Author: RenaRF

(Cross-posted from Daily Kos.  Also posted at EPM, My Left Wing, and my blog)

John Murtha just made a live statement on CNN (and other shows, I’m sure), that I found quite powerful.  I have transcribed the live coverage below the fold.  

Here is a link to the actual resolution he introduced today asking for Rumsfeld’s resignation.

He is referencing as well a report as to military readiness that he has reviewed.  I will try to find a link and update the diary.

…non-deployed combat brigades, managed by the Army’s Forces Command.  And the vast majority of them are rated the lowest readiness ratings.  The ratings are caused by severe equipment shortages.  

The situation facing the Army Guard and Reserve is comparatively worse.  Not currently mobi8loized, about 4/5ths received the lowest readiness ratings.  4/5ths.  The same is true for the Army Reserve.  Personnel shortage is the major reason behind the decline in the Guard and Reserve readiness shortages created, for the most part, by mobilization having [lapped] or personnel having been pulled from units to augment others.  So they’re not going as a unit in many cases.  As a matter of fact, the Adjutent General of Pennsylvania says we can’t send units any longer because of the constriction on the National Guard in Pennsylvania, and Pennsylvania’s probably the most deployed National Guard in the country – we have to send individuals to fill units.

As we come to expect, the US Army [is] embued with the whatever it takes spirit of commitment and hard work.  It’s been given a mission, and it will complete that mission.  Try to complete that mission.  Yet it’s becoming increasingly apparent the level of commitment has not been met by the Secretary of Defense and the other civilian officials charged with overseeing and assuring the well being of our military.  The mere fact that roughly 1/2 of the US Army is at the lowest level of military readiness speaks volumes in this regard.  

Perhaps most troubling to many Army senior uniformed leaders is the lack of national attention to the Army’s plight.  To emphatically state that the global war on terror will last for years yet fail to even acknowledge, let alone take steps to address, the Army’s readiness, equipment and personnel shortfalls is short-sighted at best.  At worst, it’s unconscionable, because the future security deterrent power of the United States is dangerously at risk.  

Let me tell you – it’s completely insensitive for the Secretary of Defense to talk to the people that he represents – the young troops – who are out in the field day after day in 120 degrees carrying 70 pounds on their back, and tell them we don’t have a crystal ball.  They want answers.  They want to know – and of course the reason is we don’t have enough troops to be deployed over and over again.  And to say that because they’re volunteers shows a compelte insensitivity to the situation that these families go through and I go to the hospitals all the time.  And the thing that I worry about the most is the fact that the troops not only are in missions that they don’t understand in many cases but also the future of the military.  

And I’m introducing a resolution today asking for the resignation of Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld not only for his past mistakes – he said the weapons of mass destruction – we know where they are – he said this war won’t last six weeks, maybe six months – he said it would cost $50 billion dollars.  We sent troops into battle without the appropriate armored vests – I was the one that found the armored vest shortages when I went to Iraq.  So not only for his past mistakes, but for the future of the military and that’s the thing that I worry about the most since I’ve spoken out – is the readiness.  We can talk about Iran and Iraq, and we can talk about North Korea – but if you don’t have a strategic reserve, which we don’t have now – and those troops, when they’re being trained, they don’t have the equipment to train, and so they shift equipment all over the place.  And then they go into a field where they get the equipment, but they aren’t trained on the exact equipment they’ve used [sic].

Now going back to General Schoomaker’s comments – one of the problems we had in that operation was that those helicopters they flew, the pilots were not familiar with them…

CNN ended its coverage here.

My emphasis added.  He speaks the truth, and with conviction, yet again.

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

It has taken me a few days to collect my thoughts on the Bush veto of federal funding for stem cell research.

I was on my way to a meeting and listening to CNN via Sirius when he made his remarks to explain his reasoning for this, his first veto nearly six years into his Presidency.  Initially, I was absolutely infuriated as I listened.  Expletives leapt to my lips and streamed out.

I have since calmed down and taken a more analytical approach to what I like to call the Bush Moral Boundary.  Perhaps a further exploration and definition of these boundaries will help me better understand and see the logic behind the veto.

Make the jump.
Early on in the speech he said:

One of the bills Congress has passed builds on the progress we have made over the last five years. So I signed it into law. (Applause.) Congress has also passed a second bill that attempts to overturn the balanced policy I set. This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others. It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect, so I vetoed it.

It has literally taken me three days to suss through the thoughts that flooded my head when I heard him utter the words I bolded above.

So let’s talk about the Administration and Presidency of George W. Bush from the perspective of the Bush Moral Boundary.  Let’s really explore where those boundaries exist.

Health Care

Let’s start with health care.  Apparently the rising cost of health care and the increasing number of those who are uninsured are well within the Bush Moral Boundary.  From a 2004 report by the Democratic Policy Committee:

On President Bush’s watch, health coverage has become more expensive and millions have lost their health insurance. Health insurance premiums have increased by double-digit rates in each of the past three years. The escalating cost of health insurance and the substantial loss of jobs under the Bush Administration have increased the number of uninsured Americans by 3.8 million since 2000. The total number of uninsured Americans – who are overwhelmingly members of working families – now exceeds 43 million.

So when you read the diaries posted here at Daily Kos about the choices people are making – rent v. health care; food v. health care – Just console yourself with the knowledge that these situations are obviously within the Bush Moral Boundary.  Therefore it can’t be a bad thing.

Poverty

Accoring to an August 2005 article in The New York Times:

Even as the economy grew, incomes stagnated last year and the poverty rate rose, the Census Bureau reported Tuesday. It was the first time on record that household incomes failed to increase for five straight years.

Indeed – according to the Senate Democratic Joint Economic Committee, 4.3 million additional Americans have slid into poverty since George W. Bush took office.  In 2000, 31.6 million Americans were listed as below the poverty level.  in 2003, the figure was 35.9 million.  I can’t even guess at what the number is today, in 2006.

This is a topic that interests some of us here at Daily Kos as well.  PsiFighter37 recently wrote the excellent diary Poverty is a Moral Issue.  But it appears that his efforts and those of others in America are wasted – there aren’t any meaningful Bush Administration policies or concerted efforts to address the increasing rate of Americans in poverty.  We’ve wasted our efforts, because poverty is clearly within the Bush Moral Boundary.

War

War is a subject that usually sparks a great deal of conversation about morality.  According to AntiWar.com, as of July 18 2006, 2,556 American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq.  An additional 319 have lost their lives in Afghanistan.  The total, then, is just shy of the number of people who lost thier lives on September 11th.

The number of Iraqi deaths is difficult to estimate.  According to Iraq Body Count, anywhere between 39,250 and 43,709 civilians have been killed due to the U.S. military activities in Iraq.

Death tolls, both military and civilian, are not the only moral measure of war, however.  There is a larger question as to whether or not war itself is moral.  Further complicating the discussion is the previously unheard-of concept of “pre-emptive war”.  That phrase has always put me in mind of the Tom Cruise movie, Minority Report.  If you haven’t seen it, Tom Cruise plays a police officer in the division of “pre-crime”.  Essentially, the Pre-Crime unit uses some version of psychics to ferret out crimes before they happen and make arrests before anyone is victimized.  Of course, the psychics’ predictions can be manipulated by the powers-that-be to aid their own personal agendas.  Pre-emptive war is pretty much the same, and, it seems to me, likewise has the ability to be manipulated and directed.

But the moral position of war and death within the Bush Moral Boundaries is clear: War is fine.  Military deaths are fine.  Civilian deaths are fine.  So I guess I have one less thing to worry about.

