Unsolicited Advice For Democratic Losers

By Richard Reeves

Let's begin by stating the obvious: If the Democrats cannot win the 2006 congressional elections, they don't deserve to be a political party. They will survive as losers, of course, but only because American election laws are a contract between the Democratic and Republican parties to preserve each other no matter what happens.

Given failing wars, a failed Republican president and a deliberate betrayal of the America most of us grew up in, or thought we did -- we were taught that Americans went to war only when we were attacked, and we did not endorse torture and the murdering of civilians -- it is hard to imagine how the Democrats can lose.

The losing strategy, I think, would be to stand still in front of forests of American flags and shout: "Iraq! Iraq! Iraq!" Such a campaign would also be punctuated by more hushed mentions of Afghanistan as well.

That's a mug's game, a losing game for the Democrats. Why? If the overwhelming majority of Americans realize by the end of the year that invading Iraq was a mistake, why not round them up like so many cattle? The answer is in the question: Americans already know things went terribly wrong and we are governed by incompetent ideologues who rushed in where angels feared to tread.

The problem for the Democrats on Iraq is that they cannot or will not come up with any credible arguments about what to do next. The Republican response -- "Follow the flag! Stay the course. Support our boys and girls against the ragheads" -- will once again top Democratic mealy-mouthed confusion and political cowardice.

So, politically, I would argue the war will take care of itself. People of all political persuasions already get it. Sooner or late, many Americans will see verbal attacks as anti-American diatribes. Politicians do not always do well by doing good or being right.

The Republicans already have many institutional advantages in the coming elections: the power of incumbency, the ability to raise money, and districts across the country that have been redesigned to concentrate Democratic voters (minorities and the poor) in ways that maximize the chances of Republican candidates in areas that were once marginal. Their final advantage would be an election cast as referendum on war, easily turned into a referendum on patriotism.

My advice, unsolicited, to Democrats would be to wage a campaign on local issues and the overall national governance of Republicans these last six years.President Bush and the Republican Congresses came to power in an American superpower -- military, economic and moral -- with a balanced budget and what seemed unlimited future. Now, we are a debt-ridden country reviled around the world and scorned at home because of conservative positions and performance from stem cell research to New Orleans. The war in Iraq is only a symptom, not the cause, of the decline of the United States -- and that decline should be the Democratic issue of choice in 2006 and perhaps 2008 as well.

This guy is right and wrong at the same time, in my not-so-humble opinion. Bush's War and the Occupation of Iraq is "only" a symptom of our decline in the same way a 300-pound tumor is "only" a symptom that something may be dreadfully wrong with our health. We're not going to fix it by ignoring it while trying to deal with flat feet, body odor, flatulence, and incontinence, although those things need addressing as well.

Of all the evils perpetrated by this administration, Iraq is by far the most serious. I won't bore you with all the others. I know I could list them with one or two for each letter of the alphabet and still miss a bunch of 'em.

Where Mr. Reeves gets it right is this: The Democrats need to put aside their petty internal squabbles and consolidate their message. That's how the Republicans have done it, and they run the joint. Poorly, to be sure, but that's not the point. As stupid, incompetent, closed-minded, anti-everybody but the rich and powerful, and just plain evil as they are, they did it by getting together on one message, sticking together, kickin' ass, and lying.

The Democrats need to get together on one message, namely that the American people have been sold a bunch of snake oil by charlatans and taken for fools in the process at the hideous expense of their future if they don't act now.

They also need a plan as to how they will fix things once they are in, in easily understandable terms. A lot of people don't want to be bothered by the intricacies of dealing with complex problems, they just want the pols to "git 'er done" and leave 'em alone.

If the Dems work out a good way of getting their message across and stick together, they can kick ass by telling the TRUTH. That's the main difference between US and THEM.

'If' is a big word. 'If' Hell had ice water, I'd rather be there than Texas, just for example. While hoping and working for the best outcome this November and beyond, I'd say us reality-based folks better not hold our breath.

Attention Pundits

Good post at The Ham Hock of Liberty (no, I didn't make that up!) on media gasbags, blogs, and Lieberman:

Gentlemen, it has come to my attention that your strings of pearls are being worn thin from clutching, at the intemperate and potty-mouthed "fascism" of liberal blogs. Apparently, you don't like these self-appointed kingmakers "purging" the Democratic party of anyone who doesn't toe the line, as seen most clearly in the current Senatorial primary race in Connecticut. You have picked up the whiff of intolerance and fascism behind the near-unanimous support for Ned Lamont, versus the incumbent Joe Lieberman. You think that the full-court press to elect Mr. Lamont is, apparently, almost a crime against basic human decency. And so you have started several sandbox fights with your arch-enemies, the guys (and girls) with blogs.

As you are so fond of explaining to the rabid pre-teens on the internets what is really good for them, let me explain what's good for all of you: NOT calling the exercise of democracy "fascism" or "purging." Some people with websites do not hold the reins of governmental power. They do not direct party funds. They don't run the military. They have, in other words, no actual power. What they have are opinions and some facts. Sort of like yourselves. When they advocate the election of Ned Lamont, the only ability they have to effect this is to convince people that he is a worthy candidate. Worthy of votes, donations, and word of mouth to Connecticut voters. The voters of Connecticut will decide whether they agree. This is the point you seem to be missing. If enough voters in Connecticut decide that their views will be better represented by Ned Lamont than by Joe Lieberman, he should be elected. Right? This is how democracy works. If you disagree, you are just as free as Markos, or Jane Hamsher, or Atrios, to make your argument why Joe Lieberman is the better choice.

"Lieberman deserves support, because he votes against your beliefs and interests." That's basically what you're saying. Think about it.

That last line hit the nail right on the head. Worth a read.

All The News That's Fit To Bully

Daddy Frank

TWO weeks and counting, and the editor of The New York Times still has not been sentenced to the gas chamber. What a bummer for one California radio talk-show host, Melanie Morgan, who pronounced The Times guilty of treason and expressly endorsed that punishment. She and the rest of the get-the-press lynch mob are growing restless, wondering why newspapers haven't been prosecuted under the Espionage Act. "If Bush believes what he is saying," taunted Pat Buchanan, "why does he not do his duty as the chief law enforcement officer of the United States?"

Here's why. [List follows...]

The administration has a more insidious game plan instead: it has manufactured and milked this controversy to reboot its intimidation of the press, hoping journalists will pull punches in an election year. There are momentous stories far more worrisome to the White House than the less-than-shocking Swift program, whether in the chaos of Anbar Province or the ruins of New Orleans. If the press muzzles itself, its under-the-radar self-censorship will be far more valuable than a Nixonesque frontal assault that ends up as a 24/7 hurricane veering toward the Supreme Court.

The trouble is we have plenty to worry about. For all the airy talk about the First Amendment, civil liberties and Thomas Jefferson in the debate over the Swift story and the National Security Agency surveillance story before it, there's an urgent practical matter at stake, too. Now more than ever, after years of false reports of missions accomplished, the voters need to do what Congress has failed to do and hold those who mismanage America's ever-expanding war accountable for their performance in real time.

Much, much more. Go read. That's our Pop!

Lieberman Ad Uses Fake Lamont Sticker

LiberalOasis. Video at Crooks and Liars.

A TV ad, with a message approved by Sen. Joe Lieberman, uses a phony Ned Lamont bumper sticker to falsely claim that all Lamont has to say is "No More Joe."

The ad ran today on Hartford's Fox affiliate WTIC-61, during "Fox News Sunday." (It was also shown during C-Span's airing of the Lieberman-Lamont debate.)

The narrator begins the ad with: "In the battle of the bumper stickers, this one has a simple message: 'No More Joe.' But what else does Lamont really have to say?"

A graphic of a "NO MORE JOE" sticker is shown. The second line of the sticker reads: "Ned Lamont * Democrat for U.S. Senate". In the bottom right corner of the sticker is a URL, www.nomorejoe.com.

Problem is: there is no www.nomorejoe.com.

This means two things are possible.

The Lamont campaign is the dumbest campaign in history, making bumper stickers sending people to dead website that they don't own.

Or the Lieberman campaign, desperate to find an attack line against a strong challenger, has to lie and pretend Lamont has nothing positive to say about his own platform.

So to call out Lieberman's false ad is also a way to remind voters, and reporters, that the Lamont candidacy is a broad-based camapign, not a simplistic, amateurish exercise.

Certainly not as amateurish as that Lieberman ad.

Amateurish? Don't tell Lieberman that! I'm sure he paid big money to the consultant that came up with this one! I'm damn glad Holy Joe got to the guy first!

She was 14

From the Palace, related to my post directly below:

...

Cynics will cluck that such occurences are an unfortunate feature of all wars -- which is, of course, one very persuasive reason why morally cretinous assholes should not, in [the] future, be entrusted with the power to start them on nothing more than a whim.

...

It is long past the time for us to get out.

A dangerous situation

Digby looks at the Neocon mind.

...

