Shakes gets all the good stuff

More great things from Shakespeare's Sister. It's not stealing if I give credit, right?
Note the Minute Men sticker and Yellow Ribbon...

Great Role-Model, Mr. Boehner

Majority Leader John Boehner managed to combine two things I loathe today - Republican Politics and Ohio State Football. From a memo he sent out Saturday Morning:

To: House Republican Members

From: Majority Leader Boehner

Date: July 29, 2006

Re: Making August Matter

Legendary Ohio State University football coach Woody Hayes is famous for describing his approach to offense as "three yards and a cloud of dust." His football teams won consistently by grinding it out, running the ball, gaining a few yards at a time, and ultimately putting the points on the board needed to win the game.

Maybe it's my just Buckeye bias talking, but I think it's a pretty fair analogy for the way in which House Republicans have gone about our work in recent months. We've worked hard to tackle the issues the American people care about...

I'd Say Woody Hayes is a pretty good match for the GOP.

'Three yards and a cloud of dust' along with 'run, run, pass, punt' used to define the Big 10. Of course, just like the 'Leave it to Beaver' '50s, the real world doesn't work that way anymore. Either way, the money quote from the memo is this:

too many American families continue to feel anxiety about the high cost of living. Our economic engine is firing on all cylinders, but too many American families are still feeling the pinch of rising health care costs, high gas prices, steep college tuition rates, and uncertainty about their retirement savings.

International threats are also contributing to the anxiety American families feel. Terrorists are waging a global war against freedom and free people. We've taken the fight to them in Iraq and Afghanistan...

Our mission in August is to engage our constituents in a dialogue [lie to them] about their hopes and anxieties and our majority's efforts to address them...

After I scraped off some of the Republican B.S. it became pretty obvious. They've realized that the American people aren't buying 'God, Guns, and Gays' anymore. The GOP is scared. Expect the lies to start flowing like government subsidies to Oil Companies.

That or John Boehner is going to punch a kid.

John Boehner Woody Hayes Republicans

Your Gray Matter Doesn't Like Gray Areas

The Washington Post reports on the Brain Science of partisanship:

Psychological experiments in recent years have shown that people are not evenhanded when they process information, even though they believe they are. (When people are asked whether they are biased, they say no. But when asked whether they think other people are biased, they say yes.) Partisans who watch presidential debates invariably think their guy won. When talking heads provide opinions after the debate, partisans regularly feel the people with whom they agree are making careful, reasoned arguments, whereas the people they disagree with sound like they have cloth for brains.

Unvaryingly, partisans also believe that partisans on the other side are far more ideologically extreme than they actually are, said Stanford University psychologist Mark Lepper, who has studied how people watch presidential debates.

The exception being this blogger. I'm always perfectly even-handed and staggeringly fair. My positions are purely derived from careful logic and painstaking examination of facts.

Kidding aside, this is one of those things that seems so natural after it's been identified. This is why we blog. This is why you're crazy Fundie family members always bring up immigration and try to goad you into an argument. The ideological jousting makes them feel good.

Turns out, rather than turning down their negative feelings ... partisans turn up their negative emotional response when they see a photo of the opposing candidate, said Jonas Kaplan, a psychologist at the University of California at Los Angeles.

In other words, without knowing it themselves, the partisans were jealously guarding against anything that might lower their antagonism. Turning up negative feelings, of course, is a good way to make sure your antagonism stays strong and healthy.

"My feeling is, in the political process, people come to decisions early on and then spend the rest of the time making themselves feel good about their decision," Kaplan said.

And all those millions of dollars spent trying to convince people to vote for this candidate or that candidate six days before the election.

One wonders if political campaigns really come down to coming up with the pretties wrapping for your candidate - an attempt to ensnare those least interested and least informed about politics to vote for your candidate, breaking the pre-existing 45% -45% partisan split.

Politics Partisanship Brain Science Psychology

Cracks

Cracks form under the stress of governing. The Republican Party is starting to see them. Governing shows how wide the cracks are getting in Kansas.

Kansas is a Republican state, but the GOP found it impossible to recruit a strong candidate for governor this year. While incumbent Democrat Kathleen Sebelius piles up campaign cash - she already had nearly $2 million in hand by the end of 2005 -— a field of largely unknown Republicans scrambles for the seemingly thankless job of running against her in November.

What makes a Democrat so formidable in such a conservative state? The answer is Republican fratricide. The Republican Party is so deeply and bitterly split between moderates and social conservatives that Sebelius has had plenty of room to position herself in the center, and she has done so skillfully. Her ability to reach out to Republicans unhappy with their state party's conservative bent was recently exemplified when Mark Parkinson, former chairman of the state GOP, switched parties and became her new running mate.

This was going to have to catch up with the GOP some time. The Fundies are starting to scare the Moderates and the Moderates just don't 'get' that they need to enact legislation to hasten the coming of the Rapture.

If Democrats are getting elected in Kansas because of this, I can imagine that there should be some way to get some Democrats elected all over the country. If it can turn rational, thinking Republicans into Democrats, all the better.

Kathleen Sebelius Republicans Conservatives Mark Parkinson Democrats

Great Post @ Shakespeare's Sister

You absolutely must, without delay, go read Shakespeare's Sister's post,

Separation of Church and Hate

right now, before you finish your coffee, before you check the baseball scores, and before you get around to the report you didn't file on Friday.

DO IT!

National Pessimism

The Political Wire reports on a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll:

"Among the six-in-10 Americans who say country is 'on the wrong track,' most see 'long-term decline.' More than two-thirds of those over 50 aren'’t confident life will improve for 'our children'’s generation'; 62% of those under 35 agree. Americans are especially gloomy about the environment, health care, public morals and housing costs; nearly eight in 10 expect college to become less affordable. By 47%-24%, Americans fear the quality of jobs in the U.S. will get worse."

In many ways, I'm one of those 6 in 10 that see long term decline. And I'm generally a 'glass half full' person. At the same time, the poll is a little misleading because of the nature of 'wrong direction' polls.

You can have two people, one Christianist Right-Wing Nut Job and the other a strong Progressiveve, both think that the nation is going in the wrong direction at the same time.

One sees the gay-baiting in politics and the creeping Conservatism as evils dragging the country down. The other sees a creeping 'homosexual agenