Month: September 2006

I’m glad that I am not the only one that finds the word ‘fascism’ inappropriate when applied to Islamists. Here is Sam Schultz, “who served in Iraq and Afghanistan with the Indiana Army National Guard and acts as the Republican Senior Advisor to VoteVets.org.”

“I am a proud Republican, who ran for my party’s nomination for Congress in Indiana, because I believe in traditional values.

I also believe we need to be vigilant in defending America. That is why I feel I must speak out about the Administration’s recent contention that the war in Iraq is part of the fight against “Islamic fascism.”

First, we are not fighting an enemy that fits the definition of fascist, nor does Iraq resemble anything close to Hitler’s Germany or Mussolini’s Italy. Second,I do not believe the war in Iraq has furthered our battle against radical Islamism.

Our strategic defeat in Iraq will have consequences. Many of those consequences will be negative. But it will not be a victory of fascism over democracy. It is more likely to be a victory of instability over stability. Our allies in the region (Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt) are not democrats and with the exception of Qatar, they cannot really be considered reformers either. We have seen three experiments with Democracy in the region since the Iraq War commenced. In Palestine, Hamas gained power and Israel responded by arresting a large chunk of their Parliament. In Lebanon, Hizbollah made gains and received ministry positions. Israel responded by bombing their country and occupying the south. In Iraq, the theocratic Shi’a parties took control. This has led to sectarian warfare on a frightening scale. It would be inaccurate to define the governments in Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine as fascist. That designation would be more accurate if applied to Egypt and Syria. Jordan and Saudi Arabia are authoritarian monarchies. Iran is a strange mix of authoritarian democracy and theocracy.

The Ba’ath movement combined elements of Stalinism and fascism. In its initial stages it moved back and forth between an anti-communist movement and a self-avowed Marxist movement. But once the Ba’athists seized power in Syria and Iraq, they emulated both the nationalism of European fascists and the police state tactics of Stalinist Russia. It was really the worst of both worlds.

There are two main obstacles to the democratization of the Middle East. The first obstacle can be seen in Palestine and Lebanon. When Arabs are allowed to express their political will, they will vote for parties and candidates that are committed to resistance of Israel’s occupation of Palestine and that are hostile to American interests. The second problem can be seen in Lebanon and Iraq. The Arab states are not natural states with logical boundaries. Without a strong ruling elite, they are prone to collapse into factional and sectarian fighting.

These two factors seem to have been totally overlooked by Bush when he set out his solution for terrorism.

If we just look at the nationalities of the 19 hijackers we can see why Bush’s plan makes no sense. The hijackers included two natives of the United Arab Emirates, a Jordanian, an Egyptian, and 15 Saudis. Yet, Bush has not pushed for free and fair democratic elections in any of those countries. At best, he has asked for incremental liberalization of the franchise. But his actions have made those reforms increasingly dangerous for the leaders of those countries.

The more Bush backs Israel and neglects the peace process, the less legitimacy our Arab allies have, and the less they can afford to grant political power to their people. If anything, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt have to become even more repressive police states in response. In this way, Bush’s policies turn our allies into more fascistic states, while our enemies express their democratic will with increasing anti-American, anti-Israeli rhetoric. And, of course, they risk falling into civil or sectarian war.

The Bush administration sees any expression of anti-Americanism, or anti-Zionism as fascist. That’s simply not the case. The more nearly fascist states are the ones that are still able to suppress such rhetoric.

So, in what way is the struggle in the Middle East similar to the struggle against Germany, Italy, and Japan? The only real similarity is that we are facing an enemy that is hostile to American interests. They are willing to kill Americans to express their resistance. However, there is little likelihood that they will disturb our way of life if we leave Iraq. At least, they will not do so any more than if we stay, and perhaps less.

Contrary to official administration rhetoric, we have to fight them here because we are fighting them over there. They will continue to fight until there is an equitable agreement on the Palestinian question. After that is accomplished, there will be much less appeal in terrorism. The Arab world will be much more concerned with improving their economic situation than in alienating potential investors. If our allies can secure a decent settlement for the Palestinians they will gain legitimacy and be able to relax their police states, allowing for more participatory democracy.

The Bush administration uses the term ‘fascist’ to describe the Islamist movement, but opposition to American policy is nearly universal among all Muslims, most of the rest of the world, and roughly half the American people. That is why Rumsfeld found himself accusing the majority of the American people of treachery.

We must remove these people from office. They’ve got everything bass ackwards.

