Who the fuck cares what they say about us?

(cross-posted at Deny My Freedom and My Left Wing)

In recent days, a couple of ‘major’ media players, if you will, decided to take their best shots at Daily Kos. Conservative hack David Brooks called Markos a kingpin. Fox News even got in on the game, deciding that reporting on a flame war of epically small proportion was more newsworthy than their regularly scheduled fair and balanced programming.

However, the willingness of Markos and other Kossacks to enable this kind of behavior is disappointing, to say the least. On the recommended list, you’ve had diary after diary after diary after diary after diary after promoted diary make fun of Brooks, Fox News, The New Republic, and the mainstream media in general for their fairly twisted vision of who we are and what we do. Most people may think I’m rather humorless, but I do have a sense of humor, and I was especially able to appreciate Bob Johnson’s attempt at making dKos appear to be an orange version of Free Republic instead of a bastion of blogofascism.

However, the fact that these diaries have gotten recommended – and continue to stay on the recommended list for extended periods of time – makes me think that the blogosphere has come down with an extreme case of narcissism.
The media attacks on the blogosphere are nothing new – ever it has risen to prominence during Howard Dean’s meteoric ascent in 2003 while campaigning for the Democratic Party presidential nomination, the blogosphere has always been tagged as ‘the radical left’, ‘antiwar liberals’, ‘angry bloggers’, and so forth. While we may be angry, it’s a passionate, controlled anger – not an unchecked rage. And if we’re radical, it’s only because we’ve employed a relatively new medium – the Internet – and used it as a way to keep politicians more accountable than ever. The fact is, though, is that framing us as merely a bunch of people on the fringe hasn’t worked until now, and the C-Span coverage of Yearly Kos served well to show that. What is new, though, is that entire articles are now devoted to attacking and attempting to undermine the unity of the blogosphere. Passing references are made to us in articles about the CT-Sen Democratic primary or in political articles quite often nowadays, but having entire pages devoted to writing about us – this is new. And it seems more and more like we are taking this newfound attention to pump our egos up, beat our chests, and have one too many laughs.

Back in the good old days, such derisive remarks such as those made by Fox News would simply get a one-off laugh by people, and it would be back to business. Nowadays, though, the recommended list at dKos – arguably the most coveted spot by the masses of the blogosphere – is being occupied by pieces written about ourselves, written about how others write about ourselves, and read by ourselves. Yes, David Brooks deserves criticism for his belief that he knows how the Democratic Party operates best (that’s when we roll over and don’t attack back). And yes, Fox News should never be sold short on scorn when it comes to trying to play off of inter-blogosphere tension when something like the pie fights was a much bigger (if equally ridiculous) issue. But the amount of attention that the community seems to enjoy heaping upon itself after such an incident is an issue. If we’re supposed to believe that we’re going to have new people viewing dKos and other blogs after such an incident, wouldn’t it be better if we simply operated the way we usually do – you know, focusing on taking action, discussing important issues, and helping Democratic candidates get elected, whether it be via fundraising or by doing some volunteer work.

Yes, I know that I promised that I would never write another meta entry. That being said, I would hope that the liberal blogosphere – and Daily Kos in particular – would stop engaging in omphaloskepsis and get back to what it does best.

Foreign policy is hard work

(cross-posted at Deny My Freedom and Daily Kos)

Warning: some graphic images below.

It shouldn’t come as any surprise, considering this is the man who has noted how hard it is to be president. As a prelude to the G-8 meetings in St. Petersburg, Bush is finding out that foreign policy isn’t a walk in the park, especially when the rest of the world tends to disagree with you. Nevertheless, he’s persistent in displacing blame elsewhere:

President Bush blamed Syria and Iran for new Middle East violence Wednesday, faced further defiance from Iran and North Korea and got an acerbic retort from Russian President Vladimir Putin to U.S. criticism.

[…]

White House press secretary Tony Snow, in a statement issued as Air Force One flew here, said: “We also hold Syria and Iran, which have provided long-standing support for Hezbollah, responsible for today’s violence. We call for the immediate and unconditional release of the Israeli soldiers.”

Mr. Snow, perhaps you’d best tell your boss that foreign policy is hard work. It’s especially hard…
…when you start an unjust war, leading to the deaths of 2,544 US soldiers…

…when you have 18,777 of our brave young men and women endure wounds they will carry for their lifetimes…

…when you kill at least 38,960 innocent Iraqi civilians

…when, under the stress of war, our soldiers commit unspeakable crimes

…when we let more dangerous countries such as Iran develop their capabilities…

…when we let North Korea do the same, making our allies in South Korea angry at them…and us…

…when we propose a road map for peace between Israel and Palestine that we ignore, leading to complete chaos

…whether it be suicide bombings by one side…

…or excessive retaliation by the other side.

Bush, you fucked up. So don’t fucking blame other countries when shit goes wrong. Don’t have the EU be the lead negotiator on what turned out to be failed negotiations. Don’t fucking say that you’re frustrated with diplomacy. It shouldn’t have come as a surprise to the U.S. simply can’t deal with all the world’s problems when we create the biggest one of them all. You have less than three years in office, so while I’m hoping that you don’t fuck up the entire world too badly in you remaining time, start accepting some fuckin’ responsibility. Don’t talk about catching some fucking fish. Talk genuinely about the problems in the world, stop lying through your ass and being apathetic about everything outside of the U.S. except for Iraq, and show some fucking leadership. Running away from your problems and hiding from the truth only makes you a fucking coward.

