state. (Analects 12:2)
Buddhism - Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful. (Udana-Varga 5,1)
Hinduism - This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you. (Mahabharata 5,1517)
Islam - No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself. (Sunnah)
Judaism - What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary. (Talmud, Shabbat 3id)
Taoism - Regard your neighbor's gain as your gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss. (Tai Shang Kan Yin P'ien)
Zoroastrianism - That nature alone is good which refrains from doing another whatsoever is not good for itself. (Dadisten-I-dinik, 94,5)

I've always understood the Christian teachings embodied in the Golden Rule, and although I am not a practicing anything, I do believe that it's a good way to live. It is one of those truisms that is, in and of itself, SO true that is repeated throughout culture and religion regardless of era or demonimation.

Moreover, if you stop and reflect when making a decision that is difficult or one that doesn't come easily, "How would I feel if the shoe were on the other foot?", you arrive at a more carefully considered conclusion, whatever that conclusion may be. You also get in the habit of doing something I think is very valuable: outcome analysis. In this, you weigh your options and consider all the conceivable results of those options. At least, then, once your decision is made you are less likely to be caught flat-footed with potential consequences.

So with this as a context, let's revisit Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions:

Article 3
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) Taking of hostages;
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.
The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

My emphasis added.

I'm dragging you through this analysis for a reason.

When you place Article 3 in the context of the Golden Rule, it is not in any way vague. Not even remotely. In today's Washington Post, Tom Malinowsky has an op-ed piece titled Call Cruelty What It Is. It's a concise commentary on so-called "alternative" interrogation techniques, those which the Bush administration is seeking to ensure as reasonable. Hence the need for "clarification" of the Geneva Conventions (where "clarification" is a euphamism for "covering one's ass in the event of international criminal charges"). Malinowski, who is the Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, cites several authors and descriptions of the application of these "alternative" techniques. One worth quoting is one by former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin:

...who describes experiencing sleep deprivation in a Soviet prison in the 1940s: "In the head of the interrogated prisoner a haze begins to form. His spirit is wearied to death, his legs are unsteady, and he has one sole desire: to sleep, to sleep just a little, not to get up, to lie, to rest, to forget. . . . Anyone who has experienced this desire knows that not even hunger or thirst are comparable with it. . . . I came across prisoners who signed what they were ordered to sign, only to get what the interrogator promised them. He did not promise them their liberty. He promised them -- if they signed -- uninterrupted sleep!"
The Soviets understood that these methods were cruel. They were also honest with themselves about the purpose of such cruelty -- to brutalize their enemies and to extract false confessions, rather than truthful intelligence. By denying this, President Bush is not just misleading us. He appears to be deceiving himself.

So let's come back to prisoners in American custody, torture, "alternative" interrogation techniques, and The Golden Rule. I would have hoped that our openly religious President would not need a mental exercise to apply the Golden Rule, but clearly I'm mistaken. So he should begin by envisioning a young soldier, male or female, subjected to the techniques he thinks are necessary and which he feels need to be "clarified". Let's take the use of the "cold cell" as an example, where a prisoner is stripped naked, doused in water, and then placed in a cell kept at about 50 degrees. Is that a tactic Bush would like done unto our soldiers? Is that acceptable treatment? Or would he be outraged at the mental image of someone treating an American soldier in this fashion?

The Golden Rule is a good one, in my opinion. You can be an atheist and agree with the idea of the Golden Rule. It transcends religiosity - it's just common sense. But because it's also associated with religion, and because Christianity is a religion that Bush seems hell-bent and determined to wave in everyone's face at every possible opportunity, it should be self-evident that all the "clarification" needed can be found in the President's most beloved book: The Bible. If you would not like to be waterboarded, you shouldn't condone the waterboarding of others. If you would not like to be subjected to interrogation techniques that involve severe sleep deprivation, then you shouldn't do that to other people. It doesn't matter that your enemy-du-jour has shown that they don't emply The Golden Rule in their tactics - YOU SHOULD. If the fundamentalists have taught me anything through their involvement in politics during the last six years, it's that the rules set out in The Bible are not negotiable. There are no exceptions.

It's a question of the Golden Rule and how that relates to the moral high ground and imperative in which we wrap our foreign policy. It was a moral decision to remove Saddam Hussein. It's a moral question of good vs. evil when discussing the subject of combating terrorism. The beheading of American citizens and contractors and soldiers is a moral outrage.

So how, then, can the President credibly argue that the technques he holds so dear to ensure our safety (cough) are morally conscionable? I would argue that he would not like these things done unto him.

A grade school student could answer this question of "clarity" vis-a-vis Article 3 armed only with the very sensible, morally defensible understanding of the Golden Rule. I'm amazed that the media and other watchdog groups aren't distilling the issue to its simpliest articulation, and that the cries of "bullshit!" aren't louder and more concentrated.

In this, I think, Bush has shown his highest level of hypocrisy.

Murtha Speaks - Rumsfeld Resign - Troops Aren't Ready

2006-09-13T14:20:00.000-05:00

(Cross-posted from Daily Kos. Also posted at My Left Wing, EPM, and Booman Tribune)

John Murtha just made a live statement on CNN (and other shows, I'm sure), that I found quite powerful. I have transcribed the live coverage below the fold.

Here is a link to the actual resolution he introduced today asking for Rumsfeld's resignation.

He is referencing as well a report as to military readiness that he has reviewed. I will try to find a link and update the diary.

...non-deployed combat brigades, managed by the Army's Forces Command. And the vast majority of them are rated the lowest readiness ratings. The ratings are caused by severe equipment shortages.
The situation facing the Army Guard and Reserve is comparatively worse. Not currently mobilized, about 4/5ths received the lowest readiness ratings. 4/5ths. The same is true for the Army Reserve. Personnel shortage is the major reason behind the decline in the Guard and Reserve readiness shortages created, for the most part, by mobilization having [lapped] or personnel having been pulled from units to augment others. So they're not going as a unit in many cases. As a matter of fact, the Adjutent General of Pennsylvania says we can't send units any longer because of the constriction on the National Guard in Pennsylvania, and Pennsylvania's probably the most deployed National Guard in the country - we have to send individuals to fill units.
As we come to expect, the US Army [is] embued with the whatever it takes spirit of commitment and hard work. It's been given a mission, and it will complete that mission. Try to complete that mission. Yet it's becoming increasingly apparent the level of commitment has not been met by the Secretary of Defense and the other civilian officials charged with overseeing and assuring the well being of our military. The mere fact that roughly 1/2 of the US Army is at the lowest level of military readiness speaks volumes in this regard.
Perhaps most troubling to many Army senior uniformed leaders is the lack of national attention to the Army's plight. To emphatically state that the global war on terror will last for years yet fail to even acknowledge, let alone take steps to address, the Army's readiness, equipment and personnel shortfalls is short-sighted at best. At worst, it's unconscionable, because the future security deterrent power of the United States is dangerously at risk.
Let me tell you - it's completely insensitive for the Secretary of Defense to talk to the people that he represents - the young troops - who are out in the field day after day in 120 degrees carrying 70 pounds on their back, and tell them we don't have a crystal ball. They want answers. They want to know - and of course the reason is we don't have enough troops to be deployed over and over again. And to say that because they're volunteers shows a compelte insensitivity to the situation that these families go through and I go to the hospitals all the time. And the thing that I worry about the most is the fact that the troops not only are in missions that they don't understand in many cases but also the future of the military.
And I'm introducing a resolution today asking for the resignation of Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld not only for his past mistakes - he said the weapons of mass destruction - we know where they are - he said this war won't last six weeks, maybe six months - he said it would cost $50 billion dollars. We sent troops into battle without the appropriate armored vests - I was the one that found the armored vest shortages when I went to Iraq. So not only for his past mistakes, but for the future of the military and that's the thing that I worry about the most since I've spoken out - is the readiness. We can talk about Iran and Iraq, and we can talk about North Korea - but if you don't have a strategic reserve, which we don't have now - and those troops, when they're being trained, they don't have the equipment to train, and so they shift equipment all over the place. And then they go into a field where they get the equipment, but they aren't trained on the exact equipment they've used [sic].
Now going back to General Schoomaker's comments - one of the problems we had in that operation was that those helicopters they flew, the pilots were not familiar with them...

CNN ended its coverage here.

My emphasis added. He speaks the truth, and with conviction, yet again.

Thanks for the Fear

2006-09-08T12:28:00.000-05:00

(Cross-posted at Daily Kos, ePluribus Media and My Left Wing.)

The 5-year anniversary of 9/11 looms large for me. I'm certain it looms large for everyone. My thoughts about 9/11 are not restricted to annual anniversaries, though. I don't really think a day passes where I don't think about it and in a very persosnal context.

There is fear that is invoked and then there is fear that is real. Follow me after the fold as I try to sort through all of this.

I was reminiscing with my parents on Monday about 9/11. They retired to South Carolina in 2000, after 40+ in the Washington DC area, where I still reside. They were in town visiting for a few days before heading to the Amalfi Coast of Italy (more on that later) with friends for a 2 1/2 week vacation. They had missed Bill Maher the previous Friday, so we watched it together when it replayed on Monday. The anniversary of 9/11 was a subject on the show, and it turned into a subject for discussion post-show.

I work with the Federal Government - not for them - with them. I'n a technology hack. First it was software, and now it's services. I have made my career on this since coming out of graduate school. My mother blazed the trail - a high-powered and highly successful technology hack who built her career on doing business with the Federal government. My father was a career civil servant with the Federal government. You get the picture.

I was on my way downtown that morning. I had a pretty critical presentation to give at a pretty high level in the US Department of the Treasury, whose headquarter offices are next to the White House. Because I live in Northern Virginia along the Dulles corridor, I was inbound on Rt. 66 East when my husband called. He was watching the Today show. They were covering what looked to be a small plane that had crashed into one of the towers. As he watched, with his toothbrush in his mouth, brushing away, another plane crashed into the second tower.