Yesterday morning (in the wee hours as it were) I wrote a short post about Keith Olbermann’s commentary the other night, and the response of some posters at Free Republic.com (the ubiquitous “freepers) to what he had said.

In reaction to that diary, a member of our community, someone I respect a great deal though we do not always agree on issues of substance or of style, Arthur Gilroy, posted his own diary, entitled Olbermann And The Marginalization of Effective Dissent. His diary is, at present, on the recommended list. I urge you to read the piece that he wrote in its entirety. I’ll quote just a brief section of it here now, because it’s important to what I will have to say later:

Now make no mistake…I think that Mr. Olbermann is serious, attentive, and honest in his efforts. And overall, pretty near correct in his positions as well. As correct (as far as I am concerned, anyway) as he can possibly be and still manage to regularly appear in any mass media capacity on the public mediaspace. […]

[Olbermann] is just not heavy enough…and/or he is not in a “heavy” enough position. In this case, the chicken and the egg are mutually dependent. You cannot GAIN that kind of weight while stuck in a dependent, marginalized position, and you know damned well that Mr. Olbermann is not presently in the running to overthrow Baby Doll Couric or any of the other Barbie/Ken doll blathering heads and most likely never WILL be in that position. Not so long as the PermaGov runs things. The Corpserate Media simply will not ALLOW someone like Murrow to gain commanding position over a career. Not today they won’t. And the balkanization of TV…5000 stations instead of 7, innumerable networks instead of 3…makes that sort of commanding position almost impossible to attain anyway.

Having read Arthur’s diary this morning (I confess for the first time) I realized that while I agree with much of what Arthur has to say about the marginalization of dissent in our major media these days (for reasons too numerous to get into now), I felt he deserved a reply from me. Or maybe I just felt the need to express the thoughts that ran around in my brain while reading his quite perceptive analysis of the current media landscape in our country, one dominated by the voices of corporate interest, right wing hatred and bullying and shameful kowtowing to the dark power that rules in the White House (rules over us but does not govern, I might add). For better or worse, here they are:

Arthur you may be right. But big things sometimes come in small packages. As to the effect that Olbermann’s comments might make on the political climate that is tearing our nation apart, we shall see.

Myself, I alternate daily, even hourly, between optimism and pessimism. The sources of my pessimism are all too easy to chronicle.

I fear that we are being set up for another stolen election this Fall. I fear the Democratic Party will never fulfill the hopes progressives have for it. I fear another war, before or after the election, one that may start a conflagration whose dimensions we cannot predict, with consequences too terrible to imagine. I fear more terrorist attacks may come to our shores. I fear an economic depression to rival the Great Depression may be brewing. I fear the rise of a Fundamentalist Christian fascism that would eradicate the last vestiges of that dream of America of which we were taught in our youth. I fear a coming global catastrophe from our reckless and criminal use of fossil fuels to poison our air and alter our climate.

Against that, all I have to place on the other side of the scale is a little hope. Keith Olbermann, marginalized as he may be, feeds that hope. The people here at Booman Tribune and around the left side of the blogosphere feed that hope. Al Gore with his crusade against global warming feeds that hope. The increasing irrelevancy of the pundit class as more and more people look for alternative viewpoints online feeds that hope.

Arthur, even you feed that hope because I know, despite your oft expressed cynicism (well deserved as it may be) you are still here, you are still passionate, and you are still fighting for what used to be called simple human decency before the right wing turned it into a curse word.

That hope is all I have to combat my fears. Maybe it isn’t enough. Maybe its a foolish denial of reality, but its still there. For the sake of my Children, and everyone else’s children, I have to believe it isn’t an utter delusion.

Keith Olbermann

Cable Television News

Corporate Media Consolidation

Fascism

Global Warming

US Economy

Iran

Republican Corruption

Tyranny

At yahoo group UndoBush is the story “The Switch,” a 40 page parable set in the context of a teacher discussing with his students what an inarguable nightmare Bush and his enabling Republicans are and why Wes Clark should have been the one to get the nomination because of his incomparable appeal to those who lean right and his unparalleled national security credentials. Here is what some have said about it:

“I was honored to have read it.” -a Clarkie mother of a soldier in Iraq.

“I was blown away by how brilliant it is.” –Dell Long, B.B. King’s former PR manager;

 “Found the message worth the time it took to read.  Its references are most impressive.  And the teacher and use of well known folk as students worked.  [This is coming from a reader who] is a 79+ year old vet of WWII and a former college journalism and political science teacher.  I was a senior staffer and speech writer to a governor, research assistant to a U.S. Senator and personal staff consultant to state-wide office holder. You made feel guilty for not paying closer attention to Clark in 04!” –Jim E. Gregg

“Absolutely astounding! YOU ROCK!” –a Daily Kos blogger.

 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/UndoBush/

Here’s an excerpt…
   “Nonetheless, teacher, according to many in the military Clark ‘sold his soul’ in order to move up in the ranks sooner than he deserved. And Wes’ superior, General Hugh Shelton, showed contempt for him when he said, ‘I wouldn’t vote for him.'”

        “I can’t believe that suckers like you fell for that smear campaign! I would have thought that anyone following the campaigns that closely would have had enough political savvy to not needed it pointed out that, sadly, it’s Shelton and many of his buddies in the Pentagon who, no doubt, must have been shaking in their combat boots at the prospect of an honorable military man with accounting skills coming in to clean house. However, since there’s also a slew of his former colleagues who feel that his due praise cannot be overstated, I’m gonna give Wes the benefit of the ‘doubt.’ After all, just because I think his character is lacking because he likes to hunt, it doesn’t mean he lacks character. Because, frankly, I have serious trouble doubting the character and integrity of a man who volunteered to go to Vietnam and then opted to commit his life to serving in the military instead of resting on his exemplary academic laurels in order to make a million dollars a year.”

     “Teacher,” General Barry McCaffrey concurred, “we could fight Kosovo a thousand times, and we would lose a thousand times. Wes Clark is a national treasure. [And you know who else would concur? The former heads of West Point and Annapolis , as well as the woman who headed up Kosovo’s resistance and human rights movement.]”

     “You ain’t kidding, Barry,” said Madonna. “When he was a 41-year-old commander his car broke down but he didn’t have the $2000 to get it fixed. So he spent a month in a junkyard rebuilding it from spare parts. That’s what you call A Man’s Man. Isn’t this what we’ve been dying for in a president!?  A self-reliant guy who knows what it’s like to have to pinch pennies.”

   For about a minute Stephen Colbert had been trying to contain his overwhelming church laughter, but then he inadvertently made a sound like he couldn’t clear his sinuses.

    “Did I say something funny, Stephen?”

   “You said that you expected the people who followed the primaries closely to be politically savvy. Yet the Kucinich-or-bust contingent needs to be told that, as Randi Rhodes put it: ‘He could never win an election because he doesn’t look good on the TV.’ And the Deaniacs are oblivious to the fact that poise is a relevant attribute of a viable leader. After all, who among them anticipated that Rush Limbaugh would have had a valid point if he had been given the chance to say that it would be disconcerting to imagine al-Qaeda watching the Dean scream over and over the night before President-elect Dean was to be sworn in; let alone that any qualified pragmatist from the Dean camp would have known after the scream that it was time to cut their losses. Hence they would have seen the opportunity for Dean to put his stamp on Clark so as not to lose the leverage of his base, instead of just letting the chips fall where they may even if that meant we’d get stuck with two of the lawyers who think that the oath they took to uphold the Constitution only applies as long as it’s not a political hazard… one of whom is Hillary Clinton; and her contingent needs to be told that the last thing we need to do now is bend over backwards to polarize the nation even further.”

   “Teacher, I’m with you,” Drew Barrymore said. “I mean, Clark’s actually a cool guy who doesn’t try to fit into the stereotypical politician mold. Like, did you see when he was campaigning in New Hampshire at a pancake breakfast live on C-Span and someone asked what he’d do if anyone tried to question his patriotism? He jestingly said, ‘I’ll beat the shit out of them.’ Then when his aid was later asked if he meant to really say that, he told him, ‘He meant to say, ‘I’ll beat the living shit out of them.'”

   “Uhm, won’t that alienate The Christian Right, teacher?”

  “I didn’t see them make a fuss when Cheney, on the Senate floor, told Senator Leahy: ‘Go fuck yourself.'”

       “Perhaps Mr. Bush’s supporters had the foresight to say nothing because they anticipated that it was only a matter of time before President Platitude’s true colors slipped out–as on July 27, 2005, when he gave the White House press corps the middle finger as he departed–so they knew it would be hypocritical if they had chastised Cheney for that. After all, they wouldn’t want to be hypocritical, that would be undignified.”

       “Still, teacher, Clark wasn’t such a hot campaigner,” lamented one student.                    