Reality-based commentary on the budget deficit

(cross-posted at Deny My Freedom, Daily Kos, and My Left Wing)

Back in the good ‘ole days of the blogosphere, there used to be a term used universally throughout that was meant as a way to distinguish us from the Kool-Aid drinkers on the other side and the corporate media who tried to shine a light away from the truth. We called ourselves the reality-based community, a place where we would not hide from the facts, regardless of what they were. However, it’s a term that has become increasingly sparse these days, and maybe, sadly, for good reason. Today, Kos readily linked to a misleading ThinkProgress story on the budget deficit. Its content?

Today, the Office of Management Budget projected a $296 billion federal deficit for fiscal year 2006. Bush held a press conference arguing that this is a vindication of his economic policies.

Actually, it would be the fourth largest deficit of all time. Here’s the top five:

  1. 2004 (George W. Bush) $413 billion
  2. 2003 (George W. Bush) $378 billion
  3. 2005 (George W. Bush) $318 billion
  4. 2006 (George W. Bush) $296 billion (projected)
  5. 1992 (George H. W. Bush) $290 billion

That’s fine and dandy…except that it’s only one side to a multifaceted story.
One thing that these numbers fail to account for is the effects of inflation. If you put nominal (raw, unadjusted) numbers side by side in economics, you will almost always see a trend in one direction, whether it be up or down. For example, look at this graph of nominal GDP measured in the last 50 years:

It shows a steady increase upwards. GDP, which stands for gross domestic product (a measure of domestic output within the country by domestic factors of production), is at its highest nominal levels under Bush. One must think the economy is doing just fine, right? Of course not; almost any economic trend might show similar movement. Furthermore, one has to account for inflation in such movements. However, the problem with inflation is that depending on what your base year is, the measurements of economic factors will be largely predicated upon the base year that you use for valuing the dollar at. Here’s a picture of real (adjusted for inflation in this case; it refers to anything that normalizes measurement across time and other effects) GDP, based on 2000 dollars:

As you can see, the general trend is there. However, if one were to measure GDP in 1800 dollars, for example, the same trend would probably be present, but it would be less pronounced than it is now. If you visit this website and determine how much $1 dollar in 1800 would be worth in 2005 dollars, you’ll find that, depending on what measure you use, it will range from being worth $15.45 to upwards of $26,000.

The same lesson can be applied to the budget deficit. One problem with the spreadsheet that ThinkProgress referenced is that it has everything listed in nominal terms. There is absolutely no adjustment for real measurement, making it prime for presenting one side of the story. Indeed, if you look at the following graph of the nominal budget deficit in the last 45 years or so, you will come to the same conclusion: Bush has the worst fiscal record of any president by far (the graph only measures up until 2004, but it gives you the general idea).

However, with regards to the budget deficit, perhaps the most important measure is the percentage of GDP that the budget deficit makes up. After looking around on the White House website (which has an awful search engine, making it difficult to find this data), I was able to find relevant data with regards to inflation-adjusted numbers for the budget deficit and the budget deficit as a percentage of GDP. Using 2000 dollars, Bush’s deficits in 2004 and 2003 are still the highest on record. However, his father’s budget deficit in 1992 is now third-highest, followed by Ronald Reagan in 1983 and the first President Bush in 1991 (on this table, the 2006 estimate is old and hasn’t been updated to reflect today’s $296 billion number). If one were to use 1980 dollars as a baseline, though, Reagan’s budget deficits would be the highest in real terms. As a percentage of GDP, though, Bush’s budget deficits are nowhere near the top – this is dominated by Reagan in 1983, 1985, 1986, and 1984, respectively (I am ignoring the numbers for World War II, which were extraordinary circumstances). When one looks at the budget deficit as a percentage of GDP, there is no need to make a subjective conversion into real terms; the percentage itself is reflective of the relative value of the budget deficit to GDP.

For even more insightful analysis and graphs, one should visit this website, which has plenty of additional graphs and analysis with regards to the budget deficit, the national debt, and other economic factors. I know that many in the blogosphere believe Bush to be the worst president ever in every aspect possible, but it’d be best if we stuck to the relevant facts when making the assessment.

Poverty is a moral issue

(cross-posted at Deny My Freedom and Daily Kos)

One of the most important points Al Gore makes about global warming in An Inconvenient Truth is that it is not a political issue; it is a moral issue. To me, this is one of the most important concepts with regards to the Democratic Party that we should employ more often: moral values aren’t just what the Republican Party says they are – after all, they aren’t very good at following their own rules – but that they encompass every aspect of our life. A moral issue that we need to address more, especially in light of what has happened since Hurricane Katrina, is poverty. It’s an issue that the Bible has to speak about, but sadly, it’s something that often gets ignored for whatever reason. Even though the GOP-controlled Senate blocked a minimum wage increase, there’s one person who continues the crusade to raise the minimum wage and to combat poverty in America: former senator and vice presidential nominee John Edwards.