My cell phone rings - Mr. RenaRF: "I was watching Today about a small plane crash and the weirdest thing happened. Another plane crashed into the Towers in New York."
Me (confused - I didn't know about the first plane and I was highly distracted trying to mentally prepare for the meeting): "Weird. I have to go. Love you." Click.

I didn't turn the news on or anything. I was seriously thinking through each aspect of my upcoming presentation. As I was on the highway driving through Arlington, my phone rang again. This time the Caller ID indicated it was my office, also in Arlington. It was a friend and co-worker. I answered.

Friend: "I don't know where you're going, but if it's anywhere downtown, turn around and get out. New York is being attacked. The Pentagon has been attacked. A bomb went off at the State Department and they say there are bombs at other buildings. Do not go downtonw."
Me (still confused): "What the fuck is going on?"
Friend: "I don't really know, but whatever it is is bad. Get out. Call me tonight." Click.

For those unfamiliar with the I-66 corridor heading into DC, there are several exits for Arlington and Rosslyn before you get to the exit for 110 (on which the Pentagon sits) and, beyond that, the Teddy Roosevelt (TR) Bridge to spill directly onto either E Street or Constititution Ave. in DC. As my friend called, I was just coming up on the Rosslyn/Key Bridge (which takes you into Georgetown) exit. I remember that as she said the word "Pentagon" I looked to the horizon and I saw smoke. In that instant as well I remembered hearing a loud BOOOM some exits (5 min.) earlier ande thinking it was like the BOOOM you hear when builders are clearing large lots for construction with dynamite. I figured in that moment that I had heard the plane hit.

I took the Rosslyn/Key Bridge exit and, because of how impossibly jammed traffic was going into Virginia, I headed towards DC on Key Bridge with the idea that I would turn away from downtown onto Canal Road and travel back into Northern Virginia via the Chain Bridge.

As I'm on Key Bridge, I look to my right. Smoke. Fire. Below and slightly behind me on GW Parkway, countless emergency vehicles are speeding towards the Pentagon. I can hear them behind me in Rosslyn also. I almost had to stop the car to throw up.

I managed to get on Canal Road, which was totally jammed. I surely had the radio on to the local news channel by that point, but I had it slightly turned down. I was trying to contact Mr. RenaRF. I was trying to call the high school where my stepson was in class, because it was less than a mile from the CIA and the rumors were rife that other potential targets were being secured. I was trying to call my parents, who I knew would be frantically freaked because they knew I had been sweating that pending presentation so they knew I was slated to be downtown.

All circuits are busy.

I did get through. Mr. RenaRF fine. Staying in the burbs. Stepson fine - school has released him on my call and he is headed home. Parents fine - relieved that I was heading out of the city.

Here's where my parents' story overlaps. They had been playing tennis that morning down in South Carolina. They hadn't heard a thing and they were listening to CDs in their car. They retired young (at 55) and were living off of their investments, many of which were tied to the stock market. The stock market had been struggling... When they got home, they turned on the TV to check the market and saw that it was closed. They couldn't imagine why it would be closed - so they switched to CNN minutes before the first tower fell.

Minutes after that I got through to them:

Me: "Mom. I'm ok. Everyone here is OK. I'm stuck in traffic but I'm headed home."
Mom: "We just got home and I tried to call you a few minutes ago. I can't believe this."
Me: "Mom, I saw the Pentagon. It was awful. I heard about the World Trade Centers. Maybe the only good thing was that the planes hit kind of high and they have a chance to save the people below the crash. I hope they can get them out."
Mom: "Rena... One of the towers just collapsed. It's gone."
Me: [Bursts into tears] Click.

I was completely... I don't know if there's a word for it... But I was so devastated by that news. I cried. Hard. And for a while. My head hurt. I had to pee. I was inching forward in traffic.

I came upon Fletcher's Boat House - a nice area along the C&O Canal that rents boats and bikes and has beautiful walking paths. And a public restroom. I had to stop - I made the left and pulled in. The restrooms were mercifully open (they aren't always) and I used them.

So here I am. I'm in a business suit. My eyes are puffy. I come out of the restrooms and notice how quiet it is around me. It took me a moment - but then it hits me. There's no air traffic. Huh. As I stand there, I see other people in shorts and walking shoes coming to the main section of the park, smiling - laughing - talking with each other. They don't know. All I can think is: "Should I break their hearts?" I don't. Let them have their peace.

That day is really personal to me by virtue of proximity. I think no matter where you are, 9/11 was personal for each person in their own way and experience.

And that's what bugs me about the fear.

Real Fear vs. Manufactured Fear

What would you think of a person who has a child, and that child is desperately afraid of the water. When the child acts up or won't behave (in other words, when the child's being a child), the parent threatens to hold them under water. Pretty bad, I think. It's totally manipulative and preys on the fears, rational or not, that the child holds. It's really despicable.

Can you say that the fear manufactured by those in power is any different? I can't.

I'm already fearful with good reason - and it's real fear. I live in Washington DC. I spend a lot of time there in high profile places with high value (from a terrorist's perspective) Federal agencies. When I'm able, I take the Metro (those familiar with the DC Metro know that it's not exactly accessible to large portions of the burbs). I watch people swipe their SmartTrip cards and get on the Metro with suitcases (it goes to National Airport) and briefcases and backpacks. There are no metal detectors. When I board the Metro, I do so with the full knowledge that this might be my unlucky day. There's really nothing that has been done (or even proposed) to help make the DC Metro safer. And let's face it: Washington DC is and will remain a high value symbolic target for terrorists.

That's real fear. It's real fear when you immediately notify authorities (whoever is closest) when a bag is abandoned on the Metro or in front of a building or in the Dulles Airport. It's ever-present. It's livable, but it's always there and it's tied to real-life concerns.

So it really fucking pisses me off when the terror alert level is raised, right before and election, based on information that is four years old.

It really fucking pisses me off to hear George W. Bush break his radio silence on the subject of Bin Laden when he's done nothing to apprehend him.

It really fucking pises me off to have Bin Laden shoved at me solely for the purpose of trying to maintain political control 60 days before another election.

It really fucking pisses me off to hear speech after speech that talks simultaneously about "winning the war on terror" while also saying "they want to kill us". I know they want to kill us.

It really fucking pisses me off when a POTUS says stupid shit like "bring it on" when he was IN A FUCKING SCHOOL in Florida when all hell broke loose around me.

It really fucking pisses me off when the administration has SO little depth such that they allow prisoners to be tortured and further allow that torture and its images to become public, further inflaming extremists who already want to kill me.

It really fucking pisses me off when I hear that container security isn't going anywhere. And when I hear that border security (from the perspective of terrorists slipping through, having nothing to do with immigration) has gotten worse. And when I hear an exhausted TSA screener at LAX tell me that they are woefully understaffed and overworked. And when I hear that politics are still the driving factor around information sharing in the intelligence community, meaning information isn't shared.

It really fucking pisses me off that Bush had to be totally pressured to form the 9/11 commission and pisses me off even more that not very many of his stupporters thought badly of him for his resistance.

And it really fucking pisses me off that one of the last thing I said to my parents before they left for the airport to go to Italy was "Pretend you're Canadian". And I meant it.

I could add to this list ad infinitum, but this diary is already too long (if you made it this far, thanks for reading).

I don't need the manufactured fear, Mr. Bush. Because every time you try to manufacture it, I can only think about the real and valid fear that lives with me every day and that you haven't succeeded in removing either through policy or interdiction. And just like the parent who cocntrols the child by exacerbating their worst fears, you are a heartless bully with absolutely no conscience in your willingness to try to scare me further.

Katrina Blog Project

2006-08-21T14:30:00.000-05:00

As the 1st anniversry of Hurricane Katrina quickly approaches, I'd like everyone to be aware of the Katrina Blog Project. Essentially, this started over at Daily Kos in an effort to highlight one diary per day on the recommended list that commemorated the tragedy and travesty that was Hurricane Katrina and its governmental response.

Follow me into the extended entry for a quick set of links to excellent diaries written about Katrina.

Katria Blog Project Diaries:

The Katrina Blog Project: 30 Days to Remember the Madness by wmtriallawyer
Katrina and Lebanon--Two Perfect Examples of "Compassionate Conservatism" by dociavelli
Our Katrina Anniversary by noladq
They Are Not Coming...A Katrina Diary by luckydog
My Katrina diary by Magenta
Hurricane Katrina: From The Other End of the Looking Glass by noahdb
"You can hear the dogs yelping" - A Katrina Diary by RenaRF
Katrina Blog Project: Filling the Void by wmtriallawyer
Katrina, the never-ending story by Chimes of Freedom
Spike Lee's Katrina Movie - this month by luckydog
"Let Them Walk Out of Here"-- Katrina Blog Project by Buckeye BattleCry
Unnamed by terrypinder
Hey, whatever happened to that "go f!ck yourself" guy? - A Katrina Diary by GN1927
Katrina Blog Project - cleaning up by nerdsie
Katrina Blog Project - Apocalypse 9/1/2005 by Chimes of Freedom
To Texas From Katrina - a Katrina Blog Project by Texas Tiger
My Trip to New Orleans by chacha1847
This is no way to treat our fellow Americans by clammyc
A letter from Canada: Katrina blog. by pale cold
Horrors and Heroes--A Katrina Project Diary by AustinCynic
The Hell of Not-Knowing; a Katrina diary by pico
Goodbye, New Orleans by noladq
Katrina-The Abandonment of New Orleans (Photos) by neecie100
Katrina Blog Project - Crime and Punishment 9/5/2005 by Chimes of Freedom
Mississippi After Katrina: A Contribution to the Katrina Blog Project by vjack
New Orleans: The forgotten city by PsiFighter37
Little Progress in New Orleans - One Year Later by clammyc
he saw a body floating in the water with a rat sitting on its chest by Miss Devore
Katrina Blog Project - Lakeview and the Ninth Ward, August 3, 2006 by Chimes of Freedom
The Madonna of Katrina-Sarah Johnson by Miss Devore
Katrina Blog Project: Little Did I Know by thgeneral
Katrina Survivors Prematurely Forgotten by vjack
A New Orleans Ritual for Aug. 29th, 2006 by nolalily
Coming home - Katrina Blog Project, w/pics by pico
Katrina Then and Now: A Bush Photo Op - Updated Today by luckydog
NOLA: American Warzone by Jensaarai
Beenie Drowned In Her House... A Katrina Diary by luckydog

Many of the diarists are from the region and lived through it. Some aren't - we were merely frustrated outside observers. Some of the diaries were highly recommended and have many comments... Some don't. But they all deserve attention. EVERY STORY about the forgotten Gulf and especially New Orleans deserves attention.

By the by, Spike Lee has his four-hour documentary on Katrin airing in two parts on HBO starting tonight. It will be two hours tonight, and two tomorrow night. Sometimes I wonder if I can take seeing it again - but them I remember how lucky I am that I didn't actually live through it. I owe all the survivors and those who lost homes and possessions and family members and pets and all sense of securtiy my attention. I intend to give it.

It's My Birthday!

2006-08-12T14:25:00.000-05:00

(Cross-posted at MY LEFT WING, ePluribus Media, and my blog)

That's right. On August 12th, 1967, at 10:11pm EST, I was brought into this world after 12 long hours of labor (a fact which my mother never neglects to mention on my birthday). I was a healthy 7lb. 11oz. 21-inch long baby girl.

I'm sure you're all clamoring to come up with ideas about what to get me for my birthday, so after the fold, I've provided you with a helpful wish list of birthday gift ideas.

Follow me!

I'm going to put this into a handy-dandy list that you can print out for easy reference.

For my birthday I want:
all of our troops home from Iraq. All of them. Declare victory and bring them home so that not one more military or civilian life, regardless of nationality, is lost.
a rational, reasonable policy to deal with terrorism. This should include the human element. Those who are not currently radicals should be encouraged by Americans and by United States policy so that they don't feel the need to become terrorists. Not one more person should be tortured, abused, and/or molested by Americans or her policy. We should live our principles and extend them to others.
universal health care. I don't want to hear another story about a person being unable to seek medical attention for whatever reason because they can't afford it. I also don't want to have to spend any more of my time wondering if the treatment recommended for friends and family is being recommended because that friend or family member is without means and/or insurance.
a rational environmental policy. There are too many things we need to do in this regard to list them all, but especially high on my list is the signing of the Kyoto Treaty. I want America and American policy to recognize and validate the science behind global warming and step up to the plate and take responsibility for its contribution. On a personal level, I would like those whom I know to determine and understand their climate impact on the planet and take appropriate action. Something as simple as adjusting your thermostat or buying CFL light bulbs could go a long way towards helping with this impending ane very real climate threat.
the House and the Senate returned to Democrats. I can't do more than ask each of you to help your Democratic candidates in your state so that we end the madness that has been Republican rule.
a full accounting by an official source of the mistakes made before, during and after Hurricane Katrina. I would like this to include an explanation as to why the Hurricane Pam simulation warnings were essentially ignored and a further accounting of why the corrective actions suggested by the simulation were not carried out.
a complete, immediate and concerted effort to rebuild the Gulf coast of the United States and especially those devastated poorer areas of New Orleans. I want streets cleaned, trash removed, houses rebuilt, and habitation restored.
an end to the fomenting of hate. Stop using entire groups of people as political fodder to GOTV. Have some morals and some sense of decency.
a full legal path to marriage for those in the GLBT community. Love is love, and as I see it, we can surely use more of it in a committed fashion.
an end to the policy of spying on Americans. I can't believe I even have to ask for this, but sadly, I do. I want us to return to our values and our principles and our respect for the law and an acknowledgement that nothing excuses compromising those values. Nothing.
a halt to the advent of religious creep in our lives. The Founders separated church and state for a reason. If you want to worship, knock yourself out. Just don't make me do it along with you. Stop trying to put the Ten Commandments in places that are funded by my tax dollars. I'm Christian, but not all of us are. If I want to see the Ten Commandments on a regular basis, I'll print them out, frame them, and hang them on my wall. If I want to pray, I will do so in the privacy of my home or at a church or place of my choosing. But don't try to make me do it when you deem appropriate.
a return to a fundamental respect for science. Again, I can't believe I have to ask for this. Science is good. It tells us a lot of things, things that we need to know. It does so with a rigor and level of scholarliness that is beyond reproach. You may believe wholecloth in the Creation, but I don't - because science showed me how history unfolded.
an end to tax policies that create a society of haves and have-nots. This great country of ours provides opportunities for all. But those opportunities don't come without a cost, and one which should be distributed in a way that is fair and allows everyone to participate in improving their lives.
an end to living beyond our means. I don't do it in my household, and I don't think our country should do it, either. Stop spending my future into the ground and denying me any hope that we'll be able to pay for other things that are worthwhile - like education.
a perp-walk by all the Bushco criminals in the Hague (hat-tip to ek hornbeck for suggesting this in the comments).

I know there are more things that I want, but I don't want to be greedy. If you can think of something that I've left out that you think I would especially like, let me know what to expect in the comments.

And remember - it's the thought that counts.

"You can hear the dogs yelping" - A Katrina Diary

2006-08-03T11:35:00.000-05:00

[NOTE: I posted this over at Daily Kos in response to a challenge to get one Katrina diary a day on the recommended list as we come up to the anniversary of the storm - but I also posted here a lot during the storm's aftermath, so I'm reposting this here as well]

I turn today to take up wmtriallawyer's challenge to highlight the tragic events that unfolded almost a year ago as the realization of the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina dawned on us.

That was quite a time for me personally. luckydog's excellent recommended diary brought it all back to me, not that it's ever very far from my mind and my heart. I don't live in the gulf region and I wasn't personally affected by Hurricane Katrina in terms of losing property or a loved one or even a friend. But I was affected, however, in the way human beings are affected by the suffering of others. Katrina really changed my life.

And that's what this diary is about. Make the jump.

Those of you who have been with us for at least the past year remember DarkSyde's excellent diaries in the days preceding the hurricane, warning of the potential destruction with scientifically ominous terminology. Two days before the devastation, he posted this diary. It was then that he fully had my attention, let me tell you. I began to feel the sense of impending doom that was bearing down on a city I loved, a city that my husband I would visit to hear unarguably great music and to stroll and window shop and just be together. Being musicians, New Orleans holds a special place for Mr. RenaRF and I. The prospect of this killer storm bearing down this, our city of retreat, was too awful to contemplate.

I sat glued to CNN and MSNBC on the Sunday Katrina approached and the Monday when it made landfall, poised in awful anticipation for the reports coming out of the region. Monday morning's reports were as expected - wind. Rain. People in shelters. People sheltering in their homes. Video clips of gray air filled with water and foliage being blown sideways. All your regular storm coverage.

It was the assessment for which I waited: How bad had it been? How much damage? And, specific to New Orleans - Did the levees hold? I was buoyed as Monday night's reports rolled out about the fate of New Orleans. The eye had passed in such a way to avoid a direct hit on the city. The windows in the Hilton were out and the Superdome's skin has sustained damage, but this was all damage that could be repaired.

New Orleans had dodged a bullet.

Allow me to digress a moment to provide a bit of context, because this is a personal diary, and one in which I'm going to attempt to articulate what is visceral and very difficult to put into words.

On the morning of 9/11, I was on my way into downtown DC for a meeting at the Treasury department. For those of you who don't live in DC, the main Treasury department's building is right next to the White House. In fact, there is a subterranean tunnel that connects the two (not that I've ever been in it). I live in Northern Virginia and, except during HOV hours, I access the downtown portion of the city by taking Rt. 66 eastbound. This brings me through McLean, then North Arlington, then Rosslyn. As I was just coming through McLean, my husband called on my mobile. He said that the weirdest thing had happened - as he was watching the Today show about coverage of a small plane hitting one of the World Trade Center towers, another plane flew into the other tower. It hadn't dawned on me yet what was happening. I had my meeting on my mind and rang off. Close on the heels of that call, as I wended my way on the highway through Arlington, my friend and colleague called. She said:

"Get out of the city. There's a bomb at the State Department and the Capitol. Something's happened at the White House - and a plane just hit the Pentagon. They say we're under attack."

At that moment I was coming up on the exit for the Key Bridge, which takes you into the Georgetown section of DC. I took her seriously and took the exit. On the bridge headed to Georgetown, I could look to my right and see the dying flames and rising smoke that was the crippled Pentagon.

In that moment, 9/11 became very real and very personal to me. I had a feeling like someone lifting a thick cobweb off of my brain - felt but not seen, the whispering relief of its almost non-existent weight being lifted was a physical feeling. It was my body's reaction to the realization of what was ocurring and, with it, a sense that things would be forever changed.

Until Monday night, August 29th, I hadn't had that feeling since 9/11. I was tuned into CNN's News Night with Aaron Brown, following the post-Katrina aftermath coverage. I was pretty lighthearted - all reports were that the city had been spared. Than this:

BROWN: It's been quite a -- we don't use this word lightly, but quite a dramatic and difficult night down there, hadn't it?
MESERVE: It's been horrible. As I left tonight, darkness, of course, had fallen. And you can hear people yelling for help. You can hear the dogs yelping, all of them stranded, all of them hoping someone will come.

My emphasis added. When I read that over again, I start to cry. I also remember experiencing that feeling again - that cobweb-lifting-from-brain moment of realization that things had inexorably changed.

It's a shame that I don't have an audio clip of that small interchange. As I mentioned, at that point I was experiencing a sense of relief that Katrina hadn't caused the predicted devastation. So I was doing what I do, which is many things at once. CNN was on, but I wasn't especially paying attention to it. I was on the computer, chatting with my husband, running laundry - typical home stuff. But it was Meserve's tone that fully directed all my attention to the TV. Her voice broke when she talked about the people yelling and the dogs yelping. I'm familiar with Meserve - she's not an emotional reporter - but the raw emotion of what she was witnessing came through in her voice and in her desperate efforts to hold it together and report what she was hearing. She continued:

[MESERVE] But for tonight, they've had to suspend the rescue efforts. It's just too hazardous for them to be out on the boats. There are electrical lines that are still alive. There are gas lines that are still spewing gas. There are cars that are submerged. There are other large objects. The boats can't operate. So they had to suspend operations and leave those people in the homes.
As we were driving back, we passed scores of boats, Fish and Wildlife boats that they brought in. They're flat bottomed. They've obviously going to put them in the water just as soon as they possibly can and go out and reach the people who are out there who desperately need help.
We watched them, some of them, come in. They were in horrible shape, some of them. We watched one woman whose leg had been severed. Mark Biello, one of our cameramen, went out in one of the boats to help shoot. He ended up being out for hours and told horrific tales. He saw bodies. He saw where -- he saw other, just unfathomable things. Dogs wrapped in electrical -- electrical lines who were still alive that were being electrocuted.
The police are having radio problems. At least they were earlier this evening. They didn't have enough boats. They put out an appeal to various police who had personal boats to bring them to the scene. But the problem was the people who had the boats couldn't get to the boats to bring them to the scene to go out and rescue the people.
People are out there tonight. One of the EMS workers told us that the water is driving, and I can tell you that when we came back into the city tonight, it certainly was higher here. Whether it's rising in that neighborhood as much as it has here, I don't know -- Aaron.
BROWN: Jeanne, let me walk you through a couple of things. Are they able -- are authorities able to, in any way, communicate with these people who are stranded and scared and hungry and cold and desperate?
MESERVE: They aren't tonight. When the boats were in the water, as the boats went around through the neighborhood, they yelled. And people yelled back. But Mark, when he came back, told me that -- that some of the people, they just couldn't get to. They just couldn't get to them. They couldn't maneuver the boats in there.
Because this had happened before in Hurricane Betsy, there were many people who kept axes in their homes and had them in the attic in preparation for this. Some people were able to use those axes and make holes in their roof and stick their head out or their body out or climb up completely. But many others clearly didn't have that. Most of the rescuers appeared to be carrying axes, and they were trying to hack them out as best they could to provide access and haul them out.
BROWN: I'm sorry. What...
MESERVE: There were also Coast Guard helicopters involved in it, Aaron, with the seat up (ph), flying overhead. It appears that when they saw someone on a rooftop, they were dropping flares, to try to signal the boats to get there.
BROWN: Is there any sense of -- that there's triage, that they're looking to see who needs help the worst? Or they're just -- they were just getting to whomever they could get to and get them out of there?
MESERVE: I had the distinct impression they were just getting to whoever they could get to. I talked to one fire captain who'd been out in his personal boat. He said he worked an area probably 10 square blocks. He'd rescued 75 people. He said in one instance there were something like 18 people in one house, some of them young. One, he said, appeared to be a newborn.
And he said other boats were working the same area at the same time, also picking up large numbers of people. And he doesn't believe they got all of them. And that's just one 10-block area. I don't know how big the area is. I haven't been able to see any footage from the air, but it appears to go on forever. It's hard for me to comprehend how many people might be out there and how many people's lives are in jeopardy or how many people may already be dead.
BROWN: It's -- it's -- just stay with me for a bit, OK? It's what is -- for everybody now, what's very difficult is there isn't what we refer to in the business as a wide shot. We can't get -- authorities can't get, we can't get, we can't give to those of you who are watching tonight that wide picture of what these scenes are like.
Can you -- what kind of neighborhoods are we talking about? Are these middle class neighborhoods? Are they -- the homes structurally sound? What are we talking about?
MESERVE: Well, the area where I was, and I don't know what the other neighborhoods are like, but this was a poor neighborhood. These were very humble homes. Most of them appeared to be only one story high with, then, some small attic space above them. These people are people of not much means. Some of them, I would guess, do not have cars and didn't have the option of driving away from here. Some of them, I would guess, did not have the money that would have bought them a hotel room.
BROWN: Yes.

Merserve, without really knowing it, foreshadowed all that we would learn in the days to follow. That horrible knowledge that the poorest people had been the ones left behind. That horrible knowledge that, even though such a scenario had been predicated and documented, there was no plan to save people.

As the days rolled out and the devastation became clearer, I would think every moment about the people who remained trapped in their attacks with the noxious water all around them. It prompted me to write this diary, which was an actual letter I wrote to the President of the United States. I essentially implored him to imagine himself in one of those attics and fucking do something to help these people.

I cried - a lot. It took me a while to realize that I was crying for everything. In the days immediately following the hurricane, I cried for the people who had died and were surely dying under the watchful eye of television news cameras. I cried for the spirit of the people trapped in the Superdome and Convention Center. I cried when I saw their faces and especially their eyes - from the very old to the young, their eyes told the story: We are abandoned. We are not important enough to be saved. I cried because they felt that way, and I cried because they would never know that I was crying - for them. I cried out of helplessness and a keen sense of outrage. I cried along with each of you as we all realized that New Orleans would never again be the same. I cried as I mourned the loss - ALL of the loss.

I still cry today over Hurricane Katrina, but it's become more removed from the people and the place itself and has moved more towards mourning the loss of something more personal. When I saw the remnants of that plane jutting out f the Pentagon, I was naturally horrified. But there was a stiff-upper-lippidness that also set in, a determination that terrorism and threats would not prevent me from working and driving and travelling and living my life.

With Katrina, though, I mourned the loss of something more fundamental - the loss of a sense of caring about human life. I cared - each one of us here cared. Most peple watching on their TVs cared. A few of those who cared cared enough to actually go there and do what they could to help. But the people and the institutions best poised to provide the greatest amount of relief and assistance didn't care enough about the things that mattered. They didn't care about the clocks ticking over the heads of the living or about the death of the spirit of those whose joy of life was replaced by a bitter realization that they just didn't matter enough to be rescued and treated with dignity.

They didn't care about these devastated people's right to some semblance of human dignity.

Those days following Katrina saw my innocense finally fall by the wayside and be replaced with a hard core of cynicism. I lost a piece of myself in an odd way through those events. It doesn't remotely compare with the loss of those whose homes were destroyed, whose loved ones were drowned, whose spirits were crushed... But in its own way, my loss remains very real.

It is an impotent rage.

I try to use it as a way to further spur myself to aciton, to change things, to become gentler and kinder and more caring especially for those who remain in harm's way in this country today. Those people are legion - their categories too numerous to list and their peril too profound to articulate.

But mostly I just cry over Katrina.

The Bush Moral Boundary

2006-07-21T11:33:00.000-05:00

(Cross-posted at My Left Wing, Booman Tribune, and my blog)

It has taken me a few days to collect my thoughts on the Bush veto of federal funding for stem cell research.

I was on my way to a meeting and listening to CNN via Sirius when he made his remarks to explain his reasoning for this, his first veto nearly six years into his Presidency. Initially, I was absolutely infuriated as I listened. Expletives leapt to my lips and streamed out.

I have since calmed down and taken a more analytical approach to what I like to call the Bush Moral Boundary. Perhaps a further exploration and definition of these boundaries will help me better understand and see the logic behind the veto.

Make the jump.Early on in the speech he said:

One of the bills Congress has passed builds on the progress we have made over the last five years. So I signed it into law. (Applause.) Congress has also passed a second bill that attempts to overturn the balanced policy I set. This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others. It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect, so I vetoed it.

It has literally taken me three days to suss through the thoughts that flooded my head when I heard him utter the words I bolded above.

So let's talk about the Administration and Presidency of George W. Bush from the perspective of the Bush Moral Boundary. Let's really explore where those boundaries exist.

Health Care

Let's start with health care. Apparently the rising cost of health care and the increasing number of those who are uninsured are well within the Bush Moral Boundary. From a 2004 report by the Democratic Policy Committee:

On President Bush's watch, health coverage has become more expensive and millions have lost their health insurance. Health insurance premiums have increased by double-digit rates in each of the past three years. The escalating cost of health insurance and the substantial loss of jobs under the Bush Administration have increased the number of uninsured Americans by 3.8 million since 2000. The total number of uninsured Americans - who are overwhelmingly members of working families - now exceeds 43 million.

So when you read the diaries posted here at Daily Kos about the choices people are making - rent v. health care; food v. health care - Just console yourself with the knowledge that these situations are obviously within the Bush Moral Boundary. Therefore it can't be a bad thing.

Poverty

Accoring to an August 2005 article in The New York Times:

Even as the economy grew, incomes stagnated last year and the poverty rate rose, the Census Bureau reported Tuesday. It was the first time on record that household incomes failed to increase for five straight years.

Indeed - according to the Senate Democratic Joint Economic Committee, 4.3 million additional Americans have slid into poverty since George W. Bush took office. In 2000, 31.6 million Americans were listed as below the poverty level. in 2003, the figure was 35.9 million. I can't even guess at what the number is today, in 2006.

This is a topic that interests some of us here at Daily Kos as well. PsiFighter37 recently wrote the excellent diary Poverty is a Moral Issue. But it appears that his efforts and those of others in America are wasted - there aren't any meaningful Bush Administration policies or concerted efforts to address the increasing rate of Americans in poverty. We've wasted our efforts, because poverty is clearly within the Bush Moral Boundary.