  “And Kerry was? Besides, even though he had a few missteps (which were more the product of the media’s sophomoric way of analyzing), if you had seen the grace he exhibited in South Carolina when he knelt beside a crying grandmother and held her hand as he answered her question about her grandson who died from not having adequate healthcare, you would have had no doubt in his sincerity and humanity. And if you had seen his speech at the Jefferson Dinner you would have, like me, been jumping up and down clapping ecstatically with anticipation over him being our next president. And if you thought for yourself then you wouldn’t have fallen for The Liberal Media’s bullshit when they said that it was down to just Edwards and Kerry even though Clark actually made a better showing in the previous day’s primaries than Edwards. And if you had any spine then you’d have boycotted CNN for not firing Bob Novak for the 2 asinine and unprofessional questions he asked Ted Danson and Mary Steenburgen. At any rate, do you want a man who knows how to campaign, or do you want a man who knows how to lead and govern? Besides, your point only underscores the need for Democrats to have simply rallied around him in order to help take up the slack left due to his inexperience as a campaigner. Imagine how the public would have reacted to him and to the Democratic Party if they had made such an unprecedented move. Everyone would have said, ‘Wow, the Democrats aren’t kidding when they say that they support our troops and that national security is their top priority; and, man, Clark is certainly someone who we can be proud to SHOW OFF to the world.'”

      “Well, hold on, teacher. What about the shoot-first-ask-questions-later contingent like Libertarian talk show host Neal Boortz and the like? They don’t like ‘Weasel Clark’ because he was against the war.”

   “Actually, if you read his Congressional testimony from September 26, 2002 along with what he said to The New York Times on his first day campaigning, you’ll see that ‘it’s not that simple.’ It wasn’t about for or against. It was about timing and pacing…and whether or not Saddam Hussein was contained. In a nutshell, Clark’s brilliant philosophy is that you don’t bite off more than you can chew. (Which is also why he’d be a good president: he understands the basic principle of priorital resource allocation.) As such, he knew that there was still plenty of time to merely nibble at Iraq so that they could finish what they started in Afghanistan. And, considering that, before 9/11, Collin Powell recognized that Hussein ‘has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors,’ and that Brent Scowcroft also concurred that Iraq was still a backburner issue, it’s inarguable that we’d be better off if Bush and Congress had taken Clark’s word as gospel.”

      “Look, teacher,” said Negative Nancy, “anybody with a fact checker and a soap box can prove to all sane people that Bush is nothing if not a mistake. But just because you can get virtually everyone to agree that Mr. Bush is as bad as it gets and needs to resign, does not mean that you could ever get virtually everyone to concur that General Clark is as good as it’s gonna get for his replacement.”

     “Then I must be a fool, because I can’t imagine who on Earth anyone could offer as an alternative whose track record of achievements could instill more trust and confidence than Wesley’s record. You would think that people would just be grateful a guy with such a résumé exists in order to make this such a no-brainer so that we could all unite behind the most universally amenable replacement; if for no other reason than to demonstrate to our troops that we really do support them–even if it means putting politics on hold. I mean, I dare anyone to pass a lie detector while saying: ‘I support our troops, and yet, despite Bush’s track record of much, much, much room for improvement as his role of commander versus Clark’s shining track record as a commander, I have every reason to believe that fewer soldiers would die under Bush’s continued command than would if Clark took charge.'”

     Then, Jack Nicholson raised his hand, and in his best Jack Nicholson impersonation drawled, “Teacher, c’mon. It’s an exaggeration to say that it’s a ‘no-brainer’ to have to decide between an experienced and articulate West Point valedictorian who was endorsed by fifty-fucking-five ambassadors, or the ‘President’ who can’t readily remember Kim Jong Il’s name and who doesn’t even fucking say boo when nobody bothers to inform him that his wife has been brought into a fucking bunker. You really shouldn’t be so flip about something that requires very serious reflection. (Besides, it’s not as if the Gulf States would find it particularly handy if we had the Supreme Allied Commander for a president RIGHT FUCKING NOW. After all, I hear that FEMA and Georgie-boy did a bang-up fuckin’ job with their Johnny-on-the-spot response to Katrina! In fact, he was so on the ball with anticipating the unprecedented chaos that the meteorologists made abundantly clear was coming, that he still had time to spare for a round of golf and a guitar lesson on Day 2. …Yet you’d have us believe that Clark’s attitude and experience would have made all the difference in the world in a disaster of this scope, Mr. Histrionics. Perhaps you underestimate just how monumentally reassuring it was to see that when he finally addressed the nation on Wednesday he was sun burnt. And what could possibly instill more confidence in a crisis than seeing that the president is going to jump into the situation one-hundred-fucking-percent recharged from a month long vacation?)”