COLUMBUS, Ohio – Former U.S. Sen. John Edwards, a potential 2008 Democratic residential candidate, told supporters of a ballot issue to increase the state’s minimum wage that a hike in Ohio would be the first step toward increasing wages across the nation.

“This cause will not end when we are victorious raising the minimum wage here in the state of Ohio,” he said. “It will continue next year and the next year and the next year until we are living in a United States of America where every single American is treated the same way.”

It’s a shame that there are so many things going wrong these days that Democrats can hardly spend their time focusing their energies on one issue. Iraq is the only constant, but right now, the big issue of the day is North Korea. Before that, it was other issues such as the minimum wage, immigration reform, pointless constitutional amendments. However, one must admire Edwards for selecting an issue to focus on after the presidential election – poverty in America – that no one would have taken seriously. In his position as director of the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at the University of North Carolina, Edwards has been a tireless advocate of the lower class in America. While campaigning for Ohio’s minimum wage increase, Edwards had some good advice for his – and our – party:

Also during his speech, Edwards said the Democratic party should abandon baby steps and focus-group-driven ideas and stand up for those who have no voice.

“I believe in a Democratic party with a little backbone and a little guts,” he said.

After the speech, Edwards said a minimum wage ballot issue could help bring more Democrats to the polls. But, he said, he would be willing to give up any strategic advantage at the polls to have federal lawmakers raise the minimum wage across the country.

Big ideas are something that the Democratic Party needs more of. Their congressional campaign agenda, A New Direction, is a good first step – but it’s a baby step that’s high on rhetoric and low on policy content. While simplifying what we believe in is something that the Democratic Party is in sore need of, there needs to be substance behind the slogans in order to make those of us who closely follow politics enthusiastic about it. That’s where something like Edwards’ idea of A Working Society comes in.

A copy of his speech distributed to reporters and embragoed until this morning shows that Edwards proposes to “radically overhaul” the Dept. of Housing and Urban Development; to create 1 million “stepping stone” jobs over the next five years, to raise the minimum wage, and to refocus the American education system.

“I propose a great national goal, because Americans believe in achieving great things,” Edwards plans to say. “Like JFK challenging America to land a man on the moon, a national goal of eradicating poverty will sharpen our focus, marshal our resources and at the end of the day, bring out our best.”

This is not some head-in-the-clouds liberalism; this is a pragmatic first step forward in resuming the whole point of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society – to eliminate poverty in America. Strengthening our education system, reforming an inefficient bureaucracy in Washington, raising the minimum wage, and creating concrete jobs in America is a great start. A bold idea is not promising to cut the deficit in half in 5 years – something that sounds good but is neither that remarkable nor realistic, given this adminstration’s shitty fiscal record. A bold idea is confronting an issue that no one wants to face and offering fresh leadership on it. Just look at the demographic information for the areas hit by Hurricane Katrina, and you will understand that we need to do a better job of taking care of Americans.

The focus on the minimum wage is beginning to produce leadership at the state level. Today, Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell signed into law a $2 increase in the state minimum wage. No longer is talk of a minimum wage increase derided as a liberal spending measure; it’s now spoken of as common sense and a belief that we should help improve the lives of our fellow citizens. For too long, we have treated poverty just as this Marlon Brando quote puts it: “If we are not our brother’s keeper, at least let us not be his executioner.” It’s time that America collectively shoulders its great obligation to provide for those less fortunate. It should not be a political issue; it should be our moral duty. And it has a great champion and a good man at the front: John Edwards.

Your do-nothing Congress at work

(cross-posted at Deny My Freedom and Daily Kos)

As election season approaches, the Republican Party is coming to face the ugly truth about their governing. Even with control of the White House and both houses of Congress (and arguably the judiciary), they have failed to pass any meaningful legislation for the average American. And that’s a bad sign for them, considering that the mainstream media is waking up and realizing that nothing is getting accomplished in Washington.

WASHINGTON – Could a Republican-controlled Congress pass a bill to protect the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance from court challenges? No problem, especially if proposed during the patriotic season leading up to the Fourth of July, Republican leaders thought. No way, it turned out.

The bill, the first item on the GOP’s election-year “American Values Agenda,” couldn’t get past a House committee. Even worse for the Republicans: They couldn’t blame the flameout on Democrats. One of the GOP’s very own, Rep. Bob Inglis of South Carolina, voted no. Seven other Judiciary Committee Republicans skipped the panel’s meeting entirely.

This piece, which is better than some past wankery that the AP has engaged in regarding Congress and Democrats in particular. First, they note the context that the GOP was bringing up these matters for a vote for. Set against the backdrop of Independence Day, the GOP hoped to use a day of celebration as a way to push public support of something that hardly affects anyone’s daily life. I am sure that kids and their parents will not have their worlds turned upside-down should two words in the Pledge of Allegiance…be affirmed. Hell, even enough House Republicans blew the vote off, killing the issue in committee. Perhaps the most important point is how the AP writer notes that this is an ‘election-year’ agenda. You can only bring up these kinds of issues every two years and make people believe that you’re doing it for a just cause, not simply to rally the base at a time when your poll numbers suck.

