Howard Dean Didn't just say "Kill The Bill" - He said use Reconcilliation

What he really said was this:

“This is essentially the collapse of health care reform in the United States Senate. Honestly the best thing to do right now is kill the Senate bill, go back to the House, start the reconciliation process, where you only need 51 votes and it would be a much simpler bill.”

I know that people are heavily invested in the public option and that daring to point out that we might not actually NEED it is dangerous, particularly on DKOS - but it has to be said.

Now, I've agreed with Dean on most of his comments - but his suggestion here is really problematic. The things he'd like to get via Reconciliation such as a Public Option or Medicare-Buy In You Can't Get through Reconciliation.

You can't ban Pre-Existing Conditions with Reconciliation.

You can't set a life-time limit of out-of-pocket costs with Reconciliation.

You can't ban Coverage Rescission and Unreasonable Claim Denials with Reconciliation.

You can't set the Medical Loss Ratio to 90% (Requiring 9/10 of every dollar be spent on actual care - a point that Dean gets wrong in his Countdown Comments)

You can't get the opening of the Office of Personal option to allow private individuals to immediately join a Federal Employee-like plan and gain major buying power via the Economies of Scale.

YOU CAN'T GET THE EXCHANGE via Reconciliation and without the Exchange, you don't get the Public Option either.

This is why you get *THIS* particular reaction from Senator Rockefeller to Dean's Comments.

Rockefeller: I want to get (Health Care) passed, that's all I care about.

Mitchell: How does it hurt to have the former Democratic Chair saying, who is a Doctor, "This is worth doing something - doing nothing is better"

Even though Dean Didn't actually SAY THAT!

Mitchell: What else is in this bill that makes it worth passing?

Rockefeller: There are several things that happen immediately such as Medical Loss Ratio - which is a fancy way of saying that Insurance Companies have to spend 85-90% of their revenue on Health Care - that's huge.

14.1 Million Children will continue to get coverage who wouldn't otherwise.

We close half the (Medical Prescription) Donut Hole that affects seniors.

I wanted the Medicare-Buy In, but it was shot down - so what do I do take my football home and sulk? You never get everything you want, you keep improving the bill - next year or the year after that.

This is the reason why the White House is more pissed at Dean than Lieberman - because having the Public Option or even the Medicare Buy-in isn't as valuable as having all the above.

This is what the CBO said about the Senate Bill Last Month even without either the Public Option or Medicare-Buy In.

The report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office was released hours before the Senate began debate on the package, which would spend $848 billion over the next decade to extend coverage to more than 30 million additional people. The CBO said the legislation would lead to higher average premiums in the relatively small and troubled individual market, where the self-employed and others buy coverage directly from insurers. But that extra cost would buy better coverage, the CBO said, and hefty federal subsidies would drive down payments by nearly 60 percent on average for low- and middle-income families.

"This report alleviates a major concern that has been raised -- that insurance costs will go up across the board as a result of this legislation," Bayh said in a statement. "This study indicates that for most Americans, the bill will have a modestly positive impact on their premium costs. For the remainder, more will see their costs go down than up."

Dean consistently argues that without a public choice prices will continue to rise, but the CBO report refutes this. With 30 Million more customers the average cost will be spread wider and risk shared across a larger pool while demand stays largely the same (shifting from Emergency Rooms to Primary Care) you gain the advantage of catching disease an sickness earlier rather than later. In addition the 90% Med/Loss requirement will keep the Insurance Companies from charging their clients for spending on Lobbying, Advertising and coming up with more and more creative ways to deny coverage and claims.

Care will be Improved, people's lives will be saved while Overall Costs will go down, the Deficit will be reduced by $130 Billion in the first decade and $600 Billion in the second decade - 30 Million more people will be covered.

Yes, damnit, it could be better - MUCH - but if we don't pass anything, if we take NOTHING as an answer or pass something MUCH, MUCH WEAKER via Reconcilliation we probably won't get the chance to pass a better bill next year because the Republicans will take this as a VICTORY (The NRSC is already triumphantly re-tweeting Dean's comments) and use it to either take back control of the House and Senate or seriously whittle away at our current majorities.

I believe, despite the thunderclap going headlong for Public Plan or BUST - that what they current have is worth passing and worth Building Upon with further gradual improvements over time. As I said back in August The most important thing: is getting the Exchanges Up and Running - because that is where the power begins to be shifted from the Insurance Companies running around like Bandits in the Wild West to government oversight and management that protects patients. That's where the rubber first starts to meet the road where people can shop across many different plans and options and gain major bang for their buck by joining their purchasing power with tens of millions of other Americans.

Here again is what Joe Klein said back in August on this.

Klein: There's a 80-90% Chance that we'll have Insurance Reform this year, which will ban Pre-existing conditions, and you'll have Health Care Exchanges - which will lower the prices for small business and individuals.

Klein: The Public Option is peripheral to the really important stuff here.

Ed: It's not.

Klein: I've been covering this 20 years, you can have Universal Coverage without a Public Option. What does the Public Option do? It's give bargaining power to the public against the insurance companies - that is precisely what the Health Exchange Does!

Here's another thing, how many thousands of Americans who don't currently have health care or are under-insured are going to suffer and die while we go back to the drawing board or try to cram through a weak narrow bill that STILL won't really have what we want through Reconciliation?

Every year, EVERY SINGLE YEAR, more Americans Die for Lack of Health Care that we lost at 9/11 and during the entire Iraq War -- how much more of that can we stand?

IMO The Time IS NOW.

So, Let the flames fly!

Vyan

Update: Dean V Landrieu on Hardball.



Allow the charging or 300% more for older persons is something that can be fixed. He's right about Insurances agencies being less efficent than Medicare, but the Med Loss Limit at 90% mandates them to get a lot closer - so they won't be able to grab 30% of your premium and spend it on things beyond health care.

I really don't think you can create Medicare-For-All through Reconcilliation, the 767 Page Bernie Sanders Bill that Republicans were causing a Filibuster with today - WAS Medicare for All. It takes more than just modifying the "Fine print". Bush pushed through his tax cuts with Reconcilliation, which actually *is* a budget issue and also got funding for war which was already authorized. These weren't "New Programs" or changes to existing Law, it was all about funding.

Dean doesn't want to "eliminate" the Private Market - he wants competition with it, Landrieu wrong there.

However Landrieu is technically correct that the President promised that they would create a program like the Federal Employee Benefit System - but that's the Exchange - not the Public Option or Medicare expansion. Federal Employees don't *have* a Public Option right now, and yes there is a Non-Profit Option in the Current Senate Bill.

Under the compromise developed by a group of conservative and liberal Democrats, the Senate legislation would no longer include a new government-run insurance program, or "public option," for Americans who do not get coverage through their employers.

Instead, the government would essentially contract with a nonprofit insurer to provide a nationwide plan that would serve as the public option, according to officials briefed on the discussions.

This was part of the same deal thought brought in the Medicare-55-Buy-IN, which was later dropped due to Lieberman - but this portion has Stayed IN. It's better than the Co-ops, but less difficult and time-consuming than rebuilding and entire new program from scratch. If the issue is primarily having an additional choice, that's a choice.

Vyan

Barack Obama Accepts the Democratic Nomination for President

Joe Biden Accepts Democratic Nomination for VP

John Kerry at the 2008 DNC

Bill Clinton a the DNC

Hillary Clinton at the DNC

Michelle Obama at DNC

Tbe Party isn't Broken and doesn't need "Fixing"

The Party is Changing for the Better.

It's taken me a bit of time to come to this conclusion. I've carefully considered the issue of post nomination Party Reconciliation and whether or not we may need to a Shotgun Marriage to repair the wounds that have been gouged into the Democratic Party by this Primary Season.

But I've finally realized we don't need to break out the spackle, silly putty and super glue in order to re-stitch the Democratic party back together. With Barack Obama's candidacy we ourselves are Becoming the Change that we need.

Hillary Clinton is a fine candidate, and a fine politician - but she is shown herself to clearly be a politician of the past with her use of divide and conquer, fear-mongering, crush and smear tactics.

It's time we moved away from that kind of politics, and that kind of country. It's time we embraced the future - and that future is President Barack Obama.

As thereisnospoon has handily pointed out today, this isn't about either sexism or racism.

Barack Obama will be the Democratic Nominee because he has repeatedly refused to pander to our worst instincts. He has refused to easily give into fear.

No, he didn't do the proper political thing and toss Jeremiah Wright under the Mid-town Express at the first opportunity. He let Jeremiah blow himself up.

No, he didn't immediately assume that we should show "strength" either by jumping into a ill-advised and unnecessary war, or by keeping everyone we disagree with at arms length as if simply having a conversation and attempting to find common ground (Like Kennedy with Krushchev, Nixon in China and Reagan with Gorbachev) is in and of itself some kind of grand concession and some sign of "weakness" or some silly misappropriated version of appeasment.

No, he didn't sign on with an idiotic gas-tax holiday plan, because he had the experience to know that it wasn't going to deliver the consumer savings it promised.

On each of these issues and many more he shown better judgement, and better respect for the intelligence of the American people than has Clinton. She and her campaign have deliberately pandered to ignorance, paranoia and fake outrage with "I would have walked out of that Church", "He's lucky to be a Black Man" when even they know damn well he isn't, "He's not a Muslim as far as I know..." and bragging that she "has the hard-working uneducated White Voters, that he can't get" - while he has not responded in kind. He's refused to be dragged down into that cesspool with her.

He has not stooped to her level.

Sure we need a President who is "tough", but I would prefer one who doesn't repeatedly and chronically gets "tough" about The Wrong Issues.

He has not tried to exploit our fear and anxiety or try to Bribe Us. Instead he has shown Courage and an abiding Faith in the American people and that's the kind of President we need.

We need a President who isn't going to have a "Senior Moment" over and over again between Sunni and Shia. Who knows the difference between someone (like the duly elected ruling party in Palestine) supporting you, and you supporting them. Whose idea of "Supporting our Troops" isn't to oppose bills that would do exactly that. Whose Primary campaign debts and promises aren't to lobbyists, corporations, Rangers, Super-Rangers or Cougars - but are to the American people themselves.

More than that we need a President whose idea of showing solidarity with our military families isn't to give up a golf, and then not actually give it up - we need a President with genuine courage.

For Courage is the ultimate cure for what ails us.

Courage is how we cure both Racism and Sexism. It takes courage to ignore what statistics might say about any particular type of individual, and what past experience might say - and to take them for who and what they actually are.

Courage is how we cure Terrorism. It takes courage to remove the primary power that a terrorist wields, fear of death, destruction and injury. If we can not be terrorized, their methods become useless and meaningless.

Courage is the Key.

We don't need to be afraid that the party won't heal itself, that we may have lost some of the Hillacrats forever as they wallow in self-pity over how we "beat up on their girl", yet ignore and justify all the jabs and cheap shots she and her campaign have dolled out. Let Hill court and keep the West Virginia Double-wide vote. The people who just can't bring themselves to vote for that black (muslim/anti-american) man.

If they're willing to embrace the change , embrace the future - they're welcome with us. If not we don't want 'em. We don't need 'em. Sorry but - Frack 'em.

We don't need to go begging on hands and knees for them to hold their nose and pretend to support our curly haired black-negro-man with the white mother, elitist, former food-stamp receiving, educated, school debt-having, orange-juice drinking, basket-ball playing, lousing bowling candidate. If they want to jump-ship and join the Republicans and vote for John McInsane, I'm sure Maverick and his good buddy Karl Iceman Rove will be happy to have them.

We have to realize that nominating and electing Barack Obama to the Presidency will send a shock-wave across this nation and across this world, one that will resonate for more deeply than even the passage of the original Civil Rights Act. Back then LBJ knew that Democrats would be losing the south for perhaps a generation or more. This time we might lose more than that, and we might gain far more as well.

Both in the long and the short run, it's going to be worth it.

This is the beginning of the New Democratic Party.

We have already begun the Change that Barack has spoken of, we have become that Change. Those who wish to join us and embrace that change are welcome to do so, those who do not are free to wallow in the cynicism, pandering, oppurtunism, manipulation and fear-mongering of the past.

We're done with all that, and are going This Way. Toward the Hope. Toward the Future.

Everyone else can either climb on for the ride or be left behind. I hope you can come along.

Vyan

The Toughness Question

Much of DKos and other sites have gone full-on Obama as the level of rancor has reached a fever pitch. With the strike of pro-Clinton kossacks we really aren't hearing much from the other side of the argument and that just might be something we need to hear, and Obama needs to hear.

There actually are some reasons besides sexism and racism that people have been bitterly clinging to their support of Hillary Clinton, and I think it's simply the toughness question.

Does Barack Obama have what it takes to keep fighting and fighting and fighting...?

It doesn't really matter to Hillary supporters that she has continued to shift goal-posts, gone back on previous pledges, uses her fuzzy-math to claim the lead, has helped feed the fake outrage storm over his so-called elitist anti-american-secret-muslim leanings, and has fed the fires of White Wright-Panic and Affirmative Action resentment.

And there's only one reason why.

None of the under-handed dirty tricks and double-talk matters, because Hillary is showing us all something that we haven't seen from Nancy (Impeachment-is-off-the-table) Pelosi and Harry (We-just-can't-make-the-Republicans-Filibuster-the-War-Budget-Again!) Reid.

One word.

Backbone!

I've been a long-time Bill Clinton supporter and still feel he may have been probably the best President of the 20 Century after FDR. I think he did a massively important thing when he stood up to the Republican Congress to prevent them from gutting our budget with tax cuts, and twice shutdown the government.

They thought he would cave - like a typical Democrat - but he didn't.

Whether we Obama supporters like it or not, during this election Hillary Clinton has proven to be the Freaking Energizer Bunny of Politics.

In a way, seeing this side of any democrat is refreshing.

This carefully constructed image of invulnerability - laughing hysterically whenever she's asked a tough question, rather than grimacing and barking out a be-grudging answer or ducking the issue - is working for her precisely because it feeds into a deep seated need for Democrats to feel that someone is willing to be a full-on pit fighter for them.

We've had too many promises broken.

We've seen too many would be champions of the rule of law, such as John Conyers, eventually prove to be ineffective and deflatable. Henry Waxman and Pat Leahy had promised to dog the crimes of the Bush Administration to the ends of the earth, yet one memo from Fred Fielding claiming executive priviledge and their various investigations have crashed into a solid brick wall.

Not zesty.

We won the Congressional majority, but we still haven't stopped the war - or defunded it, in fact we have more soldiers in harms way today than we did when Pelosi and Reid were sworn in.

But Hillary? She keeps Going and Going and Going...

But she's not going to win. She simply doesn't have the numbers and she keeps bleeding supers.

And even if she does win in some magically way, what exactly are we getting?

Yes, it's clear we need Democrats who are willing to take it to the mat and then some, but the other question that needs to be asked and answered is - how much of our integrity, values and common-sense our we willing to give up in the process?

Winning isn't everything if in the process of winning you have to give up what it is your actually fighting for such as fairness, justice, integrity and truth. Do Democrats have to start operating "on the dark side" (as Dick Cheney has put it), and use any available excuse simply to get what they want?

Isn't that kind of "ends justify the means" thinking that has led the Bush Administration completely off the moral precipice with their ridiculous and endless justifications for Torture, Domestic Spying and Unprovoked War?

Here's another point that both Obamans and Clintonistas need to consider. It may be true that Obama has far less Washington experience than Clinton, but we need to consider what she's done with that experience and wonder just when have we ever seen this endless fighting spirit of Clinton's before?

As posted on Democratic Underground: When has Hillary Clinton really fought for anything except herself?

Where was her "fight" during the Senate confirmation of John Ashcroft?

Where was her "fight" during the Senate confirmation of Alberto Gonzales?

Where was her "fight" during the failed Senate confirmation of John Bolton?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR cloture on the nomination of corrupt corporatist Priscilla Owen, clearing the way for her confirmation to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR cloture on the nomination of unqualified fascist Janice Rogers Brown, clearing the way for her confirmation to the DC Court of Appeals?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR cloture on the nomination of religious zealot and homophobe William H. Pryor, clearing the way for his confirmation to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR cloture on the nomination of John Roberts, clearing the way for his confirmation as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court?

Where was her "fight" during the Senate confirmation of Samuel Alito?

Where was her "fight" when she skipped the Senate debate and confirmation vote on Michael Mukasey?

Where was her "fight" against the Military Commissions Act?

Where was her "fight" during this summer's vote on the Iraq War Supplemental?

Where was her "fight" during the vote to extend FISA?

Where was her "fight" during the Walter Reid scandal?

Where was her "fight" during the debate on Telecom Immunity?

Where was her "fight" when she SKIPPED the Senate vote to strip TelCo immunity from the FISA bill?

Where was her "fight" on the possible impeachment of Dick Cheney?

Where was her "fight" on the possible impeachment of George Bush?

Where was her "fight" against the myriad scandals surrounding the current administration?

Where was her "fight" when she campaigned for Joe Lieberman against Ned Lamont?

Where was her "fight" when she proposed legislation to ban flag burning?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR the 2001 Bankruptcy Bill?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR the USAPATRIOT act?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR the renewal USAPATRIOT act?

Where was her "fight" when she voted AGAINST an amendment to prevent the use of cluster bombs against civilian populations?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR the Iraq War Resolution?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR the Kyl/Lieberman amendment?

For some reason, Hillary Clinton only seems to be "a fighter" when she's fighting to feed her own naked ambition. Is that really what we want in a president?

It may be fair to say that we have seen Hillary the head-strong my-way-or-the highway pugilist at least once before: During her ill-fated Universal Health Care project.

What Hillary supposed learned, what she supposed discovered from that experience was how to accommodate, negotiate and reach across the isle. This is why she can now sit down with Richard Mellon Scaife and not involuntarily flinch from the squick factor.

There's another name for this tendency: Blind Bullheaded Ambition.

That kind of ambition and bullheadedness is likely why she voted for the Iraq War (showing she wasn't the typical squishy democrat on defense), and continues to defend that vote to this vary day.

Toughness is important, but so is Judgment.

On a variety of issues they break even. One might argue that Hillary's heath care plan has advantages over Barack's, and that his support of Nuclear Power is troubling considering the lack of a plan for long-term waste disposal.

But Barack has certainly shown better judgment when it comes to numerous issues - particularly Iraq, ethics reform and tracking down lose nukes - while Clinton has become even more Hawkish than the biggest neo-cons with her proposal for a nuclear umbrella over the middle east.

Clinton has clearly shown that she cares more about saying what people want to hear, than saying what they need to hear. This is a trait she shares with George W. Bush.

It's also clear she would be a far better President than George W. Bush could even dream of, but is that good enough? If we can do better, shouldn't we?

We democrats and the nation should realize that we need more than an unrestrained angry rampaging bull in the china shop of our foreign policy, domestic security and financial well-being.

We need a grown-up.

We need someone who can do more than rattle sabers and exploit fear to make cheap political points, but actually knows how to work with, deal with and find common ground with people whom they might otherwise have deep seated differences with. People like, ironically enough, Reverend Wright. People like William Ayers. Barack has said that he'd be willing to sit down and negotiate with those people that we don't like, such as Ahmadenijad as well as those that we do like - that he can bring disparate people together to meet common goals, rather than simply try to crush them, or "obliterate them".

We can do better, we have to.

Shunning and disavowing people we disagree with is not how you bring people together and solve problems, you have to engage them and challenge them - not simply walk away and expect them to come crawling apologetically to your feet.

Barack needs to make the argument that his wide and varied aquiantences are not a detriment, but an asset. He needs to rise to Clinton and the medias ridiculous arguments, all of them, and beat them back to where they belong - in the garbage. And do it with a smile.

Barack has the judgment, he has the rabid support of the people, but what he also needs to show is that he can go toe-to-toe with one of the toughest democratic politicians and political machines of a generation and not just barely survive it, but learn from it.

He needs to use this experience to Toughen Up, but do so without losing his integrity or his argument that he represents a shift away from the "old-time politix".

This is truly a clash of generations, the tried and true vs the new and dynamic. He needs to make that argument, and he needs his surrogates and supporters to continue to support this meme - it's time to put away the dirty tricks, the fear-mongering, the politics of division of the past and move forward with clean - but well worn and hard-working and fully engaged - hands.

Vyan

Ferraro's Racial/Gender Flip-Flop Exposed

In the midst of this latest racial dustup brought to us in prime-time yet again by the Clinton Campaign and their Scorched Earth Strategy, today Randy Rhodes pointed out that just over one year ago - Geraldine Ferraro was saying the exact opposite to what she said the other day.

From the New York Times Dec 2006

"All evidence is that a white female has an advantage over a black male — for reasons of our cultural heritage," said the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, the civil rights leader who ran for president in 1984 and 1988. Still, he said, for African-American and female candidates, "It’s easier — emphatically so."

Ms. Ferraro offered a similar sentiment. "I think it’s more realistic for a woman than it is for an African-American," said Ms. Ferraro. "There is a certain amount of racism that exists in the United States — whether it’s conscious or not it’s true."

"Women are 51 percent of the population," she added.

Oh, no she Di'in't? Oh yes, my friends, she did.

Not that I find the game of Quien es mas Victim particularly seemly , this is the game that Clinton and her various surrogates (Rendell, Johnson, Wolfson) have forced us to play. Then play it we shall - to Win.

This week Ferraro says:

If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color), he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.

A year ago it was a very different story. Might that change have something to with the how the preference for the Democratic Nominee has also shifted over time?

Here's another excerpt from the NYT article:

By contrast, for all the excitement stirred by Mr. Obama, it is much less certain that an African-American could win a presidential election. Not as many blacks have been elected to prominent positions as women. Some high-profile black candidates — Harold Ford Jr., a Democrat running for the Senate in Tennessee, and Michael Steele, a Republican Senate candidate in Maryland — lost in November. And demographics might be an obstacle as well: black Americans are concentrated in about 25 states — typically blue ones, like New York and California. While black candidates cannot assume automatic support from black voters, they would at least provide a base. In states without big black populations, the candidate’s crossover appeal must be huge.

Yeah that explains Obama's victories in all those really "Black" States like Iowa. And Alaska. And Connecticut. And Idaho. And Maine. And Kansas. And Nebraska. And Utah.

Many analysts suggested that changing voter attitudes can best be measured in choices for governors, since they, like presidents, are judged as chief executives, rather than legislators. There will be one black governor next year — Deval L. Patrick in Massachusetts, the second in the nation since Reconstruction.

On Monday - David Paterson will make that two whole Black Governors, and still only the Third since Reconstruction. Wow, we've come a long way Baby. Out of curiosity, how many women Governors do we have?

By contrast, women will be governors of nine states, including Washington, Arizona and Michigan, all potential battleground states in 2008, a fact that is no doubt viewed favorably by advisers to Mrs. Clinton.

If it's so easy for Black people to make great political strides then Shirley Chisholm should have been our first Female President back in the 70's.

Clearly Ed Rendell seems to think differently:

HARRISBURG, Pa. — Gov. Ed Rendell, one of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s most visible supporters, said some white Pennsylvanians are likely to vote against her rival Barack Obama because he is black.

"You’ve got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate," Rendell told the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in remarks that appeared in Tuesday’s paper.

Maybe Geralding and Ed need to have a little private chat since their talking points seem to be working at cross purposes.

It's not like Barack Obama hasn't had to face incessent attacks on his patriotism and smears that he is a stealth muslim. Attacks which were filtered through the Clinton Campaign by her Iowa County Chair.

I've obtained a copy of the email sent to Jones County, Iowa Democratic Chairman Gary Hart, by a Clinton volunteer.

It's one of a couple Obama-Muslim-smear emails circulating widely, and one of the ones Jonathan Martin and I wrote about in October. It's probably the most vicious of them: It states the underlying hint -- that Obama is some sort of Muslim Manchurian candidate -- explicitly.

The email was sent by someone identified only as "Judy" whose email address begins jcheroke. The Clinton campaign has said they are now asking a volunteer county coordinator to leave the campaign when the email came to light.

It's not like he hasn't been accused of being a drug user/dealer (even though all the evidence indicates that most drug user are white)

According to the federal Household Survey, "most current illicit drug users are white. There were an estimated 9.9 million whites (72 percent of all users), 2.0 million blacks (15 percent), and 1.4 million Hispanics (10 percent) who were current illicit drug users in 1998." And yet, blacks constitute 36.8% of those arrested for drug violations, over 42% of those in federal prisons for drug violations. African-Americans comprise almost 58% of those in state prisons for drug felonies; Hispanics account for 20.7%.

This fact didn't stop Robert Johnson from putting forth his cheap allegations, did it?

It didn't stop Hillary herself from accusing Barack of being affiliated with - "A Slum-Lord."

Just how "Black" can Barack Obama be after he's been actually accussed of "Acting White" by Jesse Jackson...

As serious as the controversy in Jena, La., is, there’s no reason for a veteran civil rights leader to accuse an African-American presidential candidate of "acting white" simply because he hasn’t emphasized the issue to the leader’s liking. And yet, that’s exactly what’s happened with Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama.

His "whiteness" is a sentiment that has been repeated by Conservatives such as Glen Beck.

BECK: Yeah, I — you know, I was driving in today, and I was seeing — because I saw this piece with him on 60 Minutes — and I thought to myself, he [Obama] is — he’s very white in many ways.

GIORDANO: Uh-huh.

BECK: And I thought to myself: Gee, can I even say that? Can I even say that without somebody else starting a campaign saying, "What does he mean, ‘He’s very white?’ " He is. He’s very white.

Yeah, you can say it Glen - you just sound like a freaking asshat, if you do.

Geraldine Ferraro's comments are the same as Beck's, and the same as Rush Limbaugh's horrifically unfunny "Barack the Magic Negro" song - but the sad part is that Ferraro and Johnson and all these others aren't doing it because their racists, they're doing it because they think that's the only thing they can do to win.

They might as well go completely for broke and start talking about how Barack Hussein Obama is the Anti-Christ, except that Glen Beck has already beaten them to that particular low road.

I'm sure the Clinton Camp is sorry they didn't think of that one first.

I was more than willing to defend Bill Clinton from unfair and premature accusations of racism simply for invoking the name of MLK and pointing out the strategic volume shift that Barack employed to modulate his opposition to the Iraq War when it became political inconvenient - particularly when Barack had invoked MLK first - but this is far past the silly point, it's become frankly - fucking disgusting.

How many ridiculous more cheap stereotypes can the people pile on with?

This is not an accident. This is their Strategy. This is a clear and obvious pattern and only seeks to underscore what Samantha Power said just before she was ushered out of the Obama Campain on a Rail:

Hillary is a Monster.

If this is the way she wants to run her campaign, if this is the way she plans to run the country - Yes, this is Monstrous - and Yes, she is a Monster.

And that's sad and tragic, because not are these tactics as slimey and disgusting - they also aren't going to work.

In the end the only persons who've truly been hurt by this are Ferraro, Rendell, Johnson and Hillary Clinton herself.

Barack will go on. Hillary won't.