War

War is a subject that usually sparks a great deal of conversation about morality. According to AntiWar.com, as of July 18 2006, 2,556 American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq. An additional 319 have lost their lives in Afghanistan. The total, then, is just shy of the number of people who lost thier lives on September 11th.

The number of Iraqi deaths is difficult to estimate. According to Iraq Body Count, anywhere between 39,250 and 43,709 civilians have been killed due to the U.S. military activities in Iraq.

Death tolls, both military and civilian, are not the only moral measure of war, however. There is a larger question as to whether or not war itself is moral. Further complicating the discussion is the previously unheard-of concept of "pre-emptive war". That phrase has always put me in mind of the Tom Cruise movie, Minority Report. If you haven't seen it, Tom Cruise plays a police officer in the division of "pre-crime". Essentially, the Pre-Crime unit uses some version of psychics to ferret out crimes before they happen and make arrests before anyone is victimized. Of course, the psychics' predictions can be manipulated by the powers-that-be to aid their own personal agendas. Pre-emptive war is pretty much the same, and, it seems to me, likewise has the ability to be manipulated and directed.

But the moral position of war and death within the Bush Moral Boundaries is clear: War is fine. Military deaths are fine. Civilian deaths are fine. So I guess I have one less thing to worry about.

Compassion

Let's move along in our moral boundary inventory to something I will call "basic human compassion". The best example is, of course, Bush's personal response to the events that unfolded after Hurricane Katrina. A timeline best illustrates Bush's compassionate approach:

Late evening/early morning, August 28th/29th: Hurricane Katrina comes ashore in the gulf region.
Evening, August 29: News beginning to report that life-threatening flooding and devastation has hit the New Orleans area. Bush visits Arizona (where he shares birthday cake with John McCain) and California to promote Medicare benefit. No Bush statement on Katrina.
August 30: Rescue efforts continue. First pictures of the devastation and human catastrophe emerge from the region. Pictures of people trapped on roofs, at the Superdome, and the convention center begin to emerge. Bush speaks at Naval base early in the day, travels to play guitar with country star Mark Willis. No Bush statement on Katrina.
August 31: Conditions deteriorate at the Superdome and the Convention Center. People are seen on network news begging for help - for food, water, evacuation. The entire gulf region is declared a public health emergency. Bush "surveys the damage" from Air Force One at about 35,000 feet. Returned to Washington, Bush gives his first major address on Katrina, about which The New York Times said was "casual to the point of careless".
September 1: Bush, now engaged with the Katrina disaster, makes statement that no one expected the levees to break. People at the Superdome and Convention Center continue to suffer. Countless people remain trapped in their flooded homes.
September 2: Bush finally watches DVD of news clippings assembled by his staff, which he missed while he was on vacation and wrapping himself in the flag. He travels to the gulf region where he utters the now-famous "Brownie, you're doin' a heckuva job" line. The National Guard finally arrives to provide aid for those stranded and begin evacuations. Bush declares he is "satisfied" with the response to the crisis.

Well there you have it. And just for the sake of clarity, I've added a picture of what the 9th ward of New Orleans looked like as recently as a week ago. People's homes have yet to be rebuilt, people remain displaced... Just yesterday, in the recommended diary Red Cow Truck, Miss Blue told us about the outrage of her Republican friend after he had recently driven through the gulf and New Orleans and encountered a man who had lived in the devastated lower-9th Ward.

But these people must be wrong. Compassion, or dispassion, are clearly well within the Bush Moral Boundary.

So in summary, here's where we stand:

WITHIN the Bush Moral Boundary
Lack of access to affordable health care
Poverty
War
Dispassion
OUTSIDE the Bush Moral Boundary
Potentially life-saving stem cell research

I guess I should be feeling much better now that a clear definition of the Bush Moral Boundary has been laid out and, like an electric dog fence around the yard, is protecting against moral escape. All of these things I worry about - my fellow Americans and their plight - the plight of those who are circumstantially killed or maimed by our imperialistic policies - clearly I've wasted my time and angst. Because the stem cells are, as I type this, safely frozen and will remain so, at least where Federal research grants are concerned. They are still within the cocoon of the Bush Moral Boundary. It makes me feel much better about all the dead people and all the people suffering from illness or ailment without access to assistance and all the people who are struggling (and failing) to make ends meet.

I suppose there's nothing I really have to do. I'm free to just go watch Oprah.

Compassion.

2006-07-07T11:42:00.000-05:00

(Cross-posted at My Left Wing, ePluribus Media and Daily Kos)

As I watched Ned Lamont debate Joe Liebermann last night, I was struck by many things. One of the things I liked best about Lamont, though, was his efforts to continually come back to and articulate a sense of Democratic values. I think that's a crucial point that Democrats have to make during this mid-term cycle, and then they have to stand by their rhetoric and fight for the values they espouse.

I was pretty interested, then, to see Delaware Dem's diary Dirty Liberal Words. Many of you read it and added you $.02 to Delaware Dem's cadre of words that so often seem to be used against us, but which really, at the end of the day, describe the values we hold and should be promoting every chance we get, both individually and politically.

I had only recently returned home after running a few errands following the debate. An interesting thing happened to me when I was out that highlighted the entire question of our values and what we think is important from both a personal perspective and a political one.

Please follow me over the fold.(Cross-posted at My Left Wing, ePluribus Media and my blog)

Please follow me over the fold.

The Quote That Changed My Life

2006-07-05T16:27:00.000-05:00

(Cross-posted at Daily Kos and my blog)

I'm not a person with a lot of down time. Truth be told, that fact is a condition of my disposition rather than one of necessity. I'm constantly busy - I have intense work things, home things, personal things, band things, volunteer things and political things that command my attention. I'm not a person who feels at ease sitting still.

With that in mind, I celebrated the 4th by doing absolutely nothing. I had spent a busy weekend blogging and cleaning and paying bills and found myself magically (if only momentarily) caught up. It was oppressively hot here on the 4th and violent thunderstorms were threatening all day. I therefore opted for the Blockbuster route. I rented several movies (none of them very good) and sat down to watch them in air conditioned comfort.

I'm one of the few people I know who actually watches the "coming attractions" placed at the beginning of DVDs. I am, today, thankful that I do watch them. Because it was at the very beginning of the very first preview I watched that I saw the quote that changed my life. Make the jump.

I consider myself well-read, though not even remotely on par with folks in academia or others who would widely be considered experts in this field or that. I know most of the famous quotes and persons to which they are attributed.

But I had never heard of Will Durant. I don't know if I should slap myself for not knowing who he was or pinch myself at the luck that I saw his quote, but I digress. The quote was this:

A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself within. The essential causes of Rome's decline lay in her people, her morals, her class struggle, her failing trade, her bureaucratic despotism, her stifling taxes, her consuming wars.

So let's back up a bit. William James Durant was an American philosopher, historian and writer. Wikipedia (linked) also notes that:

He [Durant] fought for equal wages, women's suffrage and fairer working conditions for the American labor force. Durant not only wrote on many topics but also put his ideas into effect. Durant, it has been said widely, attempted to bring philosophy to the common man. He authored The Story of Philosophy, The Mansions of Philosophy, and, with the help of his wife, Ariel, wrote The Story of Civilization. He also wrote magazine articles.

Learning all of this after reading that single quote made me think of another often-fogotten American hero, Thomas Paine. But let me return to Durant's quote and dissect it a bit in an order that makes sense to me.

The essential causes of Rome's decline lay in her people, her morals, her class struggle, her failing trade, her bureaucratic despotism, her stifling taxes, her consuming wars.

Substitute "America" for "Rome" and tell me we don't have a case study of bearing witness to the decline of America today.

Her People: About ten seconds ago I checked CNN's most popular stories. At the top of the list is this headline: Swank: Husband's addiction hurt marriage. It's about the breakup of the marriage of actress Hilary Swank and Chad Lowe. This is the TOP STORY the day after North Korea test-fired seven missiles.
Her Morals: How can I pick just one example? Our government has no compunction about torturing other human beings while trumpeting the superiority of a system of government that ensures "freedom". Our fellow citizens practice moral mind-games in an attempt to justify illegal activities (wiretapping, for example) in the name of safety. In a predominantly Christian nation, we are remarkably ignorant of the teachings of Jesus (the "Christ" in Christianity). We have no moral problem with stomping on minority groups for personal gain, with leaving poor people to become poorer, with leaving people to die in pain and without dignity for want of decent healthcare.
Her Failing Trade: We continually tout the efficacy and efficiency of outsourcing high-skilled jobs to foreign nations where workers can be exploited and paid less. Our trade imbalance with China is laughable.
Her Class Struggle: The gap between those who have and those who don't is widening at an alarming pace. More people have slipped into poverty in the past six years. Real wages have failed to keep pace with inflation, causing low-income workers to collapse under the weight of their obligations. Ken Lay dies of a massive heart attack while vacationing at his Aspen summer home while his former employees try to figure out how, when and if they can ever retire.
Her Bureaucratic Despotism: The war in Iraq. The illegal spying on American citizens. The erosion of our fundamental rights.
Her Stifling Taxes: What stifles about our tax system is the disparity in the way it is administered. In a time of great national need begotten by a war of choice and a predicted natural disaster, we continue to provide tax breaks to Corporations, businesses, and wealthy individuals.
Her Consuming Wars: Iraq. Afghanistan. The potential of Iran. A gathering threat from North Korea.

Many of the links above are to diaries posted right here on Daily Kos. These are the subjects we discuss. These are the things that frighten us, that outrage us, and oftentimes that motivate us. Any one of them, taken alone, is devastating. Taken together, and placed in the context of Will Durant's quote, it seems clear that we are on the brink of one thing:

A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself within.