   “Yeah, teacher, just because virtually everyone, after 9/11, said that it would be in everybody’s best interest to agree with the president’s decisions–for the country to be United–doesn’t mean that the non-lefties would ever be mature enough to just agree to agree for the sake of avoiding a leadership vacuum; and thus acknowledge that Clark has the potential to appeal to the farthest and widest swath of the public, thereby making him the clear best choice to take the helm. Because the bottom line is that if Clark were to commandeer the podium, then, being the good leader that he is, he’ll make us actually have to take our medicine and acknowledge that the status quo, at the very least, needs someone to hit the pause button. And you’re really overestimating the grit and solidarity of Americans if you think that they’d acquiesce to allowing in a leader who will force us to take off our blinders.”

       “Perhaps, but I bet that once you finish reading this you’ll believe that even contrarians like Boortz will become just as motivated as the rest of us to carry ‘UPGRADE NOW’ signs.”

Once in a while it is good to take time out to celebrate extraordinary individuals. Today is such a day. This morning in New York a remarkable lady completed a 6782 Km bike ride starting from the Golden Gate Bridge on 30 June to the Brooklyn Bridge to raise funds for charity, with a “victory lap” to Battery Park.

Jane Tomlinson is 42 and comes from Leeds in northern England. In the last five years she has raised over $2 million for charities by being sponsored for her athletic exploits. In that time she had completed a full Ironman (4km Swim, 180Km bike ride and full marathon – to be done inside 17 hours). Has completed two half Ironmans, the London Marathon 3 times, the New York Marathon and three London Triathlons. A previous epic cycle ride took her from Rome to her home.

Her exploits have not gone unrewarded. She received an the MBE from the Queen in 2003, winner of the Helen Rollinson Award at the BBC in 2002, twice recognised at the Sportswoman of the Year Awards, won a Great Briton Award and voted the most Inspirational Woman in Britain in 2003.

It’s not merely the fundraising that makes Jane such a inspirational woman. More below the fold.
In the normal course of events Jane should be dead by now, indeed this will probably be her last athletic effort but she will continue to raise funds for a charitable trust set up under her name so that her work can continue after her death.

Six years ago eactly she was told her breast cancer had mestacised and she had six months to live. She has had four courses of chemotherapy, the last ending on 30 April – an injury meany that she had to delay training for this ride until 3 weeks before she set off. She completed one of those marathons while she was on a previous coourse of treatment – the only person to do so. While advances in drug treaments have kept her alive, they have left her with chronic heart disease and her prognosis is still terminal.

She had planned to complete the cross-USA ride yesterday on the exact 6th anniversary of her diagnosis but was delayed by illness – two days ago her support team almost called off the effort as her health deteriorated. Jane had had support all the way from her husband and young son. At first they raised money for specific charities but they have now set up a charitable trust in her name. It has trustees from the major charities she has supported in the past. The site has a fuller story of the ride.

Her achievements should not just be measured in the amount of money she has raised. In the words of her charity’s site:

One of Jane’s motives is to show that people with a terminal prognosis can still lead an active and fruitful life. Death doesn’t arrive with the prognosis.

Today she achieved that ambition.

If you would persuade, you must appeal to interest rather than intellect.

— Benjamin Franklin

Cross-posted at DailyKos

I’ve been getting more and more into this citizen journalism thing all summer at OAC blog. I think this is more than just a new kind of blogging for me. I think the next presidential election cycle will witness a whole new kind of emerging media. We’re seeing glimpses of it now, but in 2008 this new YouTube people-powered journalism could take off. The new media will be the kind that uses websites like this and sites like YouTube to deliver Citizen Generated Content, stuff that we make and not the campaigns.

A reporter at the Gnomedex conference in Seattle last June asked the room, “Blogs were the big story the last time around, what will the story be next time around?”

Video: What’s Next? (2:34)

Follow me below the fold to discuss how we become the story next time around.

The Conventional Wisdom on YouTube:

The current state of Conventional Wisdom on citizen-generated media/content, CGM or CGC, is not very insightful by and large. The New York Times ran a piece a couple of weeks ago discussing the YouTube – gaffe phenomenon a la George ‘Macaca’ Allen (is he still running for something?)