The most striking thing about this article is when it brings up just how little legislation has been passed at all:

With two-thirds of the 2006 legislative calendar spent, Congress has passed and sent President Bush only two pieces of major legislation. One renewed the terrorist-fighting USA Patriot Act while the other extended $70 billion in tax cuts, roughly divided evenly between investors and middle-income families.

So the GOP can boast of renewing a piece of legislation that intrudes upon civil liberties (not the best thing to do when you’ve been wiretapping the American public illegally) and for putting the government deeper in the red for a tax cut that most of us won’t see any part of. The GOP boasts of being the party of ideas, but they sure don’t seem to be able to pass any laws on them. Instead, they spend their time pushing the meme that Democrats are without ideas. Bullshit. Meanwhile, important pieces of legislation such as the renewal of the Voting Rights Act and immigration reform are stalled in Congress. And it’s not us being ‘obstructionists’. No, it’s the Republicans who shelved debate on the Voting Rights Act and immigration reform. This is something that the Democratic Party should be repeatedly bringing up – we are willing to work with the GOP on certain pieces of legislation where we have common ground, but it is the extremists (of which there are many) on their side (particularly in the House) that are indeed making the 109th Congress a do-nothing Congress.

To elaborate further on the types of legislation we will see the Republican Party bringing up as the fall comes, one needs to look no further than the American Values Agenda. Unlike the Contract With America, which arguably made some points about making the government run more efficiently, this new agenda is vacuous and without a single idea that will affect ordinary Americans. Below are a few of the bills on the agenda for the House of Representatives:

Freedom to Display the American Flag Act (HR 42; Rep. Bartlett)
Summary: Ensures an individual has the right to display the U.S. flag on residential property.

The Public Expression of Religion Act (HR 2679; Rep. Hostettler)
Summary:  Ensures local officials and communities do not face financial ruin to defend their rights to free speech under the Constitution (provides that when state or local officials are sued over public expressions of religion, no monetary damages, costs, or attorney’s fees may be awarded).

BATFE Reform (HR 5092; Rep. Coble)
Summary: Reforms the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives (BATFE) to protect citizens’ rights.  

To be honest, I have no idea if there are even any laws to begin with that prevent someone from showing the American flag on residential property. It’s an act that is protected under the First Amendment, just like burning the flag. The second piece is playing to the fundamental base in attempting to legislate religion into public life, and the third one listed…it must have something to do with protecting various lobbying groups (tobacco, NRA). None of these will make a damn difference in the livelihood of Americans. Democrats are pushing for changes that will have a tangible, real effect on people’s lives. Raising the minimum wage and cutting down the cost of a college education – these are real issues people face. The GOP is relying on a pony whose one trick was used up a long time ago.

There is a real schism growing within the GOP, one that I would attribute largely to a split in governing ideologies between the House and the Senate. Although there are wingnuts like Tom Coburn in the Senate, the GOP there is not as extreme as it is in the House, where hardliners have been controlling the game for a long time. It may explain why Bill Frist, who dreams of being a presidential candidate, is going to bring stem cell research up for a vote, even though Bush says he will veto the bill. It may be a sign that he realizes that after a year of doing absolutely nothing for the American people, it’s the least he can do. But it still doesn’t change the fact that this is a bill that has been sitting around for a year after the House passed it. Doing something late is better than never doing it, but it still doesn’t change the fact that the Republican Party – not the Democratic Party – is the party of obstruction and the party of empty ideas.

We have already lost the important battles

(cross-posted at Deny My Freedom and Daily Kos)

In due time, all politcians fade away. A president can serve two elected terms. Senators and representatives serve until they get old and retire, lose, or make the profitable jump to the private sector. But a Supreme Court justice will have their decisions felt for years after they die or retire from the bench. Marbury v. Madison, a case decided in 1803, is arguably the most important precedent of all in our common law system – and it is almost as old as the Constitution itself. Justices like John Marshall and Earl Warren may be long gone, but the monumental effects that the courts they served on still reverberate today. Arguably, the fight for the Supreme Court – an ‘independent’, appointed position by the president – is what the most important battles are fought over.

And we have lost both of them under the Bush administration. In the long run, this may be our greatest failure.
It would be a downright lie to say that anyone on the left side of the political spectrum – the Democratic Party, the interest groups, the grassroots, or the blogosphere – did everything in our power to stop the nominations of John Roberts or Samuel Alito (remember, Harriet Miers was run off the road by conservatives). Discussion on filibustering Roberts was limited to a minority of the blogosphere; even most of us agreed that he was qualified, and there was not much of a record to judge him on to be adamantly against his nomination. For us, getting 22 votes against his nomination was a victory of sorts.

But Alito was a different story. Most Americans believed he should have been rejected if he said he would overturn Roe v. Wade. Public opinion was on our side at first…but on this nomination, the one which would replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who had become a crucial swing vote over time, we got sorely outmaneuvered. Kid Oakland framed it very simply: put Alito to the Roberts test. In his nomination hearings, despite whatever one may truly believe about Roberts’ beliefs, he did state that Roe v. Wade was settled law during his confirmation hearings for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Alito refused to do so.  It should have been obvious that Alito and his nomination hearing “coaches” would never allow him to say outright that Roe v. Wade should be overturned – but there was plenty to imply such a thing. Those weren’t the only grounds to oppose Alito on – there were plenty of other reasons to be against his nomination as well. However, the Bush White House and the GOP went on the offensive. Poll numbers became favorable, to the point where most Americans didn’t think he would be a vote against choice. John Kerry, in a decision that still mystifies me, chose to be the first Senate Democrat to support a filibuster – but he announced it while he was in Switzerland. Alito easily got cloture, and he became a Supreme Court justice the same day of Bush’s State of the Union address.