Can anyone tell me that they don't think we are standing on the precipice of our own demise, laughing in a cavalier fashion while simultaneously trying to keep our footing as the foundation beneath us weakens and cracks?

Terrorism won't tear our country asunder. Outside attacks won't do that, either. Niether of these things will need to happen if we keep tearing ourselves apart from the inside out.

We have long ago passed the point where a change would be "good". We are fully into the time where it is absolutely required - our suvival and the survival of the principles and values we hold so dear depend on it. The problem is, though, that only a motivated minority seem to fully grasp the peril in which we exist. It is incumbent upon us to work hard - harder than we ever thought we could - to strengthen the foundation of our great country and preserve it for the generations to come who have entrusted its care to us.

Give A Gift To Yourself on Indepdence Day

2006-07-04T10:31:00.000-05:00

(Cross-posted at Daily Kos, My Left Wing, and ePluribus Media)

I lead a busy life. I work a more-than-full-time professional job. I run a household, all of its upkeep, and all of its finances. I volunteer for the Red Cross. I'm politically active. I sing in and run the finaces of an entire funk band. You get the picture. Free time, for me, is at a premium.

This past weekend I did two things that I think were important. I wrote this diary on Saturday. The Daily Kos community extended its grace and compassion to what I had to say, and for that I thank each and every one of you. On Sunday, with a rare hour's worth of down time, I watched Fahrenheit 9/11. Like most (if not all) here, I had seen it before. But it was time to watch it again.

Make the jump.

An important note before I begin: I loved Fahrenheit 9/11. I think it's one of the most important movies ever made. Some of what I have to say about it, though, is critical - don't let any criticism cause you to believe that I don't think it's an excellent and powerful documentary.

I'll begin this diary by saying that I believe I see Fahrenheit 9/11 for what it is: one man's positioning of his point of view. I recognize that, strictly speaking, the items Michael Moore puts forward in the construction of his documentary are factual. I recognize also, however, that he is singularly brilliant in assembling and constructing it in a way that is shocking. In other words, he uses music and the art of editing to ensure that his opinions, which are clearly evident, are accentuated.

An example: the use of the Go-go's song Vacation to illustrate all the things that Bush did in the month leading up to the 9/11 attacks was sheer brilliance. It added a level of ridiculousness to the already ridiculous idea that Bush would spend so much time away from Washington.

Another example that I had a bit of a problem with was his use of some of the footage with the US soldiers in Iraq. Let me explain. As Moore is setting up the stupidity of invading Iraq in answer to the attacks of 9/11, he shows interviews of soldiers in Iraq and paints them in a rather cavalier way. In other words, he begins by taking statements which imply a "bloodlust" on the part of the US soldiers in Iraq and he selects The Roof Is On Fire to play as a backdrop while showing the soldiers as somewhat gleefully rolling off in their tanks. I know, as do most of you, that the vast majority of the soldiers in Iraq are there simply trying to survive. Many have given poignant interviews about the terrible choices and decisions they have to make and the abject stress they are placed under 24/7. So strictly speaking, the "bloodlust" portion of the documentary, I thought, painted the soldiers in a very narrow light and one that was not necessarily complete or accurate.

Before those who felt that that segment of the film was a brilliant work of truth-telling, understand that I'm only laying out a few of my impressions. Your mileage may vary, and my point is not to promote a debate of the rightness or wrongness of this segment or that segment of the film itself. Rather, I'd like to provide some context for you so that you understand - I think Fahrenheit 9/11 is one of the most important films to come out in my lifetime and I believe this in spite of the some of the warts that I find on the film itself.

As I re-watched this film, having not seen it for what I think has been at least two years, I was pulled back to what, for me, was the most important part of the movie. About 20 minutes into the film, the screen fades to black. You hear people talking and there is an urgency to what they're saying - but you can't make out the words. The tone is distressed - you hear an impact and shouting and more voices, all with a black screen. As the picture comes back up, there's a woman's face - she's African American, but that's beside the point - her eyes are turned skyward and she's crying.

More faces come to the screen. A man's face turned skyward. A woman with her hand to her mouth with an expression of disbelief. Two men talking while one makes hand gestures that explain what was going on in New York City. More shock - more crying - from police officers and fire fighters and stock traders and office workers and tourists - black, white, asian. As I watch, I am struck especially by three things: a pretty blonde woman sits in her business suit on the sidewalk and puts her elbows on her knees, lowers her face to her hands, and weeps. An elderly gentleman in a red cap looks momentarily stunned, and then his face contorts and melts in a way that only happens when someone is about to give in to their sorrow and allow the tears to flow. And the third thing is the scene near the WTC towers (or where they used to be) that shows a street littered with emergency vehicles, running people, and debris - and all around these people and items is ash. Falling ash. It drifts like snow - it's so gentle. If you didn't know what you were looking at you might even think, for a moment, that its slow descent from the heavens to the earth was beautiful.

This ash makes me cry. Because in it are the souls and spirits of those whose lives have ended. It is, in many cases, the only earthly vestiage of what used to be a person - someone's child, someone's sibling, maybe someone's spouse or parent - gone in an instant. Reduced to gentle and nearly beautiful ash, floating to the earth on a pristine day filled with sunshine.

I was very close to the Key Bridge, which connects Arlington, VA to the Georgetown section of Washington, DC when I answered a phone call from a colleague and friend. I was in my car on my way downtown to a meeting at the Treasury Department's headquarters. She told me to turn around and head out of DC immediately. She quickly explained that both of the Trade Center towers had been hit by airplaines. She said also that reports had just come in that the Pentagon had been hit by an airplane. I couldn't connect the information - it was all coming too fast. She told me that DC was being evacuated. I took the exit off of George Washington Parkway for the Key Bridge. As I made the slow merge onto the brige itself, I looked to my right. Smoke and flames were cascading upward from the Pentagon. It was all very real and it was all happening.

Needless to say, getting away from Washington that day was problematic. Our phones were all jammed - I knew without a doubt that both my husband and parents would be trying to call me to see if I was ok. I turned on the news and I listened and I repeatedly dialed home to let my husband know I was ok. I got through, eventually, to both he and my parents. I also called my stepson's school, which was only a mile from the CIA building (rumors were running at that time that another plane was headed towards Washington) and determined that he was being allowed to leave with friends and was heading home.

Having communicated my safety and having determined that friends and family were also safe, I was left on Canal Road in gridlocked traffic and news radio. I heard the towers fall and was thankful that I didn't see it as it happened.

This was a long ride. Only halfway to where I needed to be to exit Canal Road towards home and having to use the bathroom in the worst way, I pulled into the parking area for the scenic Fletcher's boathouse along the C&O Canal to use the restrooms provided there. People were biking and walking and talking and smiling and doing what they would normally do on such a beautiful early fall day. I realized that they were all oblivious to what had happened as they walked the paths and enjoyed the beautiful day. I even watched as one got a phone call on her cell phone and I watched as her face changed as she was given the news. She told her walking companion, whose disbelief was evident. Others overheard. Pretty soon a small contingent of walkers and bikers and hikers were gathered around on the bridge over the canal, all asking for information. I joined the conversation and filled in what I knew.

We all have a story about that day. It stands out in most of our minds in stark relief, regardless of where we were or where we live. That was the day everything changed and we knew it was changed forever.

The good part about that day, though, and some of the days that followed, was the feeling of solidarity and unity that flowed from every conceivable place. We were united through tragedy - all of us. You could feel it. It was a sense of connectedness and connection with total strangers that was totally unique.

A true leader is not measured by the way s/he responds to the 80% of things that are commonplace - S/he is measured by how s/he reacts and responds to that which is totally unexpected. Our President had an opportunity to truly lead - not just in the days that followed 9/11, but in the months and years that followed it. He has failed in that endeavor completely. The Republican-led Congress has failed right alongside him.

It took re-watching Fahrenheit 9/11 for me to again fully connect to how badly they have failed all of us. It's been almost 5 years since that bright September day. I would like to think that I am above becoming anaesthetized, above forgetting the egregious conduct of our leadership, above falling into the trap of the distractions they have set for us. And I do believe that I remember more of what's important than the average American because I read and write and blog here, at Daily Kos. It helps me maintain my outrage and stay in tune with all the missteps and mistakes.

But I'd be lying if I told you that some of the distractions haven't worked. They have. It took watching Michael Moore's documentary for me to really reconnect - to what happened to us, to how that made me feel, to what we should have done, to what we did do, and the myriad of reasons why certain choices were made.

And I'm mad. The whole thing pissed me off all over again. It has caused me to root my feet even more firmly in the ground and get these fuckers (pardon my language) out of power. It has made me want to think even more creatively about how to cripple them further in the achievement of their agenda. It has reminded me not to be so naive - if my gut reaction to the whole issue of Iran is "we can't seriously be thinking about invading Iran", watching the movie has reminded me that we ARE seriously thinking about and, more importantly, that if we let our guard down, it is inevitable.

I am outraged anew, and that's a good thing because I now have the fuel I need to work harder and try harder to make changes that are absolutely critical.

So give yourself a gift this Independence Day. If you don't own it, go rent Fahrenheit 9/11. Watch it. Let it be the fuel you need to be an instrument of change.

Please Welcome the Plumbutt Chronicles

2006-06-29T08:59:00.000-05:00

Take a moment and look a little to your left. See that? That's my new tenant, The Plumbutt Chronicles. Here's a little bit of information about the blogowner, just to whet your whistle:

[He] was born in Brooklyn, New York
[He] can flip 60 quarters off [his] elbow and catch them all in one hand.
[He] once dated an actress.
The last movie [his] father made was "In and Out" staring amoung others, Keven Kline and Matt Dillion.
[He] had an older brother named Gregory who died shortly after his birth.
[He's] studied at the American Academy of Performing Arts and privately at the reknowned Sonia Moore Studio of the Theater.
[He] once trained for the Summer Olympics.
[He} used to box at Lou Costello's Boxing Gym in Paterson, NJ.
[He] once drank 22 shots of Jack Daniels in an hour and a half (My note: That's my kinda guy)
[He's] owned over 30 differant cars.