Candidly Speaking: The YouTube Election

By Ryan Lizza
August 20, 2006
AUGUST, usually the sleepiest month in politics, has suddenly become raucous, thanks in part to YouTube, the vast videosharing Web site.

Last week, Senator George Allen, the Virginia Republican, was caught on tape at a campaign event twice calling a college student of Indian descent a “macaca,” an obscure racial slur.

The student, working for the opposing campaign, taped the comments, and the video quickly appeared on YouTube, where it rocketed to the top of the site’s most-viewed list. It then bounced from the Web to the front page of The Washington Post to cable and network television news shows. Despite two public apologies by Senator Allen, and his aides’ quick explanations for how the strange word tumbled out, political analysts rushed to downgrade Mr. Allen’s stock as a leading contender for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination.

YouTube’s bite also hurt Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, who was defeated by the political upstart Ned Lamont in Connecticut’s Democratic primary earlier this month. In that contest, pro-Lamont bloggers frequently posted flattering interviews with their candidate on YouTube and unflattering video of Senator Lieberman. The Lamont campaign even hired a staffer, Tim Tagaris, to coordinate the activities of the bloggers and video bloggers.

When politicians say inappropriate things, many voters will want to know. Now they can see it for themselves on the Web.

But YouTube may be changing the political process in more profound ways, for good and perhaps not for the better, according to strategists in both parties. If campaigns resemble reality television, where any moment of a candidate’s life can be captured on film and posted on the Web, will the last shreds of authenticity be stripped from our public officials? Will candidates be pushed further into a scripted bubble? In short, will YouTube democratize politics, or destroy it?

Is it me or is that a stupid question? Sorry Mr. Lizza.

Mr. Lizza focuses too much on the risk adverse angle he hears from professionals and how they feel about YouTube these days. Let’s face it if your candidate is stiff and boring then they aren’t going to do well with more coverage at all. In that case you want to restrict coverage and script everything.

I think the idea of YouTube changing the story is that YouTube means we generate the content and not the campaigns. That’s a big difference. Whatever you end up posting will more than likely be put together from remarks a candidate gives in public, so not every waking moment need be captured to YT. The candidate can certainly craft their remarks anyway they like, but the candidate has no control over the conversation that ensues during one of these vlogs. That’s one of the great things about these types of diaries.

Edwards went out to Seattle to a tech conference last June, Gnomedex 6.0.

I bootlegged the live stream and it was pretty good. They had a raucous and interactive discussion on politics, media and technology. This conversation amongst the techies and Edwards fits nicely into this discussion about new media and new technologies helping to create content and dialog. So let’s look at what they talked about a bit.

Although the conversation kept coming back to the politics of the day, much to Chris Pirillo’s chagrin, a couple of themes were prevalent in the discussion:

Video: Gnomedex Access (4:41)

Give us access! This exchange also gets into the desperate need for authenticity in American politics today.

• Put a blogger on the bus
• “Top Down kills engagement. Just kills it.”

Video: Gnomedex Authenticity (8:22)

Long exchanges, but great. Discussion hits on:

• The sorry state of our political discourse vis a vis George Lakoff’s book: Don’t Think of an Elephant.
  Edwards: “Issues don’t decide Presidential elections.”
• Credibility. Edwards: “All trials are a battle for credibility,” more than anything else.

Video: Red Diaper Baby (3:41)
Friday Fun clip? Buzz clip? Banana clip?
Marc Canter tells Democrats far and wide to grow some. Edwards replies, “Now I don’t want you to hold back.”

Access. What does access look like?

Video: Ned Lamont – Access CT (4:29)
Video: Edwards – Access CT (5:01)
Video: Edwards – Access Iowa, Pittsburgh (2:50)

Kos was pleased that Lamont and Edwards chose to give a press conference to the bloggers that was closed to the press and so was I. I was there with about 20 other bloggers, mostly from My Left Nutmeg and Connecticut Local Politics. I also met Christine Stuart from CTNewsJunkie and do you know what September 5th is kiddies? Check out ctkeith in New Haven for a heads up on Tuesday morning in Joe’s neighborhood. Can anyone get down there to get some video? Anyone?

Authenticity. That might look like this.

These clips show how much more powerful and authentic a 3-minute clip can be compared to a 10+ second sound bite offered on the news. The latter is the best that we can hope for in the broadcast media. Not having control of the content can be difficult for weak candidates, but all candidates can benefit from this type of CGC on YouTube. This amounts to extended coverage of the on message candidate stumping.