This was a very good article until this point. Our failure [in Iraq] is already certain no matter what we do. The fundamental flaw in this entire enterprise is not how we did it, although the massive failures outlined in this article are so obvious that it's imperative to discuss them on their own terms. In fact, I worry that what this failure of execution reveals is a military leadership so lacking in intellectual ability and so wracked with primitive racism that this country cannot count on it to actually defend us in case of a real war. The officer corps are supposed to be smart guys, not a bunch of idiots who would read some piece of trash like "The Arab Mind" and actually believe it --- much less use it as the basis for tactics on the ground. This is a dangerous situation for America. [my ems]

...

Long but very good.

Update:

Wintess the effect of these idiots' decisions on the troops, from Bulldog:

...

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder didn't become commonly diagnosed until the Vietnam War. The Iraq War and the multiple deployments of troops has heightened the awareness of PTSD and its effects on returning soldiers. The episode described above can be classically described as a PTSD-related incident. Unfortunately, many returning troops are being discharged and told to visit the nearest VA Medical Center for any health-related issues they experience instead of being treated by military doctors.

...

Thanks to the asshats in charge, there will be a generation of young men and women who are gonna have (and unfortunately cause) some big problems once they get home.

L'Italia vince!

What a match! Tied 1 - 1 after regulation and overtime, Italy wins by 1 over France in penalty kicks.

Link added.

Update (Monday morning):



No, this is not Rome or Naples or Venice, this is Little Italy in NYC. I love this city.

RCMP*

I was quite taken with Fixer's post about the recent marriage of two of Canada's "brave, decent, and true" Mounties. I got the idea that show tunes figured in this deal somewhere, you know, like from Nelson Eddy/ Jeannette MacDonald movies like Rose Marie (aka Indian Love Call), so I started looking. An idle mind...

...finds some good shit sometimes. Not only did I find several informative and beautifully illustrated pages on The Mountie Films, I hit big-time pay dirt at The Old Corral, a site devoted to B-Westerns, which I love.

Also, who can forget the most comedic use of stereotypes in TV history, Due South?

The show falls somewhere between a cop show and a comedy show. Although superficially following the police drama format, the comedy derives from the outrageous plots, the self-mocking Canadian and American stereotypes, and the occasional fantasy elements (such as the regular visits paid to Fraser by the ghost of his dead father), all played with absolute deadpan by the actors. Much of the comedy, as well as setting much of the tone of the show, was provided by Fraser's supernormal detective ability. For instance, in one episode, Fraser tracks down a suspect by smelling the breath of a rat to detect which brand of cooked ribs it had been eating.

I didn't find any connection between show tunes and the sexual makeup of the Mounties. Hell, there ain't any. I knew it goin' in but I was trying to find some humor in the situation. Instead, I found a gold mine. Please enjoy the links.

*Red-Coated Married Poufters?
Really Campy Movie Posters?
Sorry!

The Little Tramp's Classic Labor Lesson

LATimes

Venezuela's socialist government is using a 1936 Chaplin film to educate workers about their rights. Employers are not applauding.

LOS TEQUES, Venezuela - In his classic 1936 film, "Modern Times," Charlie Chaplin has to work so fast tightening bolts in a steel factory that he finally goes crazy. In a memorable scene that has become a metaphor for labor exploitation, the Little Tramp is run through the factory's enormous gears.

For President Hugo Chavez's socialist government, the film is more than just entertainment: It's become a teaching tool. Since January, in a bid to expose the evils of "savage capitalism," the Labor Ministry has shown the Chaplin film to thousands of workers in places such as this rundown industrial suburb of Caracas.

Metalworker Miguel Moreno also has seen some improvement. "We have more power because we know more," he said. "They've given me earplugs for the noise, at least."

Gee, maybe we should show this Chaplin flick to the Chimp. Hey, if Miguel got some earplugs, maybe Georgie'll move his buttplug to his jibs and shut the fuck up!

So...

If this world was 'designed intelligently' by the Almighty, what the fuck was He smoking when He did this and where can I get some of that cheeb?

"May they name a baby after you!"

I was reading about how a Lieberman mouthpiece is scolding CT Jews for supporting Lamont and got a link to Jewish curses from the first 'comment'. Oy!

Mazeltov!

Gary:

RCMP Constable Jason Tree and Constable David Connors exchanged vows this week in Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, before a justice of the peace and a troop of other Mounties.

While same-sex marriage is becoming commonplace across Canada now, this was the first time (that I know of) that two of Canada's finest men, our very own Royal Canadian Mounted Police, took the plunge.

...

So when are the tight asses in this country gonna wake up? Can ya get any more 'manly' than Mounties? It sure as hell wouldn't be an issue if one of these guys came to their rescue, I'm sure.

Yes,We Have no Progressives...In Georgia,USA..and I think I've figured out why.