I really like his blog. It's funny, well written, visually compelling, and easy to navigate. Give him some love, folks.

What If We DO Get Our Act Together? - VERIFY THE VOTE.

2006-06-27T17:24:00.000-05:00

So let's transport ourselves to the land of A Perfect World and suppose for a minute that all the complaints we hear about the Democratic party are suddenly resolved:

Democrats consistently develop and articulate a policy-oriented, values-based message that reflects the larger attitudes of the progressive community;
Certain Democrats stop pandering to the Republican moderates and, instead, harden their stance on the issues that matter;
The Democratic "machine" becomes efficient, with well-funded research institutes and think-tanks, proper treatment and cultivation of young rising Democratic "stars" and effective message dissemination;
Democratic media outlets pull on par with that of conservative outlets in terms of volume and saturation; and
Insert your pet Democratic issue(s) here.

Problem solved, right? Wrong. One critical issue is not being properly addressed.

Follow me over the fold.

Over the past 4 weeks (according to Daily Kos' fine search utility), 75 diaries result from a search of the words "Electronic Voting". Naturally not all of these diaries are strictly about verified voting or the potential fraud associated with voting machines. Four of the diaries more or less specifically related to electronic voting and/or vote fraud garnered 100 or more recommendations. Nowhere on the Most Popular Tags page to the tags "verified voting", "election fraud", "voter integrity", "voter fraud" etc. appear. The All Tags page fares slightly better, with links to election integrity, verified voting, and voter fraud, to name a few. Go ahead - click the links. See the diaries that have been written and note especially how much attention those diaries received.

I'm not saying that the Daily Kos community doesn't pay attention to the issue of verified voting and vote fraud - rather, I would say it doesn't pay enough attention to it. It is the one issue that, if ignored, could really bite us in the ass. It is the single most important topic we can make a coordinated effort to address as the midterms approach and 2008 looms large. It's not worth running a perfect campaign if you still can't win, right?

With little fanfare, USA Today published an article today about an analysis of e-voting machines. A few snippets:

Most of the electronic voting machines widely adopted since the disputed 2000 presidential election "pose a real danger to the integrity of national, state and local elections," a report out Tuesday concludes.
--snip--
Among the findings:
Using corrupt software to switch votes from one candidate to another is the easiest way to attack all three [of the most commonly purchased] systems. A would-be hacker would have to overcome many hurdles to do this, the report says, but none "is insurmountable."
The most vulnerable voting machines use wireless components open to attack by "virtually any member of the public with some knowledge and a personal digital assistant." Only New York, Minnesota and California ban wireless components.
Even electronic systems that use voter-verified paper records are subject to attack unless they are regularly audited.
Most states have not implemented election procedures or countermeasures to detect software attacks.

My emphasis added. The study was done by the non-partisan Brennan Center for Justice and added that the three most popular e-voting systems will represent a staggering 80% of all voting machines to be used in the November election. Jesus.

The good news is that legislation has been proposed to address some of these security concerns. The bad news is that it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Rush Holt (D-NJ) has proposed H.R. 550, known as the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act. From Rush Holt's re-election web page:

The Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act (H.R. 550) will:
Mandate a voter-verified paper ballot for every vote cast in every federal election, nationwide; because the voter verified paper record is the only one verified by the voters themselves, rather than by the machines, it will serve as the vote of record in any case of inconsistency with electronic records;
Protect the accessibility requirements of the Help America Vote Act for voters with disabilities;
Require random, unannounced, hand-count audits of actual election results in every state, and in each county, for every Federal election;
Prohibit the use of undisclosed software and wireless and concealed communications devices and internet connections in voting machines;
Provide Federal funding to pay for implementation of voter-verified paper balloting; and
Require full implementation by the 2006 elections

Visit Rush Holt's H.R. 550 page and sign the petition.

More stuff you can do:

Write your Congresscritters and urge support for H.R. 550.
Google your state's election commission on the web and write your officials to indicate that you are concerned about verified voting and voter fraud.
If you have it, donate some money to organizations like The Verified Voting Foundation. They have an action page with more great ideas and resources for you. There are many of these watchdog organizations out there, too many for me to list - please add them to the comments and I'll append the diary.
Contact your local Democratic Party office and volunteer to become an election official - feet on the ground matter!
Write LTEs; reference available information about election fraud.
Write the major media outlets and call political radio talk shows and talk about the issue.

Thanks to Kossacks like Steven D and others, most of us already know about the voting machine debacle in the Busby/Bilbray (CA-50) election. But it is SO much worse than that.

You must get involved if you haven't done so already. Read the USA Today article I linked above. Find/publicize/visit watchdog groups for election integrity. Tell your friends about it - tell other Kossacks about it. Stay on it, pump it and pimp it until it can't be ignored.

If these machines stay, we lose. It's as simple as that.

Update [2006-6-27 18:20:22 by RenaRF]: About four minutes after I clicked "submit", Lou Dobbs did a feature on the whole issue of the study and its findings. He was appropriately outraged. No matter if you love him or hate him, you can Send a message to the show endorsing his coverage of the issue. You can also vote in the Quickvote poll which asks this question:

Do you believe that e-voting machines should be disallowed until their integrity can be assured?

Want to Win in 2006? Give This a Read.

2006-06-25T11:43:00.000-05:00

(Cross-posted at Daily Kos, My Left Wing and ePluribus Media)

Some of you may have read llbear's diary last night directing you to live blogging by John Laesch. John is a candidate for the US House of Representatives, running against the one and only Denny Hastert, current Speaker of the House. I stopped by there last night and engaged in a brief but informative discussion. You see, I'm a Virginia resident. In 2000, I was invited to a fairly exclusive (and expensive) fundraiser for then-Democratic candidate for the VA Governorship, Mark Warner.

This all ties together... Make the jump with me and find out how.Before I Begin

John Laesh is currently a top ten finalist in Mark Warner's Map changers effort. If you're unfamiliar with it, follow the link. There are three rounds of voting and we are currently in round 2. Anyone can stop by and register to vote. You select five candidates each from the East and from the West. The second round of voting closes on June 29 (this Thursday), and each of the ten ultimate winners will receive $5,000 from Mark Warner's Forward Together PAC. The ultimate Grand Prize winner (determined through the third and final round of voting) will receive a fundraiser with Mark Warner. For many of these candidates, this is a huge deal. The money infused into their campaigns can mean the difference between winning and losing and, ultimately, whether or not Democrats change the map with this election cycle. Head on over there and cast your vote - it doesn't cost a thing but your time.

Background

With those tactics and details out of the way, I would like to turn to the real reason for my diary.

I have, up until about a month ago, been a regular diarist and contributor to Daily Kos throughout my tenure here, which is approaching two years. Work has pulled me away from actual writing and, in some cases, from meaningful commenting. I have, however, been reading. The pressures of my daily life have turned me into somewhat of a lurker. But I do read and outside of the requisite amount of intra-Daily Kos drama, I've seen a recurrent theme throughout the diaries, both in those that get recommended and those that do not.

There are the cadre of mid-term optimists, those who back their candidates and maintain an always positive outlook on what their candidates say and do. That's absolutely necessary, of course. Enthusiasm and energy is a lifeblood of any campaign, and especially of those campaigns where the Democratic candidate is a challenger and particularly a "stretch" candidate. Subtext to all of that optimism and enthusiasm is, however, a feeling of deep and growing angst. Many of us, while staunch Democratic supporters with our money and our time and our efforts, are growing increasingly concerned with the Republican-lite appearance in some campaigns and candidacies. We all seem to acknowledge and agree that "we're not them (Republicans)" is not a campaign strategy nor is it an articulation of meaningful policy. We see repeated in our imaginations a failure to capitalize on the opportunity before us in this election cycle. We feel instinctively that the Karl Rove-led noise machine will garner some traction and momentum and potentially distract from the real issues, and we seem to further feel that Democrats (generally) are playing into the hands of the Rovian strategy, alternately attempting to co-opt incendiary "moral" issues while simultaneously trying to capitalize on Republican missteps. I feel this angst - a general impression that we are standing on a precipice, and that if we don't get our act together, we will lose that which is arguably within our reach.

The Anatomy of a Democratic Success

Mark Warner gets mixed reviews here on Daily Kos. Responses to him in the straw polls have been tepid (at best) to nonexistent, hovering right around the 3-4% mark. I found this comment in one of Kos' straw polls which, in part, said the following:

Warner is way too conservative for my blood. He doesn't even believe in civil unions for gay couples! Neither he or Richardson have the charisma to get elected.

I also found this comment in a different straw poll thread which said:

And as much as Hillary doesn't excite me for President, the prospect of Biden having to face a Ruth Ann Minner or comparable D in a Delaware Senate primary does. Don't know enough about Warner or Richardson, but I'd prefer the latter, possibly as running mate for Clark.

My emphasis added. There seem to be three prevailing opinions about Mark Warner.

1. Who?

2. He's a DINO.

3. He's the winner.

So let me tell you a bit about Virginia and about Mark Warner not to sway you to a Warner candidacy in 2008, but to show you a roadmap for success for Democratic candidates right here in 2006.

Mark Warner aligned his campaign message and strategy with the items that were concerning Virginians. Chief among these were improving K-12 and higher education in Virginia, Eliminating a staggering $6B Virginia budget defecit, and attracting businesses to the more rural (and poor) sections of Virginia. Let's focus on these three for the time being - they were the lynchpins of his campaign.