Video: Deval Patrick – Gloucester Highlights 1 (3:34)
“Check back in…” Nice intro to the remarks and a good bit up front about the Grassroots Campaign strategy and how it’s worked so stunningly well for Patrick over the last eighteen months.

Video: Deval Patrick – Gloucester Highlights 2 (3:57)
On politics and Katrina, one of the best discussions of the current state of American political dialog, hint – puke.

[On politics] It’s as if how to win is really pre-eminent and principle and vision is for the naive and unsophisticated. And it’s causing a lot of really good people to check out. And I’m not just talking about at election time, but civic life itself…

[On Democrats] We have perfected a conversation about how to win, but we don’t say too much why we should win. We have candidates doing their level best to blur any differences between us and the opposition as a tactic to win without ever saying what we would do with that power once we do win.
Poor people and sick people are on their own… I think that’s the vision of government that was on display in the Gulf Coast after Katrina. We were ashamed by what we saw and we were right to be ashamed. Those people who were abandoned on their rooftops after Katrina were before that storm.

And many have been waiting for the Democratic Party to make up its mind about what we stand for.

So that’s why I’m asking people all over the Commonwealth to stand with me and if you do then we will stand for something again.

Video: Ned Lamont – New Haven (4:22)
Ned’s remarks, abbreviated:

I’ve got to tell you that on Tuesday night it was a pretty good surprise. It was a call for change. People really want to fight for change and that’s what we voted for on Tuesday night.

One of the first calls that Joe Lieberman got was from Karl Rove. The first call, the first call, I got was from John Edwards.

[On Universal Health Care] “as a small business guy I can tell you that we have a health care system in this country that is broken… We believe that health care is a basic right for each and every American and we’re going to make it happen.” Lamont also takes the opportunity to point out that the health care problems facing families also tend to hurt employers and the country’s competitiveness in general.

Video: Edwards – Patriotism (3:08)
About our dependence on foreign oil:

Do we need to invest in clean alternatives sources of energy? Of course we do… But it is not the truth to tell the country that we are going to solve our dependence on oil just by [innovation].

We need to ask America for a new kind of patriotism, patriotism about something more than war.

We need to say to the country, `It is important for your country for you to be willing to conserve. It is important for your country for you to be willing to sacrifice.’ …

We cannot drive vehicles that get 12 miles to the gallon and think that we’re going to solve this problem. It will never happen.

By the way, I do this on my own dime and don’t work for any of these campaigns. Using YouTube to broadcast paid for political speech is far different from what I’m talking about here.

How many voters need to have access to this kind of stuff to make this the big story next time around? How many people need to be accessing YouTube political speeches and events to make a dent in the process? Twenty five thousand people? A million? Two million? Ten?

YouTube has the bandwidth, now we can provide content.

Previous Vlogs:

August 2006: Guerrilla Vlogger: Meet Deval Patrick
August 2006: Guerrilla Vlogger: Lamont and Edwards in New Haven
August 2006: Guerrilla Vlogger: WakeUp Wal-Mart Assignment, Pittsburgh
August 2006: Guerrilla Vlogger: Patriotism for something more than War, Iowa
July 2006: Guerrilla Campaign: Iowa w/YouTube video

Upcoming Vlogs:

Edwards in Manchester September 4th, NH for AFL-CIO march and rally on Monday September 4th

Deval Patrick & Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) in Worcester, MA September 8th, for a primary kick-off rally. This vlog will also have debate clips from the Thursday September 7th debate at 8:00PM EDT on channels: 5, 2, 7, NECN and live audio streaming is available at WBUR 90.9
Elizabeth Edwards in Boston on her book tour, TBD date, for Saving Graces
… in stores September 19th.

See you out there…

In today’s Los Angeles Times, Donald Rumsfeld has written an OpEd that seeks to “expand” and “clarify” his recent comments likening critics of this administration to Nazi appeasers.  And once you read this piece you will see how misunderstood and taken out of context his remarks were.  For example, during his infamous American Legion speech, Rumsfeld said:

The struggle we are in — the consequences are too severe — the struggle too important to have the luxury of returning to that old mentality of “Blame America First.”

Today, Rumsfeld explains that what he really meant was:

We also should be aware that the struggle is too important — the consequences too severe — to allow a “blame America first” mentality to overwhelm the truth that our nation, though imperfect, is a force for good in the world.