Ok,that's a terribly broad and sweeping generalization,sorry for that.But I am fed up.

I've been patient.I've been tolerant.I've been civil.Believe it or not,I've even been rather nice to my fellow neighbors and community members who don't share my religion or politics.We're all in this together,aren't we?

Appearently Not.

Yesterday was the tipping point for me. I ran out to get some pool chemicals after dinner and what do I see? Right there in the Lowe's parking lot? A big,black SUV with a"Liberal Hunting License"slapped on the back window(also,see this).And a W sticker.And a Ralph Fucking Reed(and yes,that IS his middle name, for I have decreed it so)bumper sticker.Nice.Yeah,there's your Homeland feeling of Security right there baby.

This right wingnutty hostility is nothing new here in the South,sometimes it's even kind of funny.A guilty pleasure to be sure,because making fun of the impaired isn't really all that difficult or sporting,but sometimes,you just can't not do it.It's either that or go completely insane.I prefer humor over insanity myself,but hey,that's just me.

In the run up to the 2004 election,and to only a slightly lesser degree in 2000,the fear and loathing in the air was so thick around here you could cut it with a chainsaw.Every TV in every public venue(bars,restaurants,even stores that sell TVs)was tuned to Fox news.In line at the store, conversations in parking lots, people at the next table in a restaurant,at the pharmacy,conversations inevitably drifted to war and politics.When people are relaxed and in their comfort zones,their guard is down,and if you pay attention,you hear some amazing things around here.

"Damn liberals shouldn't even be allowed to vote.They're lucky we let them,shows how open minded we are."(I shit you not,I heard this while waiting to get my car serviced in early 2004.I could spend a whole post on that one alone,but let's keep going)

"You take God out of the schools,and of course our kids won't be ready for college when they graduate.Those liberals want to ban the Bible too,you just wait and see what happens if one of them gets elected around here.They have to be stopped,by whatever means necessary."(and this woman holds a job and drives a motor vehicle,amazing)

"Democrats are going to STEAL the elections,mark my words."(if true,this proves Democrats are lousy criminals,don'tcha think? I smell a campaign slogan in there someplace.)

"I'm tired of being persecuted for being a Christian.Just the other day some stupid liberal was complaining about the kids praying before their soccer game.We ran him and his wife and that little brat of theirs outta there fast."(never mind the 3 new churches and enormous private Christian school down the street-which has a long waiting list,or the fact that irony is just completely lost on these people.Or how objecting to public prayer qualifies as persecution.Or how the guy just knew for a fact this person was a Liberal.)

You see,I don't think that it's that there are really NO progressives here,it's just that they've been scared and intimidated into silence for the most part.And honestly,who the hell can blame them for being scared of this crap?

I think the time has come to ask these so called "conservatives",many of whom claim to be "Christian"a few questions:

So,if I'm to understand you correctly(because heaven forbid you'd ever be misunderstood)you're actually saying that it's perfectly OK by you for a neighbor to shoot one of your neighbors for being a registered Democrat?

Or perhaps what you really mean is that it's perfectly normal and sane to advocate that Americans arm themselves and go hunt down and kill the American family down the street because they hold liberal beliefs?

Would it be alright with you if,in a random house to house search on your street,liberal families were dragged out of bed in the middle of the night,taken into their front yards and lynched?Would you enjoy seeing those bodies hanging in the trees right next to your kid's school bus stop?

What would you do if I had a "Conservative Hunting License"sticker on my car?Would you be appalled?Outraged?Driven to violence against me?

Look,I know this moron with the hunting license sticker is probably full of shit and couldn't fight his way out of a wet paper bag.Most of the people in this country who cheer for violence cry when they stub a toe or go home and kick the dog around when someone cuts them off in traffic.It's real easy to run your yap about shit like that and most people are too self centered to do anything that might earn them a bruise or interfere with their TV schedule.But there also comes a time when common sense should be the rule,rather than the exception.Not to mention just being an overall decent human being.

With Freedom of Speech also comes the assumption that most Americans are not complete idiots and understand cause and effect(something that is completely lost on the Party of Moral Responsibility).The idea here being that unpopular,disturbing or perverse ideals and rhetoric would be relagated to the fringes(not shut down or censored),not go on to become a mainstream sensibility.The Founders counted on us not ever forgetting that common sense and at least a basic understanding of integrity would be the keys to a successful democratic republic.Nowadays,being a thug is not only acceptable,it's rewarded(see Rove,Karl),it's a goal to aspire to.

And someone's gonna get hurt or killed eventually as a result,it's only a matter of time.