A Balanced Budget and Fiscal Responsibility

Mark Warner came to the Virginia Governor's campaign from a successful career in business. When he first took office, he was not only faced with a $6B budget defecit but also a Republican-controlled state legislature. Wisely, Warner decided that a contentious approach would be unsuccessful. He worked with the legislature to identify areas of fiscal redundancy and cut redundancies, not programs. He insisted that the legislature as a body become a better financial planner and instituted the development of a 6-year financial plan to validate the long-standing 2 year budget process. Unwilling to compromise on issues like education and healthcare, Warner worked with the legislature to revise the tax code so that it was more equitable and sustaining. He carried Virginia from fiscal shambles to the best-managed state in the country.

Backing up a step - his campaign focused on this tone of consensus. Knowing that Virginians cared deeply about the fiscal state of the Commonwealth and the myriad meanings that would have for jobs and schools and transportation, he struck a tone of bi-partisan reform and quietly convinced Virginia voters that he could accomplish it.

Education

Access to high quality public education at both the K-12 and higher education level in Virginia was a hallmark of the Warner campaign, and one closely aligned with the concerns of Virginians. From Warner's website, here are a few of the accomplishments in education he achieved during his four-year term:

K-12 Education

Higher wages and daily planning time for teachers;
Art, music, and physical education teachers in elementary schools;
Technology positions in all schools;
Additional funding for English as a Second Language [and] Head Start; and
Extra tutoring for students that need it at every grade level.

Higher Education

Faculty salary increases and restored funding for extension staff positions;
Increased financial aid for students at public colleges and universities;
Increased tuition assistance grants for students at private colleges and universities;
More course offerings to help students graduate on time; and
Financing to purchase instructional and research equipment.

This may all seem mundane - but when he was running for office, these were critical concerns for average Virginians regardless of their party affiliation, and Mark Warner spoke to those concerns.

Job Creation

Virginia is a diverse state both culturally and economically. The Northern Virginia area is largely affluent, while portions of rural Virginia were terribly impoverished. His Virginia Works program targeted economically distressed communities and applied appropriate resources for programs to retrain and redirect the economic foundation of distressed areas.

In what I believe was his largest accomplishment, however, Mark Warner made incredibly innovative investments in technology infrastructure and targeted the military and gaming industries’ computer modeling and simulation needs to attract new businesses to Virginia's rural areas. With the infrastructure in place, the R&D requirements of these two industries could be met in areas that, previously, were isolated and behind-the-times.

When I was at my small Warner fundraising event, he blew me away with his plans to accomplish this infrastructure investment (remember - we were facing a huge budget defecit at the time). He basically laid out a plan to the small group of 15 people standing in the room where he would take transportation dollars (which were abundant through public referendum) to initiate road and highway improvements in economically distressed areas. While the VA Department of Transportation had the roads torn up for improvements, he would lay the guts of high speed telecommunications infrastructure (the theory being that with the roads already ripped up, the economies of scale in installing this infrastructure was enormous). He then proposed to lease capacity back to the telecommunications providers (effect: dollar in the state coffers) while simultaneously embarking on an outreach program to industries seeking qualified people and capacity (e.g., the military and gaming industries).

These are only three things I have highlighted among the many items Mark Warner undertook on behalf of the State of Virginia and its residents. All three were wildly successful. Virginia enjoys a balanced budget. Virginia has seen increases in educational achievement at the K-12 and higher education levels. Virginia has very low unemployment and has seen revitalization of areas previously depressed by changing times. Mark Warner knew these policies would work and he campaigned on them and did so very clearly and consistently.

So What?

There are a lot of complaints I generally see about Mark Warner in the context of the 2008 Presidential election. Leave that aside for now - the point of this diary is not to pimp Mark Warner as a candidate for 2008. Rather, the point is to show that Mark Warner's campaign for Virginia's Governorship can provide a valuable lesson to Democratic candidates in 2006. Let me start by pointing out what I didn't talk about.

1. Abortion

2. Gay Marriage

3. Flag burning

4. Gun Control

5. Insert your favorite issue here.

These issues essentially became non-issues in the 2000-2001 campaign for Virginia governor. And believe me - while the Northern Virginia area is progressive and trends very blue, the other areas of the state are very aggressive in both their opinions and their voting habits, trending decidedly red and aligning themselves, ideologically, with conservative attitudes. In short, the Governor's race would not be won by luring only Northern Virginia voters. Warner (and Kaine after him) had to appeal to rural, evangelical and conservative voters to claim the prize. Let's focus first on how he did not do it.

He did not focus on the abortion issue (he is pro-Choice).
he did not focus on the minimum wage (he supports an increase).
He did not take a hard-line liberal stance on gun control (Virginia is a liberal gun state - a gun control platform would doom any Democratic candidate to second place).
He did not take a hard-line stance on gay marriage (he does not support it, but he also vetoed a bill banning it, civil unions, and other contractual arrangements).

These were rat-trap issues in Virginia. Remember what I said above about the cultural and economic diversity across the state of Virginia - many rural Virginians were likely to vote for Warner's opponent had he cracked down on guns or supported gay marriage. He would have stepped into the Republican cultural trap and would have neutralized his own strengths, which exist in the economic arena. So he focused on his strengths and neutralized his weaknesses.

Many here think that, because he supported (or rather, didn't loudly and frequently oppose it) gun policy and/or did not embrace the rights of gays to marry, Warner is a DLC "shill" or is somehow a "DINO". I would caution you to think carefully before applying such labels and recognize that Warner structured his campaign on a winning message and generally didn't engage on the so-called morals/values issues. He kept his campaign structured and focused on the desires and concerns of Virginians, the only "base" he cared about. And it won him the Governor's office and delivered for him the highest approval ratings for a Governor is recent history.

I made this comment directly to John Laesch in his diary (linked in the introduction) yesterday:

Thanks John. (5+ / 0-)
Best to you.
A further thought... In Virginia, Mark Warner ran without a political pedigree. Don't get me wrong - he wasn't an anti-politican - rather, he played to the strengths he already brought to the table and those strengths arose from having a successful business career.
He also came across inherently as a person who was sincere in what he said. It never seemed to be "spun" and he never came off as pandering. I think that was critical. Virginia is more of a swing state than the Democratic establishment recognizes - the conundrum is, however, that the Democratic establishment seems to want to promote only the smooth-talking capitulators (generally speaking).
Stay true to yourself and what you believe in, and speak it loudly with conviction. Don't compromise - be real and don't let the potential of winning or losing cause you to lose that authenticity. THAT is what our party needs - a return to government for the sake of constituents. Communicate that belief and desire and YOU will be the catalyst that starts to turn the tide.

I can't underscore how important I think Warner's genuineness and sincerity was in this campaign. Many here at Daily Kos lament his charisma - but I would argue that Warner does not lack charisma. It is merely overshadowed by his unsquelchable competence and legitimacy. He exudes it and people felt comfortable with him and believed him as a result.

In Conclusion

Man this was a long diary. :-)

What I would like readers to take away from this is the following:

Politics are local. A Democrat is not a DINO or a DLC shill if they are following not only their own personal convictions but the will of the people they seek to represent (generally).
NOTHING substitutes for for a campaign that is focused on the issues of the voters and one which clearly articulates policy to address those issues. Nothing. Completely absent from Warner's campaign was any hint of "Vote for me because I'm not a Republican".
Competence counts. Each candidate has strengths and those strengths have got to be carefully defined and accentuated.

I know I could think of so many more, but I think I'm winding down here... In short, I share the Daily Kos-wide concerns that we are running on a "we're not them" platform. But the 2006 elections are inherently local and Democratic candidates need support and latitude to address issues specific to their district and state. If you live in a state that is incredibly conservative, you're going to have to potentially embrace a candidate who you would consider more conservative than you. Give them a break - they can't do anything if they don't win. And when they do win, we can only hope that they were as true to Democratic issues (generally) as Mark Warner turned out to be.

On The Left Tip

Barack & Awe in Virginia

"Yes We Can"

Save Them. Now.

Just sharing.

Applause, Please.

US Military Issues Warning: Plan to Get to Iraq Without Turkey

Evolution Shmevolution - Meet "Answers In Genesis"

Don't Say VAGINA

If You're Having Sex, You Deserve To Die.

Tony Snow: F---ing A---ole!!

I Sure Regret Marching.

Photo Journal of the Peace March

Blogger's MARCH! Organizing Thread

Love Him or Hate Him, He Gets This One Right.

NO!

Googlebombing is In The Air

Leave a Comment to Sign the Guestbook

This is how bad it's going to get.

Bush is a ridiculous human being.

Dissecting the "Investigation" of NSA Wiretaps

The Last Throes of the Insurgency

Impeachment is a Civic Responsibility

Cyrus Kar: US Citizen, Veteran, Abused at Abu Ghraib

Press on those nasty Republicans

What Did You Do Today? Molly Ivins Warns Us All

Bloggers Just Sit on Their Butts Behind Their Computer Screen...

Mr. NASCAR Tells Me How He'll Vote

I lost my virginity today!!!

YES!!! Finally a Reporter asks a question that MATTERS!!

Woodward Speaks.

I Will NOT Calm the Fuck Down (w/Updates).

White Pride? You Must Be Smoking Crack.

An Enemy to the Rule of Law

It's a Question of the Golden Rule

Murtha Speaks - Rumsfeld Resign - Troops Aren't Ready

Thanks for the Fear

Katrina Blog Project

It's My Birthday!

"You can hear the dogs yelping" - A Katrina Diary

The Bush Moral Boundary

Compassion.

The Quote That Changed My Life

Give A Gift To Yourself on Indepdence Day

Please Welcome the Plumbutt Chronicles

What If We DO Get Our Act Together? - VERIFY THE VOTE.

Want to Win in 2006? Give This a Read.