A couple of days ago, law professor Jonathan Turley did an excellent analysis on how we began seeing the rotten fruit of our failure come to light during Roberts’ and Alito’s first term on the bench:

With the end of the first term of the Roberts court, some liberals seemed to give a sigh of relief that the new conservative majority had not returned the nation to an antebellum legal system. But on closer inspection, the past term was no cause for hope, let alone celebration, for uneasy liberals, moderates or libertarians.

To the contrary, the only comfort these groups should take from the past term is that it will likely prove far better than the coming term when the court is poised to hear cases involving affirmative action, abortion, environmental law and other hot-button issues.

Despite hopeful accounts that John Roberts and Samuel Alito would prove mainstream jurists, they proved every bit as ideological in major cases as predicted. Indeed, Roberts and Alito had the highest agreement rate of the justices — 90.9% — according to a Georgetown University study.

Remember when Bush said that he would nominate judges in the mold of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas? Well, Bush outdid himself on that point – he nominated two judges who are clearly further to the right than even those two. This isn’t to say that Scalia and Thomas are the new ‘moderates’; indeed, Roberts and Scalia agreed 86% of the time, although Scalia was the tiebreaking vote in U.S. v. Gonzalez-Lopez, a case that allowed individuals to have the right to choose their attorney. It’s become clear that Roberts and Alito are not judges with ‘mainstream’ values. In the end, Turley writes, this is what our inability to articulate a strong opposition to these justices has gotten us:

These votes reveal a new vision of our society emerging from the new conservative base of the court with Roberts and Alito. It is a society with few checks on the government except when it comes to environmental protection, private property, affirmative action, or religious practices. It is the very transformation that many wanted to discuss in the confirmation hearings but were blocked by the refusal of the nominees to answer questions and the refusal of senators to insist on such answers.

Now, Roberts and Alito are speaking clearly and loudly — from the far right side of the court.

One might argue that so long as Justice Anthony Kennedy takes on a more proactive role now that he is the court’s sole ‘moderate’, there will not be a rollback of decades of progress. That is not something that I want to count on, though – just look at the ages of the justices. With the exception of Scalia, the rest of the conservative justices are relatively young, and the newly-appointed justices are the youngest – Roberts is 51; Alito is 55. The oldest, by far, is John Paul Stevens, a liberal justice who is 86 years old. Yes, we do need to win the presidency so that we can control these matters, but it’s imperative that we also fight the nominations of extremist judges as hard as possible. In his entire piece, Turley’s most apt point may be this:

This was no bait and switch. Neither Roberts nor Alito promised to be a moderate — they simply allowed others to suggest that they were moderates.

Nothing could be closer to the truth. We did not do our jobs in making sure the American people knew that John Roberts and Samuel Alito were going to be far-right activists on the Supreme Court. The effects of Bush’s policies can be dismantled once we take Congress and the presidency, but the long-lasting effect of egregious decisions such as Hudson v. Michigan, which greatly reduced the power of the Fourth Amendment, will be felt long after Bush, Roberts, and Alito are gone from the public eye.

CT-Sen: My thoughts on the debate

(cross-posted at Deny My Freedom and Daily Kos)

I think the image above sums up the debate well – Ned Lamont was enthusiastic, while Joe Lieberman tried to smile while secretly wishing that he did not have to be in the same room as his opponent. To say the least, tonight’s debate was a far cry from the sleeper that was Lieberman’s debate against Dick Cheney in the 2000 presidential election. Back then, it was noted how Lieberman hardly took a swipe at the opposing candidate. Today, though, we saw Lieberman showing full well that he knows how to be an attack dog when he wants to. Too bad that, as usual, he saved his vitriol for other Democrats instead of training it on the GOP.
I missed the first 15 minutes of the debate due to mass transit problems, so I may miss something in my evaluation. Lamont came off as a bit unpolished – he hesitated at times, he noticeably looked down at his final statement – but for someone who has never participated at such a high level before, he probably did better than most of us would have. Lamont did not say anything that the blogosphere did not hear, but I think he accomplished his goal of showing that he is not a one-trick pony. When Joe began to interrupt a few times, Ned was able to get in a few good zingers – “This isn’t Fox News” will become a classic – and, in general, Lamont showed himself to be a level-headed person. He hit on good points as to why Lieberman should be opposed besides Iraq – emergency contraception, Social Security, and vouchers to begin with. I feel that Lamont should have emphasized that the teacher’s unions have endorsed him and that he does have the backing of the Connecticut chapter of NOW, just to show that Lieberman is not raking in all the backing of the traditional interest groups. Lamont’s question for Lieberman was a softball; it gave Joe a chance to show just how much pork he’s delivered to Connecticut – but it may also make people wonder why they haven’t seen some of the benefits. Finally, Ned’s closing statement was awesome; his last line playing off those in his ads was simply great.