I hesitate to use Rwanda as a comparison here,but hate speech via hate radio played a HUGE role in the genocide there.That's rather hard to ignore.Inexpensive AM radios were handed out freely,and information was given out over the airwaves as to where"the cockroaches"could be found and exterminated.And we all know how that turned out.

No,we aren't Rwanda,and we should thank our lucky stars we aren't.

However,it does prove that hate speech incites violence if people are fearful and driven to see the "enemy"in anyone that's not exactly like them. And maybe it's past fucking time for this shit to be pushed out of the public discourse,scorned,and made unpopular again.

I keep a Sharpie marker in my glove box.Mostly because I send alot of packages to far away family and friends,and it comes in handy to mark out old delivery bar codes from re-used boxes.Sometimes I'm in a hurry and forget to do it at home,hence the marker in the car.I found a new use for it yesterday.

In bold black letters I wrote on the hunting license sticker:

I AM ANTI AMERICAN.KICK ME.

Quote of the Day

Gilliard:

Washington reporters have been wrong about damn near everything they have reported since Clinton.

Police states 2

Since when is it illegal to wear a t-shirt?

This afternoon, drinking a cup of coffee while sitting in the Jesse Brown V.A. Medical Center on Chicago's south side, a Veterans Administration cop walked up to me and said, "OK, you've had your 15 minutes, it's time to go."

"Huh?", I asked intelligently, not quite sure what he was talking about.

"You can't be in here protesting," officer Adkins said, pointing to my Veterans For Peace shirt.

"Well, I'm not protesting, I'm having a cup of coffee," I returned, thinking that logic would convince Adkins to go back to his earlier duties of guarding against serious terrorists.

Flipping his badge open, he said, "No, not with that shirt. You're protesting and you have to go."

...

Personally, I'd have showed the cop a protest he'd never forget. Look, ladies and gentlemen, this shit didn't go on before Bush took office. This is still the United States and as long as you're not disturbing the peace, you can wear whatever the fuck you want to. Note to gung-ho cops who think this 'liberals-are-traitors' mindset that seems to be in fashion lately gives them license to harass innocent citizens: There are some of us out here who aren't cowed by your badge and gun. Fuck around with me like this and you'll get them both shoved up your ass.

Link thanks to Dave Johnson.

Nostalgia

SheaNC brings us back almost 20 years, to those heady conservative days of the Reagan Era.

"And now the liberals want to stop President Reagan from selling chemical warfare agents and military equipment to Saddam Hussein, and why? Because Saddam 'allegedly' gassed a few Kurds in his own country. Mark my words. All of this talk of Saddam Hussein being a 'war criminal' or 'committing crimes against humanity' is the same old thing. LIBERAL HATE SPEECH! And speaking of poison gas... I SAY WE ROUND UP ALL THE DRUG ADDICTS AND GAS THEM." - Rush Limbaugh, Nov. 3, 1988

See, it's still all the liberals' fault.

Shame on me

For not sourcing this properly. Wish it was true but it's not.

...

Although the political intent of the 1 August 2004 Boondocks strip was clear, the context that it was not really a repeat of a strip from 3 November 1988 and did not report something Rush Limbaugh actually said over the airwaves on that date went missing in action, and the text of the strip has since been passed around the Internet as if it were a genuine transcript of a portion of a 1988 Rush Limbaugh broadcast.

Although leave us not forget:

Must be an election year

C&L:

...

"I have learned of some alleged intelligence community activities about which our committee has not been briefed," Mr. Hoesktra wrote. "If these allegations are true, they may represent a breach of responsibility by the administration, a violation of the law, and, just as importantly, a direct affront to me and the members of this committee who have so ardently supported efforts to collect information on our enemies." He added: "The U.S. Congress simply should not have to play Twenty Questions to get the information that it deserves under our Constitution."

...

"Bush who?"

3rd Place

Germany - 3

Portugal - 1

Well, the Mannschaft can hold their heads high in Stuttgart tonight. They are partying in Hauenstein (as if they need an excuse), though knowing my peeps, they never really stopped partying since this thing kicked off a couple weeks ago. Oliver Kahn (the German goalkeeper) played in what could be his last World Cup and performed as if he were fifteen years younger.

France vs. Italy tomorrow.

How they argue

Serious liquid alert. How Conservatives argue.

Tip o' the Brain to Pauly.

The way I feel ...

About Evan Bayh running for the Presidency. Stolen fully and completely from Digby:

Atrios says that Evan Bayh is out campaigning for president and people are comparing him to Harry Truman. Might I suggest that we actually nominate Harry Truman instead? I knows he's been dead for decades, but I feel confident that his mouldering corpse has more charisma than Evan Bayh.