Vyan

Fox News says Dems have no Passion, No Soul? Look Whose Talking?

Via Raw Story.

In typical fashion Fox News recently had one of it's "Fairly Unbalanced" debates concerning the soul and passion of the Democratic party. A subject where they clearly have some kind of expertise, considering anyone who might openly appear on Fox News is about as much a Democrat as Pat Buchanan is.

The Democrats. What's their message? Could you actually come up with what the Democrats message is this elections cycle. Are Democrats losing the voters hearts?

This particular Faux Debate was apparently inspired by the email sent from Congressmen Abercrombie's office last week. Via McJoan.

Democrats are losing the battle for voters’ hearts because the party’s message lacks emotional appeal, according to a widely circulated critique of House Democratic communications strategy.

"Our message sounds like an audit report on defense logistics," wrote Dave Helfert, a former Appropriations spokesman who now works for Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii). "Why are we defending [the State Children’s Health Insurance Program] instead of advocating a ‘Healthy Kids’ plan?"

Helfert sent the memo this week to an e-mail list of all Democratic press secretaries and communications directors after staffers met on Monday to discuss rolling out the Democrats’ latest message.

He said the meeting left him cold because it focused on what polling shows voters want rather than how to present persuasive messages.

The issue as lemented by Mr. Helfert wasn't that Democrats aren't polling well and likely to win in both the upcoming Congressional and Presidential Elections - it's that they haven't crafted a slick cohesive message.

They don't have a well packaged sales pitch for their policies.

He's talking here about sloganeering. Y'know Frank Luntz stuff like "No Child Left Behind" (which has only succeeding in breaking school drop-out records) and "Clear Skies" (which has mostly cleared the skies of those pesky birds). According to Helfert all we need is some better branding. Better Marketing. Better B.S.

Thanks for that suggestion Dave, but there's one major problem with this view. Democrats - generally speaking - aren't very good at doing what their told in lock-step fashion, so the idea of presenting a Fox News-ish "Message of the Day" is just plain out. As Will Rogers said...

I don't belong to any organized party, I'm a Democrat.

Herd of Cats - meet the Democrats, the one group even more difficult to wrangle into moving the same direction at once.

Some would argue this is a failing on their part, but I tend to disagree. If we as willing to run lemming-like over a set of Disney inspired cliffs we'd be no better than the right wing. Fortunately we are - better. It's been lock-step Republicans who've spearheaded the implementation of every bad political decision of the past 20 years, from passing the Medicare Pharmacutical Company Benefit bill in the dead of the night to Bankruptcy Deformation that protects business, but leaves overburdened and desperate families out in the cold. Thank heaven the Dems aren't robots or we'd all be in trouble.

All of this of course, practically makes the righties giddy.

Mike Gallagher on Fox: If soulless Democrats on the left would just "get off" the issue of the war in Iraq and take up something more passion-inspiring -- like illegal immigration -- they’d be a lot more popular.

I'm sorry are we talking about Congress or Democrats being more popular here?

The latest NBC News/Washington Post poll numbers from Sept 7th on whether Democrats or Republicans should retain control of Congress happens to be running 47% to 35% in favor of Democrats.

That figure is actually up from a previous split from a George Washington University poll in July which had the difference at 47 to 40. During that time 5% of Republican support went into the undecided column lifting it from 13% to 18%.

Exactly how much more popular, in contrast to Republicans, do Democrats need to get?

But that's not really the point is it? The point according to Gallagher is that nobody really cares about that Iraq War nonesense, they have no passion for it - all of the passion in the heartland of America apparently comes from raw, naked xenophobia.

"But it’s not about a message, it’s not about a slogan. It’s about a soul," Gallagher said. "And there is no soul on the left...if you guys were smart, you’d jump all over the problem of illegal aliens, because that’s the issue that ignites the heartland."

Yep, it ignites the heartland alright - much like a cross burning on your lawn would. The problem with the Democrats is that they just haven't learned how to create some catchy pithy slogans that properly capture the fear and paranoia at the heart of the illegal immigrant debate. Co-opting the cause celebre of the Rabid-Wing of the Right would certain show a whole lot of "Soul" - if you happen to spell it "D.e.s.p.a.r.a.t.e. P.a.n.d.e.r.i.n.g." Never mind that annoying Posse Commitatas Act, lets get the national guard on the border -- and who cares about the fact that so many of them are currently in Iraq?

Pfft! So Fracking What!? They knew the job was Impossible When they took it, didn't they?

"And while you guys keep talking about SCHIP," he said to Henican about Democrats, "like the Tourette’s Syndrome you have, you can’t say what time it is without saying 'but there’s a war in Iraq, there’s a war in Iraq.' If you’d get off of that and realize that our borders are being flooded with illegals...you’d score a home run."

Yeah, it would be a complete Home-Run - not unlike that last Novembers Grand-Slam which shifted both Houses of Congress into Democratic Control. Thanks for the tip Mike, we'll keep it in mind.

It is true that the popularity of congress is down and that the approval stats for Dems in Congress is at only 29% (as of 10/5), but the matching approval number for Republcians is at - ta da - just 19% for the same time period.

So Dems should be following the lead of Republicans?

Yeah, right.

Most of the low approval for Congressional Dems doesn't come from their support of SCHIP, or they lack of reaction to Illegl Immigration, it comes from their inability - so far - to drastically change our course in Iraq.

• 65% of those polled currently oppose the Iraq War.
• 45% feel that our troops should not remain for more than a year.
• 68% disapprove of the way Bush has handled the Iraq War.
• 49% trust Democrats to better handle the Iraq sitaution than Republicans (35%).

Jumping on the Illegal Immigration War Wagon is not going to suddenly change the "declining" fortunes of Democrats. But like so many Republicans, Gallagher certainly isn't willing to let a little thing like Facts get in his way.

"Maybe 70 percent of Americans are led by mainstream polls funded by Democratic strategists," said Gallagher. "I know you Democrats think anybody that isn’t on your side is confused. We’re not dazed and confused -- we’re right."

That's right when absolutely every. single. poll. isn't going your way it just has to be the result of some nefarious dasdardly invisible left-wing/MSM plot against Republicans.

"Dazed and Confused"?

No actually, you are pathologically deluded and a deeply intent on trapping as many people within that delusion as possible. Sorry, no Sale. The problem isn't that Democrats have been harping too much on the Iraq War, it's that they haven't harped on it enough.

Frankly the only good slogan Democrats actually need is to openly stand for Reason and Sanity. That's all, that's it.

Simply standing against the Wrong-Wing of the Republican Party is a platform in itself. All Dems have to do is run against what Republicans have actually done by...

• Supporting the Rule of Law.
• Depoliticing the Justice Dept.
• Enforcing the Voting Rights Act by ending the practice of Caging.
  
• Protecting the Constitution from Executive Overeach.
  
• Opposing Torture.
  
• Restoring Habeus Corpus.
  
• Supplying the troops with proper equipment while they're in harms way, and working to get them out of the way of genuine Diplomacy.
• Providing Affordable Health Care for people, particularly Children, who need it.
  
• Fighting Climate Change and our Foreign Energy Dependance by implementing newer greener technologies to revitalize our economy.
  
• Rebuilding the American Infrastructure
  
• Actually fighting the REAL Terrorist like the ones in Pakistan and Afghanistan instead of inventing phony ones - again - in Iran.
  
• End the War Contractor Profiteering Gravy Train
• Restoring American Honor and Prestige by dealing honestly with our International Allies.
• Once again show American how Fight Fear and Terror with Courage - not more Fear!

And that's just off the top of my head.

Ask any real Democrat and he'll easily rattle off a list that just as strong. No Luntz-craft needed here. Just the truth.

Vyan

We eat our own, don't we?

We eat our own here don't we?

This is why the right-wing thinks were a joke. But at the same time, it just might be why we're a perfect antidote to their knee-jerk lock-step dance of doom.

If the wake of the "great cave-in" of 2006 by Congressional Democrats Cindy Sheehan has now officially resigned as the "Face of the Antiwar Movement". BBC reporter Greg Palast has seen fit to blast back as Dkos having learned that it's "Hard out here for an Internet Pimp"

No shit, dude.

Hannity's gonna have a field day with this one.

Pardon me while I ramble a bit, but I have a point to make in here somewhere.

The other day I wrote about the sociopathology of conservatism, but it's not like Liberals are free of their own self-destructive pathologies is it?

We have a tendencies to be our own worst enemy. Republicans accuse us of being "cut and runners" and what do we do... Cut and RUN out on our principles. Jimmy Carter stands up and tells the truth, then immediate backs down and scampers away like a beaten little mouse.

Oh - "I didn't mean it". "I was mis-interpreted" "Taken out of context"

Oh, Bullshit.

I know it can be enough to make you pull your hair out even if don't have any hair.

Cindy Sheehan bitches out Congress for backing down against the President, then she backs down.

Oi vey.

Look, I don't blame Cindy for making this decision - she has to live her own life and frankly she's given far more of herself to help to protect the lives of so many other people's children than anyone should ever ask or expect. She deserves a chance to rotate back from the front lines of the War against the War.

It just looks so bad...

