Archive for May 8th, 2006

Why Joe Must Go

Chris Bowers at MyDD (by way of Atrios) says it much better than I can:

As I talked to people in the [Lamont] campaign, who were a healthy mix of political professionals and newly energized activists, one theme kept coming up in my head. This campaign is an accountability moment. For all of the Democrats over the past fifteen years and more who have helped facilitate negative narratives about our party, this is their moment of accountability. For all of the Democrats over the past six years who have helped facilitate the Bush agenda, this is their moment of accountability. For all of the party leaders over the past couple of decades who have told activists that they need to temper their desires, support a politics of triangulation, and fall in line behind candidates, policies and strategies that do not exactly fulfill the hopes and dreams of the activist base, then this is their moment of accountability. The Ned Lamont campaign is the moment where those Democrats and those leaders are forced to be accountable for those actions. Now, they will have to answer to the voters and to the activists who make their positions possible.

I have been saying this, albeit less well, for the past month or so. The Democratic establishment has taken it for granted that they can safely ignore the progressive base and netroots, except to hit us up for money or GOTV. In their comfortable little minds, they have never paid any price for this neglect; they actually believe that they lost the last three congressional elections because they paid too much attention to Those Crazy MoveOn/Michael Moore Hippies, and scared off the Real Americans whose approval they so desperately crave.

The reality is that the Democrats don’t lose because they’re too shrill and confrontational, but because they’re not shrill and confrontational enough. They caved on the Iraq war, they caved on the bankruptcy bill, they caved on Schiavo, they caved on Roberts, they caved on Alito. Sure, they might have lost anyway, but they never even made the attempt. There are far too many Democrats who choose Republican approval and corporate donors over the progressive principles of their party. We need to send them the message that the netroots are a force to be reckoned with, and that they can no longer win without us. We need to get rid of Joe so that the Democrats realize that we matter more than the corporations do.

4 comments May 8th, 2006 at 06:15pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Democrats,Favorites,Lamont,Lieberman,Politics,Wankers

The New McCarthyism

Kevin Lamarque/Reuters

I’d like to see if he can speak while El Presidente drinks a glass of water.

2 comments May 8th, 2006 at 06:10pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Politics,Wankers

Rebel Without A Clue

From The New Republic, by way of Howie Kurtz (who knew either of them could be useful?):

It’s hard to make out, because the video is fuzzy…. But, once you know what it is, it makes sense. It sits folded on a bookcase of trophies and bric-a-brac behind George Allen, who is seated at a desk in his home office. It’s right there next to the fax machine. You can see the red field. You can make out the diagonal blue bar. And you can see what looks like a white star. It is the Confederate flag, and it appears in the very first ad that Allen broadcast in 1993, when he ran for governor . . .

Images of Allen are like a Civil War version of Where’s Waldo, with the Confederate flag replacing the bespectacled cartoon character. First, as The New Republic reported last week, there’s the senior class photo from Palos Verdes High School with Allen wearing a Confederate flag pin. Now we learn that the Confederate flag appears as a decoration in Allen’s first statewide ad, even though he has long maintained that the flag did not adorn his home after 1992.

Some conservatives have recently argued that the revelations about Allen’s high school photo are irrelevant because the picture is so old. “[I]f we’re going to scrutinize people’s high school records as we vet them for public office, nobody gets to run,” columnist Kathleen Parker wrote last week. But, as revealed by the 1993 campaign ad–as well as the accounts of Allen associates now stepping forward–his embrace of the Confederate flag is even more extensive than tnr previously reported. According to his colleagues, classmates, and published reports, Allen has either displayed the flag–on himself, his car, inside his home–or expressed his enthusiastic approval of the emblem from approximately 1967 to 2000.

He’s just kicking the Southern Strategy up a notch, is all.

May 8th, 2006 at 12:27pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Politics,Wankers

A New Scare Tactic

NYT has an interesting article about the latest use of fear to motivate the Republican base to turn out; only this time it’s not fear of terrorists… it’s fear of accountability:

Heading into the election, many conservatives are disheartened by the war in Iraq, upset at what they see as a White House tolerance for bigger government and escalating federal spending, and divided over issues like immigration. The abrupt resignation on Friday of the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Porter J. Goss, promised to feed the impression of an administration that is off balance.

But White House and Republican officials, trying to turn vulnerability to advantage, say conservatives could be united and re-energized by the possibility that Democrats could put Mr. Bush and his policies on political trial by winning control of even one chamber of Congress.

I would love to see this backfire on the Republicans bigtime, but my biggest fear is that every single one of the 32% dead-enders who still think Bush is a beleaguered colossus will turn out to vote for his enablers. Given America’s typically low voter turnout, especially for midterms, this could easily save the Republicans’ pasty, corrupt asses.

Oh, and did I mention fear of terrorists?

Senate Republicans sent out a fund-raising letter this week seeking to use that possibility to fire up the base, warning that a Democratic majority would put fighting terrorism “on the back burner” and that “our worst fears” could be realized.

I told you so. The Democrats need to counter with something along the lines of, “You mean like voting against port security? Or chemical or nuclear plant security? Or foot-dragging on securing Russian nukes? That kind of back burner?”

1 comment May 8th, 2006 at 12:13pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Bush,Constitution,Corruption/Cronyism,Democrats,Politics,Republicans,Wankers

Contact Eli



Most Recent Posts




May 2006
« Apr   Jun »

Thinking Blogger

Pittsburgh Webloggers

Site Meter

View My Stats *