Compassion

Let’s move along in our moral boundary inventory to something I will call “basic human compassion”.  The best example is, of course, Bush’s personal response to the events that unfolded after Hurricane Katrina.  A timeline best illustrates Bush’s compassionate approach:

• Late evening/early morning, August 28th/29th: Hurricane Katrina comes ashore in the gulf region.
• Evening, August 29:  News beginning to report that life-threatening flooding and devastation has hit the New Orleans area.  Bush visits Arizona (where he shares birthday cake with John McCain) and California to promote Medicare benefit.  No Bush statement on Katrina.
• August 30:  Rescue efforts continue.  First pictures of the devastation and human catastrophe emerge from the region.  Pictures of people trapped on roofs, at the Superdome, and the convention center begin to emerge.  Bush speaks at Naval base early in the day, travels to play guitar with country star Mark Willis.  No Bush statement on Katrina.
• August 31:  Conditions deteriorate at the Superdome and the Convention Center.  People are seen on network news begging for help – for food, water, evacuation.  The entire gulf region is declared a public health emergency.  Bush “surveys the damage” from Air Force One at about 35,000 feet.  Returned to Washington, Bush gives his first major address on Katrina, about which The New York Times said was “casual to the point of careless”.
• September 1:  Bush, now engaged with the Katrina disaster, makes statement that no one expected the levees to break.  People at the Superdome and Convention Center continue to suffer.  Countless people remain trapped in their flooded homes.
• September 2:  Bush finally watches DVD of news clippings assembled by his staff, which he missed while he was on vacation and wrapping himself in the flag.   He travels to the gulf region where he utters the now-famous “Brownie, you’re doin’ a heckuva job” line.  The National Guard finally arrives to provide aid for those stranded and begin evacuations.  Bush declares he is “satisfied” with the response to the crisis.

Well there you have it.  And just for the sake of clarity, I’ve added a picture of what the 9th ward of New Orleans looked like as recently as a week ago.  People’s homes have yet to be rebuilt, people remain displaced… Just yesterday, in the recommended diary Red Cow Truck, Miss Blue told us about the outrage of her Republican friend after he had recently driven through the gulf and New Orleans and encountered a man who had lived in the devastated lower-9th Ward.

But these people must be wrong.  Compassion, or dispassion, are clearly well within the Bush Moral Boundary.

So in summary, here’s where we stand:

WITHIN the Bush Moral Boundary

Lack of access to affordable health care
Poverty
War
Dispassion

OUTSIDE the Bush Moral Boundary

Potentially life-saving stem cell research

I guess I should be feeling much better now that a clear definition of the Bush Moral Boundary has been laid out and, like an electric dog fence around the yard, is protecting against moral escape.  All of these things I worry about – my fellow Americans and their plight – the plight of those who are circumstantially killed or maimed by our imperialistic policies – clearly I’ve wasted my time and angst.  Because the stem cells are, as I type this, safely frozen and will remain so, at least where Federal research grants are concerned.  They are still within the cocoon of the Bush Moral Boundary.  It makes me feel much better about all the dead people and all the people suffering from illness or ailment without access to assistance and all the people who are struggling (and failing) to make ends meet.

I suppose there’s nothing I really have to do.  I’m free to just go watch Oprah.

[promoted by BooMan]

I’m not the only person who has written here about Thomas Paine.  I was, however, pretty surprised to see that only 8 diaries had been previously tagged with Paine’s name.  No matter – Paine is a great subject and the story I’m going to tell is relevant not only to politics today, but to you specifically, because you’re reading this and it’s posted on a blog.

This will be a multi-part diary series.  I’ll complete additional parts as time allows.  Each diary will stand on its own, however.  The ultimate goal is to illuminate – to bring home to each and every one of you the relevance of Thomas Paine to your lives especially, and to the lives of Americans generally.

This diary and the ones that will follow arise out of my reading of an excellent book – Thomas Paine and the Promise of America.  Follow me after the fold.
I would not call myself a student of American History.  I was an all-around good student in both high school and college, however.  For me, this meant that I did very well in a lot of things rather than doing exceptionally well in one thing.  I suppose that explains why I didn’t become a doctor.  I know all the high points of American History from right before there was an America to the present day.  I can name all the big marquis names and I had heard of Thomas Paine prior to starting the book.  My impression of him was neutral – I certainly knew that he played an integral part in the American revolution, though I don’t know that I could have told you how or why.  At best, I believe I would have been able to speak very generally of his most famous revolutionary work, Common Sense.  That would have been about the limit of my discourse on Thomas Paine.

You see, I really had no idea of the political climate in the decade running up to the American Revolution.  Like most schools, there was a lot of history to learn and my American History class focused on the high points.  Dissatisfaction with England.  Uproar over taxes.  A bunch of tea dumped into Boston Harbor.  The midnight ride of Paul Revere.  War.  Washington crossing the Delaware.  Victory.  America.

Shameful, I know.  Even more frightening is the fact that I can name those events where most graduating high school seniors today cannot.  I find that now, in my 30s, and thanks to the guidance of people in real life and right here on this blog, I am becoming better acquainted with the nuance of American history.

Background

My first eye-opener came when I finished the first part of the book on Thomas Paine.

I’m likely not educating anyone here – I am certain that there are historical experts among our ranks – but pre-revolution America was a citizenry divided.  There was the “stay the course” camp, those who did not want to break away from the English monarchy.  From the book, p. 39:

The lawyers, merchants, landowners, and planters who debated in the Continental Congress and the colonial assemblies argued spiritedly and often radically.  The classes they represented would effectively direct the American Revolution.  Yet if history had to wait solely upon their deliberations, the rebellion might never have become a war for independence.  Even if it had by the time they got around to proclaiming the United States of America, it might well have been too late. And likely it would never have become the world-history-shaping event that it did.

America’s working classes – farmers, mechnics, laborers, seamen, servants, and slaves – would make the American Revolution a revolution.  They would not all realize their dreams, but they would power the struggle, materially, martially, and politically, indeed, at a most crucial moment, literally.  The Declaration of Independence, though drafted by a Virginia arisotocrat and edited by a committee of colonial gentlemen, issued from the force of Common Sense, authored by an immigrant workingman who would proudly describe himself as a “farmer of thoughts”.

Over many pages the book explains how the “establishment”, landowners and aristocrats, were hesitant to leave the monarchy.  As late as 1767, the colonial establishment, while enraged at the monarchy, held to the idea that its origins were “divine, natural and honorable”.  With less than a decade to go before the Revolution would be realized, more people were behind demanding their rights within the colonial structure than from breaking away and starting their own representative structure.  I can’t escape the modern-day parallel to the many “work within the system” diaries I have seen posted here and on other blogs.  Common Sense changed all of that.

If you haven’t read it, click here for a version you can read online.  What should leap out at you and what leapt out to those in the days of its release as well as to all the historians reflecting on Paine’s place in American history (for good or ill) was that it was written in a way that would appeal to all classes.  We all make use of the term “bloviating” when we refer to this Senator or that politician waxing poetic on some issue or another, without ever really saying anything.  Common Sense is the antithesis of bloviation.  He truly spoke truth to power and spoke it in such a way that it touched all elements of colonial society.  It was the first widely-dsitributed expression of “politics for the people” and it had its detractors in those who feared giving a political voice to those not already in the landowner aristocracy.

Common Sense was originally published and republished as a pamphlet and widely distributed throughout the colonies.  Those who couldn’t read had it read to them.  It was a seed for change in the months before the Revolution, and one which, some historians argue, tipped the balance towards declaring outright independence.

This is not an historical retrospective.  The high level at which I have covered Thomas Paine up to his authoring of Common Sense is absurd.  There’s so much more to be said by those who are expert here within this community as well as by historians with a depth of knowledge in the nine or so years I reference prior to the American Revolution.  My interest in Paine and his life as laid out in this book is in how it parallels what we, as Americans, face today.  With each of the diaries I plan to write I will give whatever minimum background is required for a basic understanding of the point or points I want to make.  This one is no different.