Hey guys, remember that We Won the Congress just few months ago? There's still hope that we can end this war, there still hope that we can undo at least some of the damage that George Bush has inflicted on this nation and the world.

Everything we hear about Gonzo-Gate just looks worse and worse. Trying to punk Attorney General Ashcroft into allowing an illegal wiretap program while he's hopped-up on meds in the hospital? Caging African-American Voters? Setting up ideological litmus tests for the DOJ?

There isn't one part of this that doesn't stink like a shit-bomb.

We have a LOT. of. WORK. to. DO.

Now really isn't the time to fold and leave all our chips on the table.

Henry Waxman is going after Lorita Doan with a torch and a pitchfork.

Wolfowitz is out on his ass, and making excuses.

The right-wing is having conniptions fits over whether September will or won't be the next turning point in the Iraq war.

Yet another Rove Lackey has bit the dust.

Olbermann is driving Drudge bat-shit crazy.

We should be doing the high-five time 1000, yet we have all this pissing and moaning from the guys on our team!.

But...

But, this just might be the greatest thing about our side of the fence. We keep each other honest. We don't do the crony shuffle. We don't do the lock-step. It can be tough to be in our camp, it can be brutal. We've long ago run off Bev Harris. Barack says that places like Dkos are "pretty much what he'd expect."

Sure, whatever dude.

This is what seperates us from the other side; they get their talking points from punditocracy and regurgitate them without ever digesting them - but we really are having a duel of ideas and ideals on sites such as this. We don't accept orders from on high. Kos and Skinner are not my Kommandants.

They aren't the boss of me.

We're all just trying to figure this ongoing American experiment out, one person at a time, one argument at a time. It's a knife fight, not a mud-wrestling match. It can be painful. It can hurt. We can shed blood. We can leave a scar - but that's the way it has to be.

Just as the founding fathers used the printing press and publications such as "Common Sense" to spread their ideas of democracy, to further the enlightenment of the new world as they crafted the struts and applied the mortar to our democracy, so must we - the citizen media - use the new publishing technologies of the Netroots to continue to carve and shape that democracy into a more perfect union.

Democracy is real hard work, but worth it.

So I salute, yet mourn our fallen soldier Cindy. Hopefully as we pick up the flag and carry it forward we'll try not to let some of the various slings and arrows of criticism and ridicule coming our way at light-speed - even from our allys - sting too deeply, or dim the fire that drives us forward to save this nation from itself.

God, Jehova, Muhammad, Shiva, Chrishna and Buddha bless America.

Vyan

The Big Soros Lie

Ever since the dull thud of Don Imus crashing down from the high media heavens back to earth began to reverberate through the punditosphere - all the little trained monkeys whirling the crank on the Right-Wing Werlitzer have been quaking in their boots and coming unglued.

Since these guys apparently love the Bruckheimer, they needed to find a villain to paint all their troubles upon. It wasn't long before they found a suitable scapegoat - thanks to the ever helpful Drudge - that patsy was of course...George Soros.

Just one small problem, all of their current troubles aren't Soros doing, but are simply their own damn fault!

Limbaugh has turned practically into a raving lunatic over the fact that David Brock's Media Matters has been quoting him accurately.

On the April 16 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh called Media Matters for America "Stalinist" and part of the "Clinton machine agenda." He further falsely asserted that Media Matters receives funding from philanthropist George Soros and that he is "not demeaning people on this program in any way."

The Soros/Media Matters canard has been picked up by Micheal Savage.

On the April 13 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage said of Media Matters for America: "They're people who attack me. It's run by a homosexual activist who hates anybody in the media who does not kowtow to the homosexual agenda."

"They've held themselves up as somehow above the fray, only looking for fair-mindedness in the media. It turns out that they are, in fact, funded by one of the most vile anti-American creatures in the world, George Soros."

And Tammy Bruce...

"In order to be able to even go after Republicans eventually, or conservatives, these far-left forces need to purge our own House of Democrats like myself who speak the truth and will confront them on what they are. That's why Imus had to be eliminated and that's why they went after him first. And now they'll proceed down their list."

And Melanie Morgan...

"I have lived on the other side of the gun barrel pointed by Media Matters for America for the better part of three years, and I know what it feels like when a bunch of crackpots with keyboards pull the trigger, backed by millions upon millions of dollars in funding from George Soros."

And Debbie Schlessel...

I suppose now that Don Imus is gone, (Media Matters has) assigned the vegan lesbian transsexual 'interspecies erotica' devotee they had monitoring the Imus show to monitor my site."

And Tom (Dead Crook Walking) Delay...

"George Soros, upset with the slight inroads conservatives have made recently, has funded an organization called Media Matters for America, led by liberal muckraker David Brock."

And of course, Bully O'Lielly who actually displayed an elaborate flow-chart of how Soros has allegedly used shell organizations to secretly funnel money into Media Matters for his "smear" operations.

It's not like Billy ever said that poor people were "irresponsible and lazy" - except that he did.

And it's not like he ever claimed that the Iraqi people were "Prehistoric". Except for when he did.

But here's the thing, even if Billo's Magic Flow-Chart-o-Doom is correct -- So Fucking What?!

It's not like Right-Wing crackpots like Sam Fox with truck loads of cash to burn on smearing Democrats like John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi would ever be rewarded with something like - being nominated as Ambassador to Belgium, Right?

It's not like a nutbag religious zealot like the Rev. Sun Myung Moon could ever buy a major american newspaper in the Nation's capital and use it's online edition to promote right-wing lies and propaganda about Democratic Candidates for President, eh?

And it's not like multi-billionarie Rupert Murdock would ever buy an entire Cable News Network, and install Karl Rove's former deputy Roger Ailes to operate and manage it by sending out daily marching orders on how the news will be spun that day, would they?

Oh, It's not like millionaire Richard Mellon-Scaife didn't fund a project designed specifically to destroy Bill Clinton through his magazine The American Spectator (Which ironically used to employ one David Brock!) did he?

Oh yeah, they all did!

The only problem with the Fox/Moon/Murdock/Scaife v Soros analogy is the teeny, tiny, infitesimal little fact that SOROS DOESN'T FUND MEDIA MATTERS either directly or through intermediate organizations. Even the Politico has had to admit it in a printed retraction to a Tom Delay Op-ed.

A column in Tuesday's Politico "How Good Is America's Campaign Coverage" by Tom Delay contained an error. George Soros ha s not funded the organization Media Matters for America.

Opps!!

As was shown so brilliantly by Bill Moyers last night on the PBS documentary "Buying the War" the need for journalist who actually Do Journalism is increasing everyday. The tendency to just be lazy and "go with the flow", the paralyzing fear that these people have to "go out on a limb" is crippling our Democracy.

Just look to the example of the false premise behind the very first question in last night's Democratic Debate.

Do you agree with Sen. Reid that the "Iraq War Is Lost"

The simple truth is that Reid didn't say just that, he also said...

"The (Iraq) war can only be won diplomatically, politically and economically, and the president needs to come to that realization," Reid said.

Reid said he did not think more U.S. troops could help. "I think (the President's Surge has) failed, I say that without any question," he said of the troop increase.

So the more accurate question would have been "Do you agree with Sen Reid that we can't win the Iraq War Militarily?"

And considering the fact that this is exactly what Henry Kissenger, Gen Petreaus and what the Iraq Study Group has said...

"The bipartisan Iraq Study Group has concluded that the President's Iraq policy has failed and must be changed. As the November elections clearly demonstrated, that is an assessment shared by the American people.

"If the President is serious about the need for change in Iraq, he will find Democrats ready to work with him in a bipartisan fashion to find a way to end the war as quickly as possible.

So, the answer should be a no-brainer.

Y'know - something pithy like "Hell YES!"

Outlets like Media Matters are vital at pointing out these repeated gross failures by the mainstream media to simply report the truth, whether Soros or his reported shadow puppeteer - the dastardly Hillary Rodham Clinton - are behind it all or not.

The fact that the wingnuts are having fits worrying about how stupid MMFA is going to make them look, after they say something ridiculously bigoted, vile and profane - yet again - is just icing on the cake.

Vyan

The "Last Throes" of the Bush War

After losing the election, losing Osama bin Laden, losing the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, losing control of it's government to Moqtada al-Sadr and turning Saddam Hussein into a Sunni Martyr - just what do you think the Redstaters are thinking of now?

They're upset that Bush's little Police Action in Iraq seems to be in it's last throes.

There is some alarming rhetoric in the press surrounding the President's "new-way-forward-in-Iraq" speech that will take place on Wednesday. Mr. Bush has been crafting a revitalized Iraq policy over the last two months; he's made some tough decisions and brought in a new team. Some of what he's considering looks promising, and there are some impressive new eyes on the job. But the entire effort may be doomed before he even opens his mouth by the way it's being framed in the media:

This is our "last try" in Iraq. (see here, here, here and here for examples).

Actually, they don't call it our last try in Iraq--it's Mr. Bush's last try, but for a moment let us entertain the fantasy that we're in this together as a nation.

Yes, that is indeed a fantasy - especially since anyone who told you people this was a bad idea was called a traitor and appeaser by the Bush Administration -- but please go on and tell us were all "in this together" - I'm all ears.