Joe Lieberman was extremely polished. It was clear that he was trying to fluster Lamont by interrupting him constantly, and he used Ronald Reagan’s “There you go again” refrain repeatedly. To be fair, the incumbent did mention a lot of the pork he’s brought back, and on the question of gas prices, Lieberman issued a more direct response than Lamont did. Outside of that, though, I could’ve sworn I was watching a Republican debating a Democrat…because that’s what I saw Joe doing. Lamont voting with Greenwich Republicans on local issues may be a charge that sounds good, but it’s going to be hard to stick – I would imagine that most primary voters will be aware of local issues and know that they are largely nonpartisan. Additionally, the constant huffing and puffing by Lieberman, his constant interruptions, and his downright rudeness may make people see him in a new light – for the most part, an average person would say that the senator sounds agreeable, if dull. Tonight, he sounded mean-spirited and angry. If there’s one thing that weighs more than it should in elections, it’s how people perceive the politicians to be. Lamont may have looked nervous, but he never acted anywhere as disgraceful as Lieberman did tonight.

Neither candidate was perfect, but I think Joe Lieberman may have lost the public image war tonight. Furthermore, this is not a general election, where GOP voters can be enticed by mean-spirited appeals; nor is it the crowded 2004 Democratic presidential primary, where bomb-throwing was a daily occurrence as things heated up. This is a race between two people. Joe Lieberman may have spoken more smoothly and listed more issues, but Ned Lamont showed he could hold his own, and he showed that this is not just about the war in Iraq. And in the end, that may be all that was needed to push leaners in our direction.

North Korea: anatomy of a foreign policy fuck-up

(cross-posted at Deny My Freedom and Daily Kos)


I’m the decider, bitches

I guess it shouldn’t come as any surprise to any of us that yet another foreign policy maneuver instigated early in this administration has led to another crisis. In Ron Suskind’s book about Paul O’Neill and his short tenure within the Bush White House, it was revealed that the administration had its eye on invading Iraq long before September 11 had occurred. While such a proposition is commonly accepted wisdom among those not drinking the Kool-Aid, another, more worrisome foreign policy move occurred at the beginning of the Bush administration. During Bill Clinton’s administration, there was a concerted move to taking steps to normalizing relations with North Korea, a country long isolated because of its communist government and hostile posturing towards its southern neighbor. Part of the agreement was to give North Korea two power-producing nuclear reactors that would be monitored in exchange for North Korea abandoning its nuclear weapons program. While there were some bumps, there was progress being made.
However, that all changed when Bush entered office. The bilateral talks that were being held were cut off, and Bush’s antagonistic stance towards North Korea even angered the South, who we were ostensibly “protecting”:

“We strongly denounce the visit of U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Armitage, messenger of death, and we urge the Bush administration to withdraw the defense missile project immediately,” said Mun Jeong-Hyun, a civic group leader.

The demonstrators said joining Washington’s missile shield plan would threaten South Korea’s chance of reconciliation with the North.

This so-called ‘review of policy’ ran indefinitely until 2003, when the Bush administration backed down from its refusal to speak directly to North Korea. The fact is that the Bush administration really had no choice; they had failed to come up with any sort of alternative proposal to begin with:

Secretary of State Powell had said the new Administration would continue the Clinton policy, but when President Bush met President Kim, he put the kibosh on South Korea’s hopes, warning that North Korea could not be trusted to keep its agreements. Bush’s remarks were viewed as a slap-down of the South Korean president’s “Sunshine” policy of engagement with the North, which infuriated Seoul and saw Pyongyang respond by chilling relations with the South.

It also created a policy vacuum in Washington. Although the Administration had plenty of reason to doubt North Korea’s compliance and to demand stronger verification principles in the 1994 agreement, modification of the agreement through dialogue was not prioritized. The Bush Administration said its North Korea policy was under review.

This should’ve been the clearest indication to the media that the Bush administration had no fucking clue what to do after invading Iraq – they couldn’t even figure out what to do after shutting down talks with North Korea, like a spoiled child taking their ball home after getting tired of sharing. Even so, the Bush administration continued insisting on multilateral talks instead of the previous bilateral meetings, refusing to deal with the problem that it was largely responsible for creating. Eventually, North Korea gave in, and the talks dragged on slowly. Meanwhile, it was revealed that we had deceived our allies again in trying to make our case against the ‘bad guys’:

In an effort to increase pressure on North Korea, the Bush administration told its Asian allies in briefings earlier this year that Pyongyang had exported nuclear material to Libya. That was a significant new charge, the first allegation that North Korea was helping to create a new nuclear weapons state.

But that is not what U.S. intelligence reported, according to two officials with detailed knowledge of the transaction. North Korea, according to the intelligence, had supplied uranium hexafluoride — which can be enriched to weapons-grade uranium — to Pakistan. It was Pakistan, a key U.S. ally with its own nuclear arsenal, that sold the material to Libya. The U.S. government had no evidence, the officials said, that North Korea knew of the second transaction.

Pakistan’s role as both the buyer and the seller was concealed to cover up the part played by Washington’s partner in the hunt for al Qaeda leaders, according to the officials, who discussed the issue on the condition of anonymity. In addition, a North Korea-Pakistan transfer would not have been news to the U.S. allies, which have known of such transfers for years and viewed them as a business matter between sovereign states.