Damn the Islamofacist-appeasing media for distorting his remarks!
Earlier this week, Rumsfeld said:

…a sentiment took root that contended that if only the growing threats that had begun to emerge in Europe and Asia could be accommodated, then the carnage and the destruction of then-recent memory of World War I could be avoided.

    It was a time when a certain amount of cynicism and moral confusion set in among Western democracies. When those who warned about a coming crisis, the rise of fascism and nazism, they were ridiculed or ignored.

Now, some took issue with this remark, not only objecting to the obvious comparison to Neville Chamberlain ignoring the growing threat from Nazi Germany prior to World War II, but also the hypocrisy of doing exactly what Rumsfeld was denouncing…demonizing critics.  But as Rumsfeld clarifies for us today, what he was simply saying was:

In an effort to avoid repeating the carnage of World War I, much of the Western world tried to appease the growing threats in Europe and Asia in the years before World War II. Those who warned against the rise of Nazism, fascism and communism were often ridiculed and ignored.

Well I’m glad he cleared that up.

During his American Legion speech, Rumsfeld laid out the “central questions of our times,” namely:

With the growing lethality and the increasing availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow, some way, vicious extremists can be appeased?

Can folks really continue to think that free countries can negotiate a separate peace with terrorists?

Can we afford the luxury of pretending that the threats today are simply law enforcement problems, like robbing a bank or stealing a car; rather than threats of a fundamentally different nature requiring fundamentally different approaches?

And can we really afford to return to the destructive view that America, not the enemy, but America, is the source of the world’s troubles?

Today he said…well, he said the exact same thing.  But I must admit that even with this mightly effort by Rumsfeld to clarify and expand, I’m still not sure how these “central questions” relate to…anything.  Because in another apparent victory for the terrorist PR machine, I missed the scores of politicians and pundits calling for the appeasement of terrorists and the countries beating a path to negotiate with terrorists.  Perhaps I was too busy reading about the terrorist plot uncovered through law enforcement efforts by British officials.

Rumsfeld’s “clarification” is nothing but a rehash of the ugly speech he made to the American Legion earlier this week.  Insulting comparisons, baseless accusations against any critic of this administration and strawmen galore. As a matter of fact, in both of those speeches there was only one grain of truth, and that was when he said:

Those who know the truth need to speak out against the myths and distortions…

Indeed.  

Hot on the heels of the great Bushco Giant Sequoia smackdown comes another rebuke by U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour in Seattle.
Judge Coughenour found that a recent regulation allowed necessary reviews to be bypassed.
LA Times Link

Ruling that the Bush administration “plainly violated” the Endangered Species Act, a federal judge overturned a regulation Thursday that streamlined approval of pesticides by eliminating reviews by wildlife officials responsible for protecting rare animals and plants.

Violating existing law has been a consistent and continuing theme for this administration, big business being the usual intended beneficiary. And so it was here.

Pesticide manufacturers had long urged the 2004 change, calling it a “sensible approach” to allow the EPA to judge the risks to wildlife from their products.

But for this particular Judge, consistency has also been a hallmark.

ENS Link

For the second time in the past five years, U.S. District Judge John Coughenour ruled against federal agencies for failing to follow the Endangered Species Act in licensing pesticides for sale.

The Judge indicated that the regulation offered considerably less of a shield than the existing legislation.  

U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour in Seattle ruled that the process approved in 2004 was “less protective” of wildlife than the old process and that there was a “total absence of any technical and scientific evidence to support or justify” it.

In fact, the Judge went even further, finding absolutely no basis for the regulation’s existence.  And the consistent pattern of ignoring science continues.

Judge Coughenour determined that the rules were “arbitrary and capricious” because they ignored the risks to species and because political appointees at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ignored the concerns of its own scientists.  …

The judge noted the “total absence of any technical and scientific evidence to support or justify” the agencies’ rule.

The Interior Department had this troubling comment.

“Obviously these regulations arose out of our efforts to both protect wildlife and ensure pesticide applications are reviewed in a timely manner,” said Fish and Wildlife Service spokesman Chris Tollefson. “Our foremost concern here is protecting threatened and endangered species, and we’ll continue to do that. We’ll just have to evaluate this ruling to see where we go from here.”

Of course enforcing existing legislation is always one option.  But perhaps I’m just being naive.

But then there’s this.

Despite the ruling, pesticide makers could get a five year respite before they must comply with the Endangered Species Act if a House bill sponsored by California Republican Congressman Richard Pombo, who chairs the House Resources Committee. The Senate has not approved this measure.

Time to start making some calls.