As a nation, we need to recognize that defining the current strategic shift in Iraq as some sort of last gasp is insane, not to mention self defeating.

But we don't have to defeat ourselves, the insurgents, the Sunni and the Shi'a Militia have already done that for us.

It's just like the "timetables" people keep arguing about--we might as well rent billboards all over Baghdad telling insurgents that if they just keep their heads down for the brief period that we're sending in the additional 10,000 troops or whatever the number will be, they'll be fine. Because this is it. The last try. There won't be any more attempts to move them after this.

There won't be anymore from President Bush after this - because he doesn't have enough time left in his Administration to pull anymore rabbits out of his hat. In fact, it's pretty clear that all he's trying to do is run out the clock - assuming of course that he doesn't get benched first.

But wait, didn't Gen Abizaid say that there were only 1000 members of al-Qaida in Iraq? Why - yes, he did. Meanwhile we've already trained nearly 300,000 Iraqi troops - so exactly why should another 10-20,000 American forces make any difference this time, especially when the last surge was such a spectacular failure in Baghdad?

From Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid:

Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed. Like many current and former military lead>ers, we believe that trying again would be a serious mistake. They, like us, believe there is no purely military solution in Iraq. There is only a political solution. Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain. And it would undermine our efforts to get the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. We are well past the point of more troops for Iraq.

Most of the insurgents (which total about 30-40,000) are not Al-Qaeda. They are disaffected Iraqis, Sunni and Shia, not foreign fighters. How exactly do we "defeat" them? Which side do we take?

Back to Redstate:

Such billboards might come as a relief to a war-weary public as well. Let's wrap this up, and go back to raising the minimum wage and taxes on "the rich" to assuage our consciences as the stock market goes ever higher. Let's not bother with that messy business so far away. It's such a downer. We'll give it one last try, and then pull the plug.

Yeah, yeah - all they have to do is wait for us to leave and then do their worst as if they've been saving it all up or something.

The myopia of this argument is the presumption that this is purely a military problem, with a military solution. Iraq is in the full-on throes of a Civil War, sparky, we don't have a dog in that hunt.

The only solution to this - short of the complete genocide of the Sunni's that is feared by the Saudis - is diplomacy. The various Iraqi Factions need a renegotiation, they need to rework the terms of the deal that was establish by the fantastically incompetant Coalition Provisional Authority. They need to amend their constitution and call for "Neutral Corners", split the nation into semi-autonomous sectarian states each with their own local government and militia with the ability to negotiate and stike a balance with the national goverment.

Y'know - kinda like our country. Here's more from Joe Biden.

No number of troops can solve this problem. The only way to hold Iraq together and create the conditions for our armed forces to responsibly withdraw is to give Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds incentives to pursue their interests peacefully and to forge a sustainable political settlement. Unfortunately, this administration does not have a coherent plan or any discernible strategy for success in Iraq. Its strategy is to prevent defeat and hand the problem off when it leaves office.

Meanwhile, more and more Americans, understandably frustrated, support an immediate withdrawal, even at the risk of trading a dictator for chaos and a civil war that could become a regional war.

Both are bad alternatives. The five-point plan Les Gelb and I laid out offers a better way.

First, the plan calls for maintaining a unified Iraq by decentralizing it and giving Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis their own regions. The central government would be left in charge of common interests, such as border security and the distribution of oil revenue.

Unfortunately this - which would ironically achieve everyones goals of establishing a peaceful Iraq - is the last thing that Bush is likely to suggest since it is a Democrat[sic] plan, instead he perpetrates this ridiculous "Surge , Accelerate and Sacrifice" dog and pony show on us all. Pathetic.

Yes, Mr. Bush has played into this meme by making his protracted deliberations so very public, which has fostered the image of a rudderless administration casting about for a magic-bullet solution--and so allowed the press to cast this as a sort of Custer-at-Little-Big-Horn style last stand. And you may argue that in the world of the newly-Democrat congress, this is Mr. Bush's final practical opportunity to act in Iraq before the close the purse strings on him. Fine. Let them try. And if the President allows this to happen his legacy will take the beating it deserves, as will his country. He is, after all, still president, and it is beholden on him to keep trying.

Yes, that's right - any second now the wall he's been beating our collective heads into will just fall away an crumble. Speaking of "insane" what was that old definition for repeating a failed strategy and expecting a different result again?

Oh yeah.

Look - let's take a flight of fancy and presume that we could ever throw enough troops to completely quell the violence in Iraq (ala McCain and the Snake-Talk Express he's been riding lately). That would require Gen Shinseki's long ignored force of 400-500,000 people. We don't HAVE the manpower for that. Not unless we implement Charlie Rangel's Draft. You up for that sparky?

Didn't think so.

As citizen of this country, win lose or draw on this particular effort in this particular front of the war, I can only pray that it is not our "last try." I for one hope that Mr. Bush will be successful with this strategy--but even so, casting it as a "last try" is delusional. Because even if we succeed here and drive them out of Iraq, the enemy will not stop trying. And in this context, our "last try" will be followed by only one thing. The end.

Drive who out of Iraq - the Sunni or the Shi'a? The Kurds maybe? Speaking of "delusional".

If Mr. Bush does implement a surge - (or will it be a bump? Possibly a mole-hile? Maybe a hitch in our git-along?) - it won't be short term, it's likely to last as much as 18 months, and even more likely to fail. Our Redfaced friend is correct, this is indeed an "end game" strategy and not a winning one. Like this poster, Bush will not be diverted from his disasterous course. Like the moth and flame - failure is their fate.

The sad reality is that Mr. Bush is very likely just a deluded as this poster - and we all remain yoked to their fate until the next Presidency (which with luck could come much sooner rather than later for our troops who are on an endless treadmill leading to both PTSD and increasing incidents of Suicide as a result of Bush's disasterous posturing).

Yes, one way or another, this is "The End". Heaven help us all.

Vyan

Only Postponing the Fall of Baghdad

Via Thinkprogress.

Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joe Biden (D-DE) said yesterday that he believes top officials in the Bush administration — “maybe even including the vice president” — have “privately concluded they have lost Iraq and are simply trying to postpone disaster so the next president will ‘be the guy landing helicopters inside the Green Zone, taking people off the roof,’ in a chaotic withdrawal reminiscent of Vietnam.”

"I have reached the tentative conclusion that a significant portion of this administration, maybe even including the vice president, believes Iraq is lost," Biden said. "They have no answer to deal with how badly they have screwed it up. I am not being facetious now. Therefore, the best thing to do is keep it from totally collapsing on your watch and hand it off to the next guy -- literally, not figuratively."

Now, I happen to believe that Biden is absolutely correct - not only have we completely lost in Iraq, but most of the Bush Administration already knows that we've lost - no matter how much Bush and his most wingnut of supportors such as Bill Kristol continue their insane talk of "Victory".

Bush, on other hand, understands that the only acceptable exit strategy is victory. To that end, Bush should do more. He should send substantially more troops and insist on a change of strategy to allow a real counterinsurgency and prevent civil war.

But the cold hard truth is that this entire escapade has been a total failure from top to bottom. They couldn't handle post Saddam Iraq, they couldn't stop the looting, get the lights back-on, get the fresh water flowing - and couldn't resist humiliating the Iraq with Abu Ghraib - until finally they permently lost not only the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people - they lost their trust as well.

Hence we have all this blather about a "surge" (of 30,000 troops) or maybe it's a "bump" (of only 15,000) -- all the while most of us are fully aware that none of these suggestions are doing anything more than buying time for the Bush Administration to run out the clock.

Even some of our newly empowered Democrats in Congress aren't quite getting it yet.

Last night on ABC News, newly elected Rep. Nancy Boyda (D-KS) said she would support funding for 20,000-40,000 more troops in Iraq because President Bush “is the commander in chief. …We don’t get that choice. Congress doesn’t make that decision.

Oh, but it does...

Although the new Congress should not refuse to provide the funds that the troops already in Iraq and Afghanistan need, it can place an amendment on the supplemental funding bill that states that if the administration wants to increase the number of troops in Iraq above 150,000, it must provide a plan for their purpose and require an up or down vote on exceeding that number.

They can also push for hearings on the supplemental funding requiring that the Administration precisely lay-out it's plan for how that spending is to be used -- a measure which falls far short of completely pulling out the plug on our troops, but still holds Bush's feet to the fire not to use them as human shields to bolster his shredded legacy.

Although this "Surge and Accelerate" Strategery of the President is as transparent as a sun dress in late afternoon sunlight - even Biden himself is sounding tentative.

"There is nothing a United States Senate can do to stop a president from conducting his war," Biden said. "The only thing that is going to change the president's mind, if he continues on a course that is counterproductive, is having his party walk away from his position."

Biden said that Vice President Cheney and former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld "are really smart guys who made a very, very, very, very bad bet, and it blew up in their faces. Now, what do they do with it? I think they have concluded they can't fix it, so how do you keep it stitched together without it completely unraveling?"

With Duct Tape and Glue made from the body parts of American Soldiers? I think not.

The fact is they're aint gonna be a "Surge" - not if John Murtha can help it.