My Observations

Paine was a revolutionary who foresaw the promise of America – a promise that included all classes of people.  His particular gift was in being able to write in a way that spoke to the common, everyday person.  He seemed to know that Independence was what was required and that gaining that independence would necessitate a revolution.  He looked across the landscape of public sentiment as well as to the makeup of the colonies at the time in which he lived, and knew also that the revolution would be fought and won by the working classes.  He knew that it was to these people he had to appeal, and that’s what he did.  He did this in the communications form common to his day – in a pamphlet.  He was a pamphleteer.

The blog is the modern-day equivalent to the pamphlet of Paine’s era.  Those who write and comment and shape a community of opinion through blogging are not very different in this modern day than Thomas Paine was at the birth of our country.  The power that each of us holds – to inform, to pursuade, to agitate – is not far removed from the power Paine had in writing his seminal pamphlet.  The rumblings of dissatisfaction were present in Paine’s day.  The outrage at the monarchial governance was growing.  The situation was literally a powder keg and Paine was a match.

Where is the spirit of Thomas Paine today?  I would submit that it’s alive and well in the blogging community today.  Today, dissatisfaction exists in the general public.  A smaller subset is outraged.  The state of America, its politics and its citizens is a powder keg.  Which one of us will be the match?

(Cross-posted at Daily Kos)

(Cross-posted at Daily Kos, ePluribus Media, My Left Wing and my blog.  Sorry in advance for the persistent reference to Daily Kos but it was written initially for that audience but I felt it would be interesting reading here as well!)

I watch the news every morning as I’m getting dressed for work (yes, I have a day job – it really interferes with my blogging habit).  My preferred morning show is CNN’s American Morning.  In the way that only CNN can announce so-called “breaking news”, the tell-tale “breaking” music came on this morning and caught my attention.  I put down the hair brush and gave the TV my full attention for the announcement of (drumroll please) the resignation of Andy Card.  I listened to the commentary and found myself wishing…

Oh to be a fly on the wall as Bush made the decision to accept Card’s resignation.

Jump with me.
I can’t speak for everyone who writes, comments or simply lurks at Daily Kos and other blogs – but I definitely get a sense of the frustration we feel with our party.  It’s almost manic and has been for as long as I’ve been coming here (ca. November 2004).  Something big happens that is generally negative towards the President and/or the Republican party as a whole.  The buzz is immediate – diaries literally surge forth with analysis and speculation and well thought-out research and commentary.  The wire tappings would be an apt and recent example.  When news broke in mid-December that the administration had been unconstitutionally and illegally wire tapping domestic communications without adhering to FISA, it was blogged from every conceivable angle.  I jumped into fray myself with a dry but informative diary about the particulars and history of FISA.  Collectively, we swarmed around the information and raised the cry of “foul!” loudly and clearly.  We eagerly rubbed our hands together waiting for the Democratic shoe to drop – for our leaders to fully and finally leverage this outrage which had been served up on a silver platter.

And we rubbed.  And we waited.  And we read.  And we sighed.  And we waited.  And we got… well, essentially nothing.

And then the emotions violently swung back in the other direction – Quick!!  Duck – you’re going to get hit with it!!  We suck.  Our leaders couldn’t identify the difference between their ass and a hole in the wall.  We will never, ever win again.  The vichy-Dems are to blame – the DLC is to blame – Reid and Pelosi are to blame – everyone but Howard Dean just doesn’t get it.  And then, lo and behold – the numbers for not only the President but the Republican party as a whole are WAY down.  Tom Delay is imploding – Randy Duke Cunningham is taken away in handcuffs – Abramoff is going to spill the beans – they are a corrupt bunch of money-grubbing illegal surveillors, I tell you!!  (swing-duck)

You get the picture.

As many of you know, I went to the Crashing the Gate book signing in DC yesterday.  Due to a last-minute request from ePluribus Media, I wound up taking copious notes on Markos’ and Jerome’s comments and the question and answer session.  I’m glad that I did it – the mere process of trying to capture all of that information in writing, for me, allowed me to really focus on what was actually being said – my mind was not allowed to wander (which it does quite frequently).

One of the things that Markos particularly focused on was the need to take the “long view”.  At times as he spoke, that view was either 10-12 years or even 10-15 years.  10-15 years.  My instictive reaction to those moments was to cringe and think “Jesus Christ – I can’t wait that long!!”  Yet reflection this morning delivered the truth of that statement to me loud and clear.  One questioner made an interesting comment in the context of setting Democratic priorities.  She said (paraphrased):

“We always seem to be running around putting out fires that are set by Republicans.”

(swing-duck)  I can’t escape the fundamental and blanket truth of that statement.  It has been echoed in many, many diaries and front-page stories on Daily Kos.  We are reactive – not proactive.  We always seem back-on-our-heels.  The frustration that breeds is palpable.  The only answer to that flaw is to take a long view.  I find that inherently depressing even while recognizing that it’s absolutely necessary and accurate.

So where’s the juxtaposition?  How do we make our advancement in the short-term while planning always for the long-term?  How do we save what we can today while planning not only our future goals and moves but also planning to undo the damage done while we were being reactive and they proactive?

I don’t have a simple answer to that question – sorry.  But what I do have now, today, is the ability to look at events occuring now and in the recent past that give me hope, hope that will keep me fighting, pressing, and moving forward.

Which brings me full-circle to the that fly on the wall.  My fly on the wall exists in a speculative scenario – let’s be clear on that up-front – but I don’t think what my fly sees and hears is beyond the scope of the believable.  Sometime in the past week, my fly on the wall heard and saw something like this:

HASTERT: Mr. President.  We have an election year coming up and Republicans are worried.  Even our numbers on national security are softening.  You don’t have to run again, but we do.  Your approval ratings are dragging us down.  You must make some changes, very public ones, in your leadership.

BUSH: Denny, I’m not going to do that.  I’m a loyal guy and I’m loyal to the people who have served me all these years.  Andy Card is a friend and good guy.  I’m not going to get rid of him just because you guys can’t get anything done in Congress.

FRIST: Mr. President, this is obviously your decision and we can’t tell you what to do.  But if you keep doing what you’ve been doing and don’t make a public effort to make some changes, not one item on your second-term agenda is going to make it through Congress.  Republican Senators and Representatives can’t and won’t sacrifice their re-elections to stand behind your policy initiatives.

HASTERT: Look at the Dubai deal – we couldn’t and wouldn’t back you on that because we’d lose our jobs.  Iraq doesn’t look good to the American public.  No one seems to have a passion or willingness to back your Social Security initiatives.  Medicare isn’t going well in the public’s opinion.  We still have the Libby, DeLay, Abramoff and Safavian scandals hanging over our heads, and Specter, a member of your own party, is pushing forward the effort on hearings on the domestic wiretapping issue.  And do I even need to mention how the ongoing devastation in the Gulf region looks to Americans?  We can’t publicly support you with these things happening.  It’s time to turn the tide.

BUSH: I’ve made public statements of support for my staff, Denny.  But thank you for coming by here to talk to me.

(HASTERT and FRIST leave)

ROVE: (Inaudible – whispering to the President)

BUSH: (picks up phone) Andy, we need to talk.

Buzz buzz.  And with that, Card is out and Bolten is in.  And White House whisperings indicate that this will not be the end of the so-called “shake up”.

Daily Kos readers specifically and progressive bloggers generally, I find, are astute.  You can read what I’ve written above and draw the conclusion that the move to replace Card with Bolten is a sign and a signal that Congressional Republicans are waking up and are working hard to wake up the President.  On balance, “getting a clue” is not what we want.  But I would argue that, while you may be correct in your assessment in this moment, these capitulations (which were unthinkable in 2002 or 2003) are a sign of what Markos said at the signing yesterday.  Kerry’s loss signified the beginning of the end of the conservative movement as we know it.  Republican policies are bad policies that can’t stand over time.  It’s like the person who steals and steals and steals – eventually, they get caught.  I believe that.  It’s no different where Republican policies are concerned.

So I would offer this little glimmer of hope – the Democratic party is changing.  Think about the press and buzz Crashing the Gate is receiving.  Think about how, two years ago, CNN didn’t even speak about blogs and how they feature them regularly today.  Think about the role you personally have played and are playing in the change that is afoot.  The Democratic party will function differently in 2006 in part because of what this place and others represents – the change it embodies.  And 2006 will be different than how it’s going to be done in 2008, etc. and so on.  So-called “Establishment Democrats” will face a time of choosing:  Change or be struck from the process.

Keep your chins up, my revered friends.  We and those like us are an awesome power that is surging forward.  Work hard – embrace the 50-state strategy and do what you can to make it a realization.  If we don’t take back either house of Congress in 2006, step back and recognize that any gains are an increment of the greater goal we must accomplish.

(swing-duck)  (buzz buzz)

(Cross-posted at Daily Kos and my blog)

While rightfully distracted by the ill-conceived (and frankly ridiculous) proposal to cede control of six major US ports to a company controlled by a foreign government, we have barely registered the fact that a blatant frontal attack is being mounted at the state level which threatens a woman’s right to choose.

In the first substantive challenge likely to come before the newly-configured SCOTUS, South Dakota lawmakers are getting ready to vote on a bill that would outlaw nearly all abortions in the state.

Make the jump.
Background

Via the Salt Lake Tribune:

If the bill passes a narrowly divided Senate in a vote expected today, and is signed by Gov. Michael Rounds, a Republican who opposes abortion, advocates of abortion rights have pledged to immediately challenge it in court – which is precisely what the bill’s supporters have in mind.

Optimistic about the new additions to the U.S. Supreme Court, some abortion opponents say they have new hope that a court fight over a ban here could lead to the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that asserted the legality of abortion around the country.

With this ominous backdrop, the stage is set, quickly, for the first real test that could come before the SCOTUS designed to return abortion rights determinations to the states.

Worried?  You should be.  Here is what South Dakota Governor Michael Rounds said in his 2006 “State of the State” address (PDF):

We are taking actions to save innocent young lives in South Dakota and to help people better understand the act of abortion before it may occur.

Although this is an initiative that will be undertaken at a state level, success of the bill will lay the groundwork for a challenge at the SCOTUS level.  The provisions of the South Dakota legislation ban abortion in all instances except where there is risk to the life of the mother.  This is in direct opposition to the provisions of Roe v. Wade, which make banning abortion in the first trimester illegal.  The bill has already passed by 47 to 22 in the House of Representatives and the Senate Committee which has to approve the legislation has approved and passed it up to the narrowly-divided Senate.  It will come up for a Senate vote as early as today.  While Governor Rounds has declined to directly discuss the ban, he did say the following:

“I’m not sure how the bill will come down so I’ll hold off on discussions until they deliver the bill to me.”

Rounds says he knows the state would be sued if the bill passes, but says he’s heard there could be donations that would cover the court costs.

It certainly looks to me like he’s circling the wagons.

NARAL

I’m going to revisit NARAL and it’s not necessarily going to be friendly.  I was greatly disappointed by NARAL’s non-response to the Alito nomination.    NARAL went into a fundraising frenzy when Sam Alito’s nomination was announced.  Given that an overwhelming majority of Americans believe that abortion should remain legal (see PollingReport’s abortion numbers here), NARAL was in a favorable position to leverage public opinion in opposing the Alito nomination — yet they seem distracted by putting their funds towards pro-choice candidates who later betrayed them and their benefactors by allowing the Alito nomination to come to a cloture vote.  I don’t know about you, but that’s simply not how I want my donations to be spent.

I went looking on NARAL’s site for a clear statement of mission and I found it here:

NARAL Pro-Choice America Mission Statement

NARAL Pro-Choice America’s mission is to develop and sustain a constituency that uses the political process to guarantee every woman the right to make personal decisions regarding the full range of reproductive choices, including preventing unintended pregnancy, bearing healthy children, and choosing legal abortion.

Personally, I think it’s clear and well-written.  I also think it’s high time NARAL returned to serving its mission.  The South Dakota legislative abortion ban is exactly where donor’s dollars should be spent.  Yet I found no reference on NARAL’s home page to South Dakota.  The only reference is found this way: a visitor has to select the state bill tracker and then select from the map the state about which they want additional information.  Once a state is selected, you can see information about both anti-choice and pro-choice legislation.  The point is, though, you have to know what you’re looking for.  I depend on NARAL to get the word out on what I should be looking for because the likelihood that I just stumble upon it in time to do anything about it is very small.  The South Dakota H 1215 bill proves my point exactly.  Finding out about it only today is too late to have substantive influence at the state level.  The vote is occurring as I type.

NARAL is critical in these times of pro-choice peril.  Yet they seem to have strayed from their mission.  While it pains me to say this, drastic measures may be required.  Money talks in this effort, and we can’t afford to let NARAL slip into ineffectiveness.  NARAL supporters need to contact them and clearly convey the message that NARAL has to focus on threatening legislation like South Dakota’s H 1215.  Write NARAL and tell them that you won’t give your money to them if they continue to focus their dollars and effort on electing so-called pro-choice candidates who succumb to party pressure where the rubber meets the road.  Let them know that they should be fighting at every opportunity to give visibility and opposition to these illegal, anti-choice efforts ocurring in our country.

Contact information:

NARAL Pro-Choice America
1156 14th Street NW
Suite 700
Wwashington, DC  20005
Phone: 202-973-3000
Fax: 202-973-3096
Email: can@ProChoiceAmerica.org
Feedback Form

(Cross-posted at Daily Kos and my blog)

Yesterday I did a diary on a proposed Constitutional amendment to give Congress the power to regulate campaign finances.  Really, an editorial in The Washington Post caught my eye and I decided I’d do a diary on it.  It’s not an incendiary or especially “WOW”-ish subject and I was pleasantly surprised to see it make the recommended list and to see some discussion, pro and con, on the issue.  The comment thread also produced alternatives and information about other initiatives to accomplish the same essential goal.

One commenter indicated that s/he felt that campaign finance reform (in whatever iteration) and the integrity of the vote were the two single biggest issues with which Dems should be dealing.  Whether or not to agree with the prioritization, voting integrity is up there on the list.  I subscribe to an email list from VoteTrustUSA.org and below the fold, I’d like to highlight some of the information they’ve sent me.
The first thing in the email that caught my eye was an area for actions that people can take on a local level:

National: Pass HR 550 As Written! ~ Clicking the link will take you to a page where you can enter your information and write your relevant Congresspeople urging them to pass HR 550 as written.

National: Say No to Prohibited Software in Voting Machines! ~ Clicking here will allow you to send a message to all four of the Election Assistance Commission’s Commissioners, putting them on notice that citizens are watching the actions of Diebold and others.

Iowa – Support SF 351 ~ Residents of Iowa can follow this link to write their Iowa State House Representative urging passage of SF 351, legislation that creates a paper trail for voting.  The Iowa State Senate has already passed the measure.

Maryland: Support HB 244 and SB 713 ~ This will send a letter to your Maryland State Senator urging passage of HB 244, legislation that not only requires a voter-verified paper trail but which also calls for a percentage hand-counted audit to ensure inegrity in Maryland’s voting process.

Pennsylvania: Support HB 2000 and S 977 ~ This allows you to write you PA State Representative urging support for HB 2000 and your PA State Senator demanding passage of S 977.  Both pieces of legislation call for a voter-verified paper trail.

Washington: Audit All Voting Machines! – Support HB-2532 ~ This will send a letter to your Washington State Representative demanding the audit of all voting system through passage of HB 2532.

VoteTrustUSA.org also has a weekly feature of the top 5 news stories related to voting and voting integrity.  Here’s what they highlighted this past week:

The Top Five Stories from the Past Week’s Daily Voting News by John Gideon, VotersUnite.org and VoteTrustUSA

#5 – In Arizona the state legislature ignored past voting machine counting errors as they refused to adopt legislation to require a 5% hand-counted audit. As reported by the Arizona Daily Star the legislation did not even make it out of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

#4 – Meanwhile, in next door neighbor New Mexico, VoteTrustUSA reports that in the last few hours of the legislative session the legislature passed a bill to require optical-scan voting and to ban DREs. This bill had the approval of the Governor, Attorney General, and Secretary of State and was a result of hard work from voting activists from across the state and nationally. Groups like Verified Voting New Mexico, United Voters of New Mexico, and Voter Action deserve a lot of credit for the work they did to get this passed.

#3 – The state of Illinois seems to be in an awful hurry to certify Sequoia voting machines for use in the state. Maybe because Chicago and suburban Cook County have already signed a contract for more than $50M with the Venezuelan owned Sequoia Voting Systems. As reported by Robert A. Wilson of the Illinois Ballot Integrity Project in VoteTrustUSA, the system that has been state certified and has already been contracted for is not even 2002 compliant.

#2 – The lines are being drawn in Maryland. On one side are voting activists and the governor. On the other side is the state elections chief, Linda Lamone and her friends at Diebold. Last week was a busy week in the state. The Baltimore Chronicle announced that the state legislature and civic groups had united for voter verified paper ballot legislation with the filing of SB713, with 23 co-sponsors. Then Avi Rubin opined that flawed election machines were leaving state voters guessing. Following this the Baltimore Sun announced that Governor Erlich had stated that the state was not ready to hold elections and that he was now coming out with his support for a paper trail. In the meantime, RawStory revealed that documents show elections and a primary were held on uncertified voting machines. And, BradBlog reported on the potential damage that the news would have on Diebold. In an attempt at ‘damage control’ Linda Lamone and Diebold ignored the facts and told all who would listen that the state’s voting system was the best in the nation.

#1 – This week was a big news week in California. State Senator Debra Bowen held a hearing to discuss open source voting software and voting systems certification. In that hearing one county election official, Warren Slocum of San Mateo County, questioned the use of vendor provided software and voting systems. Then on Friday afternoon just before a holiday weekend, the Secretary of State announced that he was going to conditionally certify two Diebold voting systems; the Accuvote OS and Accuvote TSx. This surprise certification was welcomed with amazement from some in the activist community and with questioning comments from Sen. Bowen. Why was the announcement made late on a Friday afternoon? Why did the SoS see fit to send a letter to Diebold, the Independent Test Authorities, the National Association of Secretaries of State, and the National Association of State Elections Directors but not to the Election Assistance Commission?

You can also have one-stop shopping for other news at both the national and state levels on voting integrity issues:

National Stories

ACM Study Group Issues Voter Registration Guidelines To Assure Privacy and Accuracy

Twists and Turns – Who Owns Sequoia?

News From Around the States

Alaska: Division of Elections Delays Release of Election Records

Arizona: State Senator Huppenthal Guts Election Reform Bill

Diebold in California: Who’s Responsible?

California: Why Is San Francisco Rolling The Dice With Sequoia?

Illinois May Have Violated State Law In Desperate Effort To Certify Voting Machines

Maryland: Governor Ehrlich’s Letter To State Board of Elections

Flawed Election Machines Leave Maryland Voters Guessing

Paper Ballot Victory In New Mexico

Pennsylvania Citizens’ Right To Choose Voting Machines Upheld In Court

Hopefully you get the gist.  I am not a voting integrity specialist by any means.  I see a valiant focus by some diarists here on Daily Kos on the subject of electronic voting, verified voting, voting integrity and both local and national efforts.  These diaries mostly kind of slide by – with the recent exception of this one by ms in la on the Diebold/California issue.

So I have a question – would a twice monthly diary of this kind, one that gives you a brief overview of what’s going on in the work of voting integrity be useful?  I’ll post a poll question to see what everyone thinks.

Regarless, VoteTrustUSA.org has been a very valuable source for me to stay informed about the issues, who is championing them, what states are taking action and what states are not, which elected officials support voting integrity and verificaiton vs. which ones oppose it, etc.  I encourage you to sign up for their weekly newsletter so you can have a top level view of the critical issues of voting integrity as the ’06 elections loom.

(Cross-posted at Daily Kos and my blog)

It’s been a wild week over at Daily Kos.  We hate professional politicians.  We love professional politicians.  We hate liberal talking heads.  We think Kossacks are missing the point.  We post diaries to lift the spirits of our fellow Kossacks, designed to highlight the good and not the bad.  We witness the emergence of a Kossack “leader” (and hopefully get his point in the process), and we debate the ups and downs of actually winning in ’06.  All the while we have had both excellent and downright goofy diaries on the birdshot-heard-round-the-world.

So now allow me to switch gears to a discussion of an issue that isn’t sexy or necessarily inflammatory.  Money, politics, the power of potential reform, and the value of 624 hours.
In his Washington Post editorial, former Senator Ernest “Fritz” Hollings makes a simple and compelling case for a Constitutional amendment to drive substantive fundraising and finance reform.

There is a cancer on the body politic: money.

Indeed.  It’s so obvious to all of us that money in politics, the need for money in politics and all the activities designed to ensure that money makes its way into politics and into the war chests of politicians is a corrupting issue.  Before reading the editorial, however, I had no idea how much of a politician’s time is spent raising money:

When I came to the Senate in 1966, we invariably would have a vote scheduled for 9 a.m. Monday to be sure that we started the week at work. And the Senate regularly was voting Friday afternoon. Now you can’t find the Senate until Monday evening, and it’s gone again by Thursday night. We’re off raising money. We use every excuse for a “break” to do so. In February it used to be one day for Washington’s birthday and one for Lincoln’s. Now we’ve combined them so we can take a week off to raise money. There’s Easter week, Memorial Day week, Fourth of July week and the whole month of August. There’s Columbus Day week, Thanksgiving week and the year-end holidays. While in town, we hold breakfast fundraisers, lunch fundraisers, and caucuses to raise funds. The late senator Richard Russell of Georgia said a senator was given a six-year term — two years to be a statesman, two to be a politician and two to demagogue. Now we take all six years to raise money.

Let’s stop and contemplate that.  People like me, who are (thankfully) employed full-time and hold exempt (salaried, not hourly) status work 2,080 hours in a year.  In my case, 72 hours hours are paid vacation days.  I get 80 hours of paid vacation time and have the option of using 40 hours of sick leave.  If I took all of these optional hours, I would work 1,888 hours annually.

Since time is not altered for public officials, let’s work with the same 2,080-hour baseline as in my example above (and yes, I know that many of us – including me – work many more than 40 hours a week – I had to compare somewhere). I’ll be kind and only remove Fridays when the Congress is in session from a Senator’s “real” work, for a total of 320 hours.  Christmas and New Year’s holidays – 80 hours.  February President’s week – 40 hours.  Easter week – 40 hours.  Memorial Day week – 40 hours.  4th of July week – 40 hours.  Entire month of August – 176 hours.  Columbus Day week – 40 hours.  Thanksgiving week – 40 hours.  That’s a grand total of 816 hours which, when subtrated from the 2,080 baseline, yields total actual work of 1,264 hours.  If you’re keeping score at home, this is what it looks like:

Salaried humanity works 1,888 hours annually.
Salaried Congresspeople work 1,264 hours annually.

Call me crazy, but do you think the additional 624 hours would benefit a member of Congress by, say, giving them time to read legislation?  Just a thought.

Hollings does a good job of explaining how it used to be compared to how it is.  He talked about Maurice Stans’ fundraising activities for Richard Nixon and explains how that led to legislation in 1974 that limited candidates’ spending (and therefore fundraising) to x dollars per voter.  In the case of Hollings and South Carolina senator Strom Thurmond, the limit was $637,000 for their campaigns.  Hollings says:

Fast-forward 30 years, taking into account inflation and the larger number of voters. Today a South Carolina race for the U.S. Senate would be limited to $3 million — if the spending limits were still in effect. But the limits did not survive a court challenge; they were thrown out in a 1976 Supreme Court decision that has had disastrous consequences. So in 1998 I had to raise $8.5 million to be elected senator. This meant I had to collect $30,000 a week, each and every week, for six years. I could have raised $3 million in South Carolina. But to get $8.5 million I had to travel to New York, Boston, Chicago, Florida, California, Texas and elsewhere. During every break Congress took, I had to be out hustling money. And when I was in Washington, or back home, my mind was still on money.

I’m not breaking any ground by saying that spending and fundraising in the process of being elected to office is out of control.  What really caught my attention in Hollings’ editorial was this argument:

From the beginning, candidates have had to raise money, qualify and run. It was the candidate’s character and policy that attracted contributions — the more contributions the merrier. But people resented the rich buying elections, either as candidates or contributors. What the court did in 1976 [in Buckley v. Valeo, legislation that declared the 1974 limits an unconstitutional limit to free speech] was to give the rich, who don’t have to raise money, a big advantage — in effect, a greater degree of freedom of speech than others have. No one can imagine that in drafting the First Amendment to the Constitution, James Madison thought freedom of speech would be measured by wealth. The Supreme Court, which has found constitutional other limits on speech, has rendered Madison’s freedom unequal. Congress must make it equal again.

Imagine that – the wealthy have freer speech than those of lesser means.  Enter the Jack Abramoff’s of the world and the corrupt K Street lobbyists:

Recently the cancer of money has metastasized. The Jack Abramoff scandal has revealed the poisoning of our democracy. The K Street lobbyists have become a cottage industry. A legislator who seeks money will do well to take onto his or her staff someone a lobbyist recommends. The staffer then arranges the industry fundraisers. And K Street tells you outright that if you don’t have a Republican lobbyist, your legislation is not going anywhere.

The lobbyists don’t bother with the senator; they take the staff to lunch. Legislation is not drafted in the Senate but in the law offices. Staffs are queried to make sure the senator is favorably disposed and once there are enough senators so inclined, the measure moves to the party leadership’s staff. The next thing you know, the measure is a party position and becomes “must” legislation. Sometimes a senator is on the way to the floor to vote on it, asking his staff, “What’s this all about?” and the staff replies, “You’re for this, vote ‘aye,’ or you’re against this, vote ‘nay.'”

Although Hollings’ conclusion comes in the middle of the editorial, it is simple and it is this:

What is needed is a simple one-line amendment to the Constitution. It would authorize Congress to regulate or control spending in federal elections.

The political pollyanna in me believes with absolute conviction that the vast majority of individuals who decide to run for public office do so out of a sense of duty and a belief that, if elected, they can make a difference for their constituents and Americans as a whole.  In the beginning they are, in my opinion, motivated by ideology.  But the constant necessity to raise and collect money in order to hold one’s position to institute change corrupts the politician and therefore the process.  Again – no great revelation there.

The Supreme Court will be taking up the issue of Buckley v. Valeo next month.  From US News and World Report:

That may change next week when U.S. Supreme Court justices consider the constitutionality of a Vermont law that takes on the troublesome partner–the court’s own 1976 landmark Buckley v. Valeo campaign finance ruling, which limits individual contributions to political campaigns but allows candidates to spend as much as they please in pursuit of public office.

Fat chance the money- and corporation-conscious SCOTUS will make any groundbreaking decisions, but I can dream, can’t I?  Given that it’s unlikely the SCOTUS will limit campaign spending commensurate pre-Buckley v. Valeo efforts, a Consitituional amendment is what solves the problem.  In the wake of the Abramoff scandal and the Duke Cunningham scandal and the Delay scandal and [insert your scandal here], the time is right to write your Congresspersons and demand meaningful reform in the form of an amendment.  Public visibility on the issue is high, and all but the most far-right of right-wing Congresspeople have an ’06 election advantage to calling for the amendment – they can take the high ground and claim ownership of “meaningful” reform and free all but the most cynical and power-hungry to return to the roots of why they sought public office in the first place.

And remember – if my pollyanna-ish brushstrokes have painted an unlikely scenario, the people – you and I – have the power to amend the Consitution.  Yes, I realize that a Constitutional Convention has never been used to successfully amend the Constitution – but the language is there and if I know one thing, it’s that if we don’t focus on it it will never happen.

Finally, gaining seats in the 2006 mid-term elections could substantially increase the liklihood of a legislative amendment effort.  If Democrats are to retake one or both houses of Congress, it will be on a desire by the American public to change the complexion on Washington DC.  A huge part of that is any effort to reform Congressional corruption.  This amendment should be a talking point for every Democrat who throws their hat into the ring.

(Cross-posted at Daily Kos and my blog)

Thunderstruck

That’s what I am – thunderstruck.  I am reading a book – nonfiction.  I’ll give the details after the substantive body of the diary because I don’t want any distraction from the message that floored me.

There has been a lot of talk here lately – much of it very valuable – that centers around the leadership of the Democratic party, the state of the American in which we find ourselves living, and dedication to righting the wrongs we see in front of us.  Attendant to these diaries is a great deal of frustration – a sense that many of us are hanging on by our teeth, fighting the good fight, but becoming slowly worn down by the news, by our perceived (and often very real) lack of progress, and much gnashing of teeth and clenching of fists about the future that lies ahead of each of us.  Things are hanging in the balance.

Allow me to provide a little bit of thunderstruck relevance through historical perspective and then apply that to the challenge we face today.

This begins after the fold.
The book I’m reading has been very enjoyable.  It really has nothing to do with politics, though it is nonfiction and provides history commensurate with the story it is trying to tell.  To wit, allow me to share this excerpt, which I read this morning:

(Speaking about the political and cultural climate of the early 1900’s in America)

Forging prototypes of the modern corporation, [the robber barons] built the backbone for America’s twentieth century almost entirely without government interference or regulation, and with even less regard for individual human lives.  The resulting Midas-like riches they hoarded exclusively for members of their own class, and greeted protests they should do otherwise with sneering contempt.  By the turn of the century, through the influence of their various “trusts” – i.e., strangleholds – the super-rich controlled virtually every level of the country’s financial and political life.  All that was about to change.

Inspired by Teddy Roosevelt’s presidential activism and led by a crusading younger generation of reformers, during the new century’s first decade the growing labor movement mounted a stand against robber baron capitalism.  A war for the hearts and minds of the nation’s middle class ensued.  Newpapers owned by the bosses presented money’s side of the argument to a complacent public conditioned to believe what they were told.  The Dickensian realities of the sweatshop and slaughterhouse, the mine and mill, wouldn’t be given a national voice until the intellectual muckrakers of Greenwich Village found theirs.

I don’t know about you, but I was immediately thunderstruck by the parallels I see to the struggle in which we are embroiled today.  Allow me the conceit of re-writing the above excerpt with relevance to the state of things today:

Forging prototypes of the modern corporatocracy, the Republicans built the backdrop for America’s twenty-first century almost entirely without government interference or regulation, and with even less regard for individual human lives.  The resulting Midas-like riches they hoarded exclusively for members of their own class, and greeted protests they should do otherwise with sneering contempt and tax cuts for the wealthy.  By the turn of the century, through the influence of their various “corporate interests” – i.e., strangleholds – the super-rich controlled virtually every level of the country’s financial and political life.  All that was about to change.

Inspired by grass-roots activism and led by a crusading younger generation of internet-savvy reformers, during the new century’s first six years the growing accountability movement mounted a stand against Republican capitalism.  A war for the hearts and minds of the nation’s middle class ensued.  Newpapers and media outlets owned by the bosses presented, almost exclusively, money and security’s side of the argument to a complacent public conditioned to believe what they were told and react fearfully.  The Dickensian realities of the state of civil rights and the plight of the working middle class, the mine and factory, wouldn’t be given a national voice until the intellectual muckrakers of the blogosphere found theirs.

A close inspection, I hope, will show that I didn’t change that many words and that, conceptually, the two paragraphs are remarkably similar with the only variant being historical context.

The point is, although things are bad today – our rights are being shredded; as a population, we show an amazing lack of alarm at a secretive and intrusive government; we seem unable and/or unwilling to demand accountability with an effective consolidated voice – you can insert your most dire issue(s) – things have been bad before and the only reason anything improved was the unwillingness of a group of educated and motivated people to sit down and shut up.

Think again in the context of the modern labor movement of the early 1900’s and the suffrage movement of the late 1800’s and early 1900’s.  Upton Sinclar (among others) was the voice of the labor movement, exposing and giving concrete form to abuses suffered by the workers who built the rising industrial Era.  Alice Paul chained herself to the White House fence and undertook a hunger strike, once incarcerated, to shed light on the egregious treatment of women evidenced by their lack of a right to vote.  There were many other voices who raised the collective awareness for these issues into the general public.  The mouthpieces were activists who probably felt, many times, that they stood utterly alone, screaming into a vacuum.  But their words and their cause broke through despite all the factors that were unfairly stacked against them.

I generally believe that I can’t point to a politician, today, who has fully demonstrated the capability to remove themselves from politics enough to lead this cause for change.  But I am aptly and gratefully reminded that it was average people, citizens who picked their heads up just long enough to see what was really wrong, who took up the cause for change and led our nation into a new era.  I’m sure they despaired at times – I’m sure also that they even considered giving up, so precipitous were the forces aligned against them.  But they didn’t.  They held fast to the fundamental and inseparable conviction that things were wrong and had to be made right.

I believe with absolute conviction that this is a purpose we can serve effectively.  Look at all the media and political rhetoric we cut through here at Daily Kos.  Look at all the fine works of investigative journalism, unbound by corporate pressure, to which this site has given a platform.  Look at the rise of attention given to blogs and to bloggers in the traditional media within the last year alone.  Look at the influence that we can and have wielded and the attention this brings us from elected representatives.  Look at it.

And realize that the change has to be driven and nurtered and developed – it will not just happen – and resolve yourself to play whatever part you can in that change.

It’s coming – make sure you stay on board and keep working at what your heart tells you is right.  The stakes are immeasurably high.  If you remember nothing else from this diary, remember that others have traveled your road of frustration and have gone on to do great things –  injustice and just plain wrongness can’t stand forever.

And incidentally, the book is The Greatest Game Ever Played and it’s about GOLF – a legendary match between Harry Vardon and Francis Ouimet that happened in the 1913 US Open.  I didn’t want to lead with the book for fear that some readers might find a golf book not sufficient to provide inspirational political guidance.  But that’s what I read in it, and I thought it was important to pass along.

(Cross-posted at Daily Kos and my blog)

I have the good fortune to split my time between an actual office and a home office.  I have the further good fortune of having access to C-SPAN in both places, as well as CNN – either on TV or via my satellite radio setup in the office.

This past week, a lot of the news sources I listen to regularly have been having discussions about Ken Mehlman, Hilary Clinton, Democratic anger, and the 2006 and 2008 elections.

Make the jump.
If you’re just catching up, Hilary Clinton gave an infamous (for whatever period of time) speech on Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday where she referred to the Republican-controlled House of Representatives as a “plantation” where opposing voices are silenced.

Riding the coattails of the news-garnering Clinton speech, Ken Mehlman, Chairman of the RNC, joined the fray:

“When you think of the level of anger, I’m not sure it’s what Americans want,” said Ken Mehlman, head of the Republican National Committee.

–snip–

“I don’t think the American people, if you look historically, elect angry candidates. And whether it’s the comments about the plantation or the worst administration in history, Hillary Clinton seems to have a lot of anger,” Mehlman told ABC’s This Week.

Here is Hilary Clinton’s direct response (sort of – through a spokesperson):

When contacted for a response, Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said, “If the president and the White House spent half as much time worrying about the runaway deficit and the broken Medicare system as they do about Hillary Clinton, the country would be in much better shape.”

Nothing wrong with that statement, right?  It focuses the attention on issues that matter, right?  Well, in my view, yes and no.  While it’s important to focus on the issues, and especially the issues that show so clearly the ineptitude of the current administration, I also don’t think it’s wrong to be angry.  What’s wrong is letting the other side define your anger as to whether it’s “good” anger (the kind that spurs people to seek justice and right wrongs, etc.) vs. “bad” anger.  Apparently, the post-9/11 variety of anger that led to the Afghanistan invasion is “good” anger.  Anger at corruption and Constitutional defiance is “bad” anger.  By not standing up and saying “I’m angry and now let me tell you why” you cede the definition of good vs. bad anger to those who want to paint you in the worst possible light.

We are angry.  You need only to go and watch this highlight video of speeches at Coretta King’s funeral service to understand the why behind the anger – billions for tax cuts.  Budget cuts that disproportionately affect the poor among us, many of whom have joined these ranks from the middle class during the Bush administration.  Civil liberties violated again and again – in this United States, in the year 2006.  Defiantly violated.  Arrogantly violated.  Self-righteously violated.  Untold thousands injured, maimed and killed in Iraq, sent there with a belief that they were defending our nation only to find out that the basis for their incursion was inherently false.

Of course we’re angry.

Average, every-day people are angry.  Read a transcript (done by me) of these two calls to C-SPAN not an hour ago – they were entertaining calls on the Republican, Independent and Democratic lines on the subject of whether or not the Democratic party is “angry”, whether that anger will work for or against them, and whether or not callers feel the Democratic party serves them appropriately:

HOST: next call is a call on the Democrat’s line.  Pittsburgh Pennsylvania, welcome to our dicussion on party politics.

CALLER: Yes… um… You know what – the Democrats are angry – the Republicans are using it as a strategy – but this is the way they operate.  They use something that’s true but then they twist it – they use smoke and mirrors.  Their talking heads – the Sean Hannitys the O’Reillys… they are the ones that are out there spewing anger and hatred while Democrats are trying to get across facts.  And most of America is so afraid of intelligent politicians that they like to spin them as angry.  And I’d like to say, real quick, the Democrats by and large – they do not want Hilary Clinton.  So, that’s another part of our frustration – she keeps getting shoved down our throats.  We don’t want her.  And we have a lot to be frustrated and angry about when Gonzales isn’t sworn in and he’s lying about wiretapping as over 2,000 men and women are killed over lies… There’s a whole lot – America should be angry and should turn it into a very very intelligent message.  And if the rest of America could sit down and listen to it – if they could accept – the truth hurts – if they could accept that we have a lying [inaudible]… This administration is so corrupt and it hurts to see such a great country brought down by the – you know – very corrupt people.  So they – that’s what they do.  They use it.  They spin it.

HOST: Thank you for the call Pittsburgh.  Milton Massachusetts – good morning – Democrats line.

CALLER:  Good morning.  I’m a Democrat and I’m very angry.  What I’m most angry about is having 51% of my tax money going into the military industrial complex while our troops in Iraq go unsupported, unarmed, unrelieved, un-everything.  Iraqi-wounded veterans, our veterans, American veterans – they’re dying on the streets because Bush has cut veteran’s benefits six years in a row now with the 2007 budget.  He’s cut them so that ciilians have to build hospitals to rehab Iraqi wounded vets.  

HOST: Now caller, since we’re talking politics this morning, where is the outlet for your anger in party politics, is there someone speaking on your behalf and how successful will that message be to the larger public?

CALLER:  Who is speaking on my behalf?  I’m the only one I know of speaking on my behalf.  

HOST: So are you unhappy with the Democratic party for not … picking up on the message that matters so much to you?

CALLER:  The Democratic party is picking up on it beautifully.  Your so-called liberal media is the people not picking up on it.  What they’re picking up on is our anger and not the message because they can’t print the message!  They can’t print the message that Bush is bankrupting the United States.  That we have Nazi concentration camps and torture prisons.  We have Nazi laws on our books now.  The same law that Hitler used to pick up Jews in Germany we have in the United States.  It’s called CAFRA – Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act where someone could be picked up for the act of terrorism  – which is exactly what the Jews were picked up for – the act of terrorism – they even used the same words – and whoever is picked up for terrorism in the United States is picked up outside of our justice system, outside of the court system.  They can be taken to GITMO, all their property can be confiscated, and guess who it’s given to?  In the law that I read, which may have be changed now – JOHN ASHCROFT is named in the law as the person to whom all assets are to be consigned to.  Not to a department of our government but to John Ashcroft.  Now tell me that that’s not unconscionable.

HOST: Caller, let me – let me jump in.

CALLER: (yelling) In the United States.  In the United States!!

HOST: Caller, we have to move on.

My emphasis added.  Both of those callers are angry and they have no problem giving a voice to that anger and applying a rationale to its emergence that serves as a basis for discussion.

I realize it’s important to have our own ideas.  I accept, in certain circumstances, that just saying “we aren’t them – they suck” is not a platform.  But we have also allowed the opposition the advantage of defining the playing field on this issue – in my view, they have rather effectively gotten the message out that it’s not enough to criticize if you can’t offer a proposal of your own.  Yet that argument isn’t always true.  It works for issues like health care and medicare/medicaid reform and social security but not for other big issues, arguably the big issues of the Bush administraion.

How would Democrats fight the Iraq war?  Well, we wouldn’t.  We wouldn’t have rushed in there in the first place.

How will Democrats ensure that they are not participants in corruption?  Well, that’s obvious – we’d keep doing what we’re doing becuase we are not the ones ensnared in corruption scandals.

How will Democrats balance 4th amendment and civil rights with the need for national security?  We wouldn’t.  The processes are already in place that allow for needed national security activities without undue violation of civil liberties.  We’d just follow the law.

See what I mean?  There isn’t always a contra-proposal.

I only used Hilary Clinton as an example because her recent comments have sparked this whole discussion.  In it, I can see the emergence of the Next Great Republican Strategy – paint Democrats as angry people who are weak on national security and will get the average voter killed.  I see it because it’s obvious – so do many of you here and so have many progressive columists in the nation’s larger newspapers.  This isn’t rocket science.

So I am angry.  Righteously pissed off.  I fear the 999 days left in this administration.  The only salvation I see is substantive gains in the 2006 mid-terms that build momentum for the 2008 Presidential election.  Yet if we won’t clearly state, as a party, that we are angry and intelligently posit the reasons giving rise to the anger, I will be angrier still.  Anger is not a bad thing – it can be used.  It’s up to us to use it to our advantage.

(Cross-posted at Daily Kos and my blog)

Yes, you read the title correctly: TUCKER CARLSON nailed a crucial point in providing his analysis of the State of the Union speech.

After the flip, I’ll tell you why.  So you know, however, I am not a big huge fan of Tucker Carlson’s but I don’t hate him, either.  He is not, in my opinion, one of the blindly supportive pro-Bush pro-Republican talking heads ala Sean Hannity.  His criticisms of his own party and of Bush, therefore, carry some weight with me.

Specifics below the fold.
I am a Democrat first and a dutiful member of the Bush regime opposition.  As such, I watched the SOTU address on Tuesday night.  I watched Tim Kaine’s rebuttal.  I followed the various open threads here and read all the excellent rebuttals  over at Think Progress (I have excerpted their rebuttals and have posted them over at my blog if you’re interested – link here).  I watched all the sometimes blathering and occasionally interesting media analysis after-the-fact.  Exhausted, I gave up and went up to bed a bit before midnight eastern time.  I had MSNBC on as I got into bed – content to watch for a while, I started to fall asleep.  Somewhere in that not-asleep but not-awake state, I heard Tucker Carlson’s commentary and it was dead on.

MATTHEWS:  Tucker, you`re (sic) thoughts on the speech tonight.  We haven`t gotten to you yet.

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST, MSNBC`S “THE SITUATION”:  Well, you know, I love the fact that Bush is proud of America.  I think it`s–the problem with some of his adversaries, I think, they`re instinctively embarrassed of a lot of things America does.  And Bush isn`t.  I mean, he is just proud of the country and that`s really appealing.

Where I part with Bush and where I think he (sic) policies become really problematic is when he becomes proud of spreading democracy abroad and makes that kind of the end of, you know, the purpose of America.  And democracy is a mechanism.  It`s a means.  It`s not an end, right?

And so, when Bush gets up and says, you know, “Democracy is good for its own sake.”  And then the next sentence says, you know, “Hamas need to disarm.”  He doesn`t see the contradiction between the two.

Democracy produced Hamas, right?  And so, you know, I`m not an Isolationist, but I think that`s troubling and inconsistent.

My emphasis added.  Democracy is an enabler of some ultimate representative goal, not the goal itself.  So… obvious.  Yet there isn’t a lot being made of that or the glaring inconsistency in the Bush administration’s stance towards, specifically, Hamas and Iran.  It gets better:

CARLSON:  Hold on and I`ll tell you why I felt that way.  Bush could…

MATTHEWS:  … whatever his name is.  The guy from–I did memorize the pronunciation.  I`ve lost it now, the one that`s heading up Iran.  He was elected.

CARLSON:  Well, that`s exactly–I mean, look, when tonight–and I`m not [knocking] democracy obviously, you know.  It`s a marvelous system, however…

SCARBOROUGH:  Oh, Tucker, you know you all.

CARLSON:  Democracy reflects the nature of the people who participate in it.  Stable cultures produce stable governments.

When Bush gets up and he says to the people of Iran, look, you know, “We want you to determine your future and we`re good with whatever you determine, but that doesn`t include your nuclear program.”

Let`s be totally honest.  The president`s job is to protect America and protect American interests.  It`s not to make other cultures or other nations happy or prosperous.  It`s to protect this culture and this nation and I just wish he would say that.  That`s my complaint.

SCARBOROUGH:  You know, before the war–and I agree completely with Tucker.  I was just joking with him.  Before the war, you know, we`re all talking about democracies in the Middle East and everybody got angry when Turkey opposed us going into Iraq…

MATTHEWS:  Right.

SCARBOROUGH:  …A democracy of sort in the Middle East.  And it just shows time and time again you`ve got to be careful what you wish for because it`s going to come back and bite you.

Again, my emphasis added.  I came fully awake enough to be impressed with the comments, given their source.  When I woke up Wednesday morning I figured I had misheard – thus the delay in posting this diary.  I was waiting for the transcript.

Indeed, we’re fomenting “Democracy” but not in the form we envisioned.  In this we actually weaken the power of Democracy across-the-board… Democracy imposed, and imposed on cultures unprepared to deal with democratic trappings yields some lesser and often dangerous hybrid.  That, I believe, is the simple truth of Carlson’s observation.  And the cost of these sort-of-Democracies, in addition to the overall devaluation of democratic systems generally, is proving to be human lives – American, Iraqi, Iranian, Israeli, Palestinian…

Aside, I wonder if anyone whispered to the President that Iran is a Democracy (he included Iran on a list of countries that was not).  I also wonder if anyone in the media and/or the Democratic party will string these simple facts into a truth that underscores the singular arrogance and imcompetence of the administration of George W. Bush.  We have to hit him on security and foreign policy and this, I think, is our stepping-off point.