Despite the stop-and-start nature that the six-party talks entailed – brought on by the  intransigence of both the U.S. and North Korea – an agreement was eventually reached in September 2005. However, the main sticking point of contention – similar to the situation in Iran – was that of using nuclear power for peaceful purposes.

The US wants the North Koreans to give up not just their weapons-orientated nuclear programme but the possibility in perpetuity of using nuclear power to generate electricity. The North Koreans have demanded a light-water reactor to produce electricity as a reward for giving up nuclear weapons, a demand that the US has rejected. The US also wants to include in the talks discussions on their allegations that North Korea is engaging in counterfeiting US currency and the illegal weapons trade, and perpetrating human-rights abuses. Many people in Washington would also like regime change in Pyongyang. Moreover, the framers of these demands want all this (well, maybe not the regime change) before any aid or development support is provided to North Korea.

It’s particularly ironic that the Bush administration once again called for ‘regime change’ in North Korea, even though it willingly does business with a country like Pakistan, where the father of its nuclear bomb gave centrifuges to North Korea. There may be an ‘axis of evil’, but one thing becomes abundantly clear – Iraq does not seem to be a part of it, and one of our biggest allies on the ‘war on terror’ seems to be a central player to the escalation of North Korea’s military capabilities.

After North Korea has fired several missiles in the past few days, including a failed attempt at launching a long-range missile, Bush is now running to the UN to get a condemnation of North Korea. While this is justified, it’s worth noting that there was no such display of ‘internationalism’ on the issue of Iraq. In fact, if one traces the timeline of the North Korea debacle, we have never wanted to address the issue head-on; it’s been something that we felt we should let China, Russia, or other regional players to deal with. As the world’s only superpower, we have a moral obligation to ensure that we are honest in our foreign policy dealings. Today’s press conference featured a frequent, oft-broken promise from Bush:

“One thing we have learned is that the rocket didn’t stay up very long and tumbled into the sea, which doesn’t, frankly, diminish my desire to solve this problem,” Bush said.

He used to say the same thing Osama bin Laden as well. The dealings with Iran have been eerily similar: we’ve offered incentives to stop their own nuclear enrichment in exchange for the use of ones for power, but both sides seem to be moving apart as the July 12 ‘deadline’ appears. By going into Iraq, we have essentially limited the leverage that we can hold over other countries because we’ve become so unpopular. Essentially, everything is a huge clusterfuck, thanks to “The Decider” and his administration.

So what will the right wing do? When all else fails, I’m sure you’ll begin hearing a lot more about how it’s all Bill Clinton’s fault – and that’s from three years ago. They never fail to displace the blame from the source of the problem – themselves.

Celebrating our political heroes

(cross-posted at Deny My Freedom and Daily Kos)

I think of a hero as someone who understands the degree of responsibility that comes with his freedom.

Bob Dylan

Having heroes in politics is an odd proposition, mainly because it’s a rarity to find those who are completely untarnished by the toxic atmosphere that politics is composed of. In this day and age, though, it seems like just about anyone can be a hero to the Democratic Party – simply for speaking up. It’s a shame, because I feel that it should be people who go far above and beyond their basic duties in the political world who deserve admiration. Nowadays, we are forced to laud statements by those like Hillary Clinton for making a common-sense statement.

As a young American, I probably don’t have the historical perspective that many others possess. However, in these dark times, there have still been plenty of heroes. On this day – Independence Day – here are four people in politics who are inspirational to me.

I wasn’t alive during Jimmy Carter’s presidency. From what I’ve read and heard, his presidency usually doesn’t get high marks, whether it be due to stagflation problems or the Iranian hostage crisis. Since then, though, he’s been an inspiration to many, and he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his humanitarian work over the past 25+ years. Furthermore, he’s perhaps the only politican who comes off as a genuinely honest, kind person at first glance. His decency and his inspirational life of service, especially after his departure from the White House, reminds me that there are indeed nice people in politics. You don’t have to compromise your morals to make a difference. His recent postings at Daily Kos in support of his son Jack’s Senate campaign have allowed us to see first-hand the kind of person that President Carter is.

I have long been a fan of Al Gore, even during the 1990s. His passion for the environment and his brokering of the Kyoto treaty was a validation of the beliefs of the “Ozone Man”. After the 2000 election was unjustly stolen from him by the Supreme Court, he did what anyone would have done – taken a long break. However, he’s come out swinging ever since, and he’s been right on every issue – whether it was the war on Iraq, our civil liberties, and, of course, on global warming. As someone who saw the power of the Internet long before any other politician did, it’s no surprise that Gore has been the cutting edge of technology – whether it be his highly complex slide show he uses during his presentations on the climate crisis or in founding the revolutionary Current TV. It is rare that you get a politician of true intellect, and every day, it’s easy to think, “What if?”. I hope he runs in 2008, despite his adamant refusal to…but that’s another blog entry for another day.

The first time I really paid any attention to Howard Dean was when the New York Times did a profile on him in the summer of 2003, before his campaign really caught fire. I liked that he was quite plain-spoken and seemed to be a man of principle. I wasn’t active in the political process yet, but his “I represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party” line, cribbed from the late Paul Wellstone, rang true to many of us. After seeing our party roll over on issue after issue in the face of an administration emboldened by tragedy, it was a breath of fresh air to hear someone speak truth to power so unapologetically. Even though his campaign flamed out spectacularly, Dean succeeded in crashing the gate in the end, becoming chairman of the DNC and bringing long-needed reform to a party infrastructure in desperate need of it. Party leaders may still try to undercut him as much as possible, but we’ve got his back. Dean’s ultimate lesson for all of us is that we do have the power – and it’s one that I’ve taken to heart.

Although Tim worked for Jeff Seemann’s (above, right) congressional campaign, it was his work, along with Bob Brigham, on Paul Hackett’s OH-02 campaign that really opened my eyes. The amount of work that Tim put into getting the word out about Hackett in the blogosphere was spectacular. Largely due to his efforts, the race was closer than anyone else would have imagined. Afterwards, Tim joined the DNC as their director of Internet outreach, and when Ned Lamont’s Senate campaign got off the ground, he joined them in what looked like an uphill battle at first. Ever since, the Lamont campaign has been steamrolling, and, like any previous Tagaris-linked operation, the Internet outreach has been crucial. Kos may have been one of the first to revolutionize the Internet as an organizing tool, but it was Tim who has become the master of using the Internet for specific campaigns.

July 4 is meant as a day to celebrate the best of America. But while we’re at it, let’s take time to celebrate our own heroes, for they have gone above and beyond what anyone has asked them to in order to help preserve the spirit of America in a time when our country’s standing has never been lower.

CT-Sen: Saving the Democratic Party from itself

(cross-posted at Deny My Freedom and Daily Kos)

Today, for all intents and purposes, Joe Lieberman left the Democratic Party. For most of us, it is a day to savor the fact that within six months, Lieberman has gone from being a shoo-in for re-election to desperately fighting for his political life using any means possible. But for me, it’s a day of sad clarity. A familiar acquaintance of mine who I’ve worked with on other political causes happens to be working for Joe Lieberman’s campaign this summer. On a social networking site, the description of what they are doing with the summer is a simple phrase: “Saving the Democratic Party from itself”.

Watching clips of Lieberman’s press conference today and seeing this person holding a Lieberman sign, it became clear that the youngest generation of Democrats – of which I am a part – have not awakened to the political realities of today. It is not the Democratic Party insiders who will save us. It is the grassroots who will – and have started to – save our party.

The only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough to protect the interests of the people, and a people strong enough and well enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over the government.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Joe Lieberman has never been one to put the party ahead of his own interests. He’s made it clear that he prefers machine politics. In 2000, when Al Gore chose him as his running mate, Lieberman continued to run for re-election as a senator, even though if Gore had been rightfully placed in the White House, the balance of the Senate would have shifted to the GOP anyways because the GOP governor of Connecticut (John Rowland at the time) would have appointed a Republican to the seat. Time after time, Joe has undercut the Democratic Party position on important matters to all of us – the war in Iraq, energy policy, affordable health care, Social Security – the list can go on and on. He has been the epitome of the corrosive nature of money in politics. In the recent debate on the war on Iraq, no Democratic senator would stand by Lieberman as he was introduced by John Warner (R-VA) to once again buttress the GOP’s position with their talking points. It has been a long time since Joe Lieberman has represented anything remotely close to the core values of the Democratic Party.

For a lot of the D.C. crowd, the grassroots, armed with the Internet, represents an unruly band of gate-crashers who aren’t welcome. As we’ve become a louder voice for the activist base of our party, and as we’ve been racking up impressive fundraising numbers, people like Chuck Schumer and Christopher Dodd still think that what we think isn’t worth a damn. You have Schumer promising to support Lieberman regardless of the primary results. In addition, you have someone who is trying to lead the Democratic Party forward in Harry Reid having to deal with an utterly confounding situation that Lieberman has now forced onto his plate. In the past few years, whenever the Democratic Party has attempted to put a unified position forward, Joe Lieberman has invariably been there to cut our legs out from under us and give the far right political cover. He smiles when he hears that the blogosphere’s record at winning races has not been stellar to date.

In the end, though, you can only thumb your nose at your constituents for so long until they awaken to realize that everything is not as it seems. Lieberman has attempted to portray Ned Lamont as a radical leftist and a Republican at the same time. He’s put out ads that have been utterly panned. He’s been heartily endorsed by people like Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin, people who are as far away from Democratic values as possible. His former running mate, Al Gore, refused to endorse him. In the end, the grassroots have sent a resounding message that Lieberman does not – and has not – represented the Democratic Party for some time. And with each passing day, any support he has drops, leaving only his true friends on the right and the D.C. Democratic power brokers as his supporters.

This race, as I’ve noted before, is about the soul of the Democratic Party. For years, we have been a party of the people, not a party of the powerful. We’ve lost our way for some time, but we’ve finally begun to find ourselves again. It is we, the people, who are saving our party. Supporting the same backroom politics that has been eroding our party’s core is not saving our party from itself. It is causing the self-destruction of our party. In the end, that is the message I’d like to send to my friend at the Lieberman campaign – join us and do not continue to support politics as usual. We can save the Democratic Party together.