When we asked about the likelihood of the president sending additional troops to Iraq, Murtha was adamant. "The only way you can have a troop surge," he told us, "is to extend the tours of people whose tours have already been extended, or to send back people who have just gotten back home." He explained at length how our military forces are already stretched to the breaking point, with our strategic reserve so depleted we are unprepared to face any additional threats to the country. So does that mean there will be no surge? Murtha offered us a "with Bush anything is possible" look, then said: "Money is the only way we can stop it for sure."

One thing Congress can due is make sure that Bush is the one who has to "face the choppers" - not the next President.

(Unless of course, Bush has already been forced to abdicate due to War Crimes Charges)

Vyan

Dem Congress Makes History

Women and Muslims and Liberals - Oh My!

Yesterday Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was voted in as the first female Speaker for the House of Representatives in American history.



This is no small thing, it is a major step forward in high-kicking your way through the Marble Ceiling into the hallways of power. And we have the Republican Congress to thank for it, not that they and their supporters have shown any grace what-so-ever.

And how do the country's major papers opinion pages handle this historic moment? They don't. No mention at the LA Times, and WaPo features another George Will set of prevarications running the gambit from the New Deal worsening the Depression to the fact that minimum wage workers really aren't poor.

Actually, the NYT does feature a column about Nancy Pelosi, from the always odious David Brooks, this time adding a dash of sexism to his usual drivel.

Some people believe that Pelosi is an airhead, but that is wrong. Some people believe she is a radical San Francisco liberal, but that, too, is wrong. The main fact to know about Pelosi is that she is a creature of the modern fund-raising system. Some politicians rise because they run political machines. Some rise because they are great communicators. Pelosi has risen because she is a master of the thousand-dollar-a-plate fundraising circuit....

She paid her dues selecting party favors, arranging seating charts (after that, legislation is easy), and laying thick dollops of obsequiousness on cranky old moguls and their helmet hair spa-spouses. She has done what all political fund-raisers do: tell rich people things they already believe, demonize the other side, motivate the giving with Manichaean tales of good versus evil.

Airhead? Party planner? Thank you, Mr. Brooks, for so minimizing the achievements of this talented politician. Would David Brooks ever discuss another, male politician in these terms? Would David Brooks ever ask if a prominent Republican, say George Bush, was an airhead?

Yuck it up fuzzballs, Nancy is now the queen of the roost and all your petty back-biting means nothing.

One paper, fittingly Ms. Pelosi's hometown paper, the San Francisco Chronicle rightly recognizes the import:

NANCY PELOSI'S election as speaker of the House will bring a moment of history today, to be followed by 100 hours of furious legislative activity.

First, let's pause to recognize the historic significance of the first woman and first Californian to assume a position that will put her second in succession to the presidency of the United States....

Well, at least someone got it right.

Meanwhile we have another historical first, Rep. Keith Ellison has now joined congress as it's first Muslim member - and has handled the pressure with enormous class as he met Virgle Goode (R) who has echoed Dennis Prager's claim that Ellisons use of the Koran in the after-induction photo-op would somehow damage our nation - even thought the Koran he eventually used had formerly belonged to Thomas Jefferson.




Ellison meeting Goode...



After meeting on the House Floor, showing that he's Mighty Christian- Ellison invited Goode out for coffee (and not in a Mark Foley sort-of way...)

“By reaching out to Congressman Goode I’m not trying to be accepted, I’m trying to build bridges. In this world there are too many misunderstandings. I want to put a human face on things,” explained Ellison.

Meanwhile Virgil seems to have some problems of his own.

It looks as if Virgil Goode's attack on Rep. Keith Ellion's use of the Koran for his swearing in hasn't gone over well with at least one of his constituents: Goode's district office in Charlottesville, Virginia, was vandalized. A local paper called The Hook reports that his office window sported a curious new addition: The word "BIGOT" stenciled on it in gold paint. Interestingly, the word was very carefully stencilled on, just under his name and title and in a similar shade of gold, so as to make the word "BIGOT" look almost like an official part of his job description. Asked by the paper if it might be a reaction to his anti-Muslim comments, a Goode spokesperson declined to comment. View a picture of the vandalized office here.

The graffiti has now been removed, but it does go to show that when liberals use guerilla tactics - they still do it with style.

Vyan

What Liberals Want...

Last week I wrote a four part series detailing the many reasons why George W. Bush (and various members of his administration) must be Impeached.

This post isn't about that.

It's about one response I received - from an obvious winger - that I feel deserves a full throated response.

How about a plan for the new administration?
you liberals can spend an inordinate amount of energy trying to impeach President Bush if you wish. I think your energies could be spent in a more constructive fashion by actually establishing some kind of plan after the current administration is gone in January 2009.

The plan is simple - undue all the shit that Bush has fucked up gross errors of the Bush Administration. That alone should keep us busy for nearly a decade.

What our right-leaning friend didn't seem to understand as I listed Count after Count against Bush including - Intelligence Fraud, Domestic Espionage, War Crimes and Torture and Criminal Negligence - clearly outlined a broad swath of consensus among liberals (and more than a few genuine conservatives) about how the direction of this country needs to be correct.

All you need to discover the "Liberal Plan" is to reverse everything that Bush has done during his Presidency - but not in the way that Conservatives and Karl Rove would like to project onto us with B.S. slogans such as "cut and run" or "appeasment", "stop listening to al-Qeada". No, there are far better ways to address this.

To Wit on the first count: Fraud.

• We need to restore the credibility of our intelligence services and the legitimacy of the word of the President.
• We need to rebuild our alliances with the UN, European Union and NATO - and begin to act as a much better neighbor and partner for peace than we have been.
• We need to relearn how to implement genuine Diplomacy, not just with our friends - but also with those we disagree with including Palestine, Syria, Iran and North Korea.

Count 2 : Domestic Espionage.

• We need to end Warrantless Domestic Spying and begin to abide by FISA and the Law while performing counter-intelligence and counter-terrorism against foreign threats.
• We need to restore Probable Cause and end the NSA Datamine program.
• We need to learn to better utilize resources, and better target suspect individuals without casting a net so wide that thousands of innocent persons become ensnared in the web.

Count 3 : War Crimes and Torture

• We need to abide by the Geneva Conventions, which as a treaty is considered part of our own law under the Constitution.
• We need to stop giving lip service and actually end all torture, and coercive (and ineffective) interrogation techniques as well as permenently close Gitmo and the Secret CIA prisons.
• We need to restore Habeas Corpus and repeal the Military Commissions Act.

Count 4 : Criminal Negligence

• We need to fight al-Qaeda effectively and directly, rather than let ourselves be diverted into side-isseus (such as Iraq or Iran).
• We need to end the War Profiteering, the outsourcing of our military with sweatheart deals to contractors.
• We need to solve the Iraq Issue, most likely by finally bringing the heads of the internal (Suni, Shia, Krud) and external factions (Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Turkey) in this conflict together in some sort of Reconciliation summit to resolve the key issues between them. Splitting the nation into semi-independant sectarian states with a weakened national government may be part of the solution (ala Biden & Bosnia), as might be Amnesty for Insurgents - but the issues should be resolved around a negotiating table, not in the streets of Baghdad or with the Blood of our soldiers. Either way, we're not fighting our way out of this - surge or not surge.
• We need to serously address Nuclear Proliferation, and bring greater international and direct diplomatic pressure onto North Korea and Iran to end their weapons programs.
• We need to repair the Gulf Coast, and end the fraud and curruption which has already wasted and lost a $1 Billion with few results.

Other issues off the top of my head which currently fall below the levels of "High Crimes" but are still vital and I strongly suspect have a high-consensus among liberals and many conservatives alike.

• We need to End the Birth Tax - (aka Fix the Deficit by reversing Bush's out of control spending and tax cut mania - yet retaining credits and tax breaks for individuals and companies that take responsible action to aid national priorities)
• We need to teach Science in to Science class - not pseudo-Scientific creationism (People are free to go to Sunday School or Comparitive Religion Class for that)
• We need to teach our kids Real Sex Ed - not lie to them about Condoms and Abstinance.
• We need to create a 21st Century Apollo Program to fight the rise of CO2 emissions, develop and implement effective low-emissions technologies - not just to save the Polar Bears, but to save us all.
• We need to dramatically raise the minimum wage so that working families do not continue to fall behind as the economy grows.
• We need to tell companies like Wal-Mart to get off the public dole and providing affordable for the healthcare for their workers.
• We need the government to stop spreading propaganda through the media, and restore the fairness doctrine.

The arguments that "Liberals Don't have an agenda" is just plain ridiculous.

Also isn't it interesting that many people who like to claim this tripe (O'Leilly) simultaneously claim that the we do have a "secular progressive stealth agenda?" Self-contradiction much?

They know we have an agenda that goes far beyond just Impeaching and Removing George W. Bush, in fact, that's exactly what they're most afraid of. Tossing out Bush and Co will, if and when it occurs, will only be showing the tip of the spear.

I'm sure most of you have your own list of examples...

Vyan

Leaders are where you make them

On the day before Christmas we had a first time diarist post an excellent commentary (even if unseemly visual) Growing up Under Bush on the apathy of our latest generation of youngsters and they enter voting age.

I was born in 1988. I was 12 years old when President Bush was "elected". I will cast my first vote in the 2008 election. I've chosen my first diary to talk about the political attitudes I've observed among people my age.

I live in an area that's predominately well-educated and liberal. Most young people in my area are deeply politically-engaged. Since we've been politically aware, the American political system has been dominated by the incompetence of the Bush administration. One might expect such a repulsive executive would lead to outrage among the youth, just as Nixon and the Vietnam War did for our parents' generation. Instead, it's lead to widespread apathy and detachment.

I agree - however, it's wasn't quite as rosey back then as it now seems - nor is it quite a bad today. And not everything is George W. Bush's fault.

The situation we find ourselves in is one that's so enraging, so insulting to intelligent observers that there's no action strong enough to act as an appropriate response. Instead of taking to the streets with signs and songs, the youth has taken no unified public action. We lack the Kennedys (both John and Bobby), the MLK, the Malcolm X to guide our responses. Basically, we lack inspired leadership. So instead of becoming politically active, students grumble about Bush while planning to become investment bankers.

On the same day Readheads diary was posted, on Christmas, James Brown died. Although he is mostly known as the "Godfather of Soul", the man with the original "Happy Feet" - in 1968 he became much much more.

I was born in 1963, just a scant month before John Kennedy was shot to death in Dallas, TX. He remains a hero in my household to this very day, as does his brother Bobby and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. All of them, along with Malcolm X, had been murdered by the time I was five years-old in 1968.

Although many remember the 60's a the time of "Kum-bah-yah", brotherly love, and massive Washington Protest the reality at the time was very different. After the killing the John, the shooting of Martin caused the nation to erupt in flame. The Original King Riots burned dozens of cities across the U.S., as peoples hope which had been ignited by Jack, Bobby and Martin was violently extinguished.

And the man who stopped the violence, at least for a single night - was James Brown - With his songs and words during a nationally broadcast concert in Boston.

... King was assassinated and cities across America engulfed by riots. Brown may have singlehandedly saved Boston from burning. A day after the April 4 murder, he was scheduled to play a concert there. Nervous city fathers proposed cancelling the show until wiser heads pointed out that angry ticket buyers would definitely cause mayhem.

Brown arranged with the local public television station to broadcast the concert live, and he went on the radio to urge fans to stay home and watch it for free. The city's black neighborhoods were eerily quiet as a moist-eyed Brown took to the stage of the Boston Garden and punctuated his funky soul tunes with remembrances of King and appeals for calm.

The day after the Boston show, Brown flew to Washington D.C., which had been badly hit by riots. Once again, he took to the airwaves to appeal for restraint and to declare that education and ownership were better ways to seek justice.

One leader fell, and another rose to take his place and to call for peace. Such is how it has ever been.

But at the time, the bitterness and cynicism only grew strong. Woodstock gave way to Altamont and Kent State. The fun and free-loving hippies gave way to violence of the Manson Family and The S.L.A. Hippies gone Wild and not in a nice info-mercialicius I'm ready-for-the-money-shot kind of way.

Eventually Martin's call for strength through non-violence was overtaken by the Militance of the Black Panthers and the American Indian Movement (who actually took armed control of Alcatraz Island for nearly two years from 1969-1971).

What we saw by the end of the 70's was largely the end of idealism, and the birth of turbo narcissism. After all the ugliness and strife of the late 60's and early 70's, although the Civil Rights War and the fight to end the Vietnam War had both been won - although Nixon had been driven from office in shame. People weren't rejoicing - after so much death, after leaders of both the Black Panthers, A.I.M and were hunted down, killed in police shoot-outs and/or jailed on bogus . lame . trumped up. charges after being illegally surveilled - they were drowning their sorrows in the drugs, the sex and the boogie. Anything to take their minds off of the cold hard reality of the Watergate, the energy crisis and American Hostages in Iran.

This is not so different from what we're seeing from the youth today and the fall of their own early 90's awakening with the rise and fall of Bill Clinton and Kurt Cobain.

The more things change...

Readhead:

Policy-wise, no leader has articulated a position that engages the youth enough to activate us. Try chanting "In 3 to 5 months we want a plan to evaluate the effectiveness of our presence in Iraq!" It doesn't work, and we haven't seen an alternative.

This administration has silenced the opposition to such an extent that young progressives don't know what opposition looks like. This does not mean mainstream liberals are free from blame. If we use the current Democratic establishment as a model, opposition looks a lot like equivocation, which is not something that teenagers respond well to.

I'm not so sure that a position hasn't been articulated - I would argue that it's been deliberately drowned out, by the very same people who fought so vehemently against Martin, Malcolm, Bobby and Cesar Chavez back in the day.

You have to remember that most of the most effectively leaders from the 60's and 70's didn't come from politics - they came from the people. Martin was no politician, he was a preacher. He simpy spoke truth to power with an eloquence and charisma that made people listen. And made others very afraid.

The Reich-Wing has made it their number-one priority to tamped down dissent - just as Nixon tried to do - and they have been partially successful, but not completely. When N.W.A. spoke up about Police Brutality with "Fuck tha Police" they received a threatening letter from the F.B.I. When Body Count echoed that sentiment with Cop Killer, the right-wing used it as a rallying point and their record label received death threats. As did the Dixie Chicks, and as has Keith Olbermann.

This has continued today and is why we see such virilent attacks on the likes of Cindy Sheehan, Bev Harris, Joseph Wilson, Larry Wilkerson, Larry Johnson, Ray McGovern, Howard Dean, The Jersey Girls, The Dixie Chicks, Pink, Neil Young, Ward Churchill, Jay Bennish, Harry Belafonte, George Clooney, John Murtha and John Kerry, They wish to hide and distract from the fact that we have already had massives rallies over both Immigration as well as World Wide Protest Against the War involving nearly 10 Million people!

January 10, 2003: In Washington, D.C., and San Francisco, California, at the two largest peace rallies, the crowds were urged on by international peace activists, religious leaders, members of Congress, actors and musicians.

At least tens of thousands of people rallied on the Mall in Washington, and a similar-size group crowded downtown San Francisco.

Further examples of World-Wide Anti-War Protest courtesy of System of a Down.


None of those who have chosen to stand-up against the Bush Administration are "perfect". Martin wasn't perfect either, less than two months before his death the FBI threatened to expose his affair - which they had discovered using illegal wiretaps - and attempted to convince him to commit suicide. Both Jack and Bobby were adulterers. Malcolm X was forced out of the National of Islam because he threatened to expose the infidelity of the Nation's leader Elijah Mohammad.

Consider this a plea for real leadership. For someone who unifies all progressives and liberals and gives us a war to fight. For a party that eschews infighting and incrimentalism in favor of real change. For a movement that sweeps up all of us with its fervor. Because if it doesn't happen, the future will be a dark one indeed.

If the youth are waiting for the perfect leader to emerge, they'll be waiting a very long time.

I deeply simpathize with Readhead's frustation and feeling of isolation from the apathetic. I know what it's like to feel like you just missed what might have been a momentous movement to have been apart of. I was far too young for Woodstock. I hardly remember the Watt's Riots. (However I do remember Manson, and the SLA House burning down here in South Central)

No-one in my day-to-day life, with the exception of my wife, happens to feel or express modern issues nearly as deeply as myself. Rather than discuss the issues of the day this Christmas, my choices were to either listen to my cousins smack-talk each other while playing Madden '07 on their playstation in the bedroom- or the menopause/breast cancer conversation taking place with my mother and her siblings in the dining room. Anyone whose views would tend to lean to the hard-right has long been excised from my life - I don't really need to any freepers in my world.

So I had a beer, then another...

And then I came back here - to our virtual rally. Like the bad-ole days of Cointelpro we have the FBI and NSA tapping our phones, we have the threat of being called "traitors" simply for pointing out that the Iraq War was the wrong cause and is now lost - we face accusations of being kool-aid drinking "haters" for simply documenting the Bush Administration crimes. We face losing our freedom and being thrown into Gitmo for being "aidders and abetters". A bit of stealthiness is now essential.

It is here we find solace and an oasis from the fear-mongering and pandering of the corporate media.

It is here that we plan, that we strategize, that we become and help shape the leaders of tomorrow, rather than waiting around for them.

The Reich-Wing did their worst against us this year - and it was largely through our efforts, the Netroots, the small donations and the efforts of the people on the ground - that we fought them back and took over both houses of congress.

We - the Citizen Media - are the ones now driving our own ship of state. Forget "Free Speach Zones" - we tell our Representatives exactly where they should go, not the other away around. Our "Leaders" are now Kos, Joshua Micah Marshall, Arriana Huffington, Digby, Media Matters, Truthout and Thinkprogress. Our leaders are Us.

So I welcome Readhead to Dkos - and others who feel similarly - but I also make a request of them. Instead of looking to guidance from others - Be ready to become the leader that you most wish to see, because that's what the future will ultimately demand from all of us.

We all have a responsibility, not just "them" - that's what Democracy truly means.

And for all those who are too busy playing with their X-Box and planning their investment portfolio - at least they won't be standing in the way as we change the course of this country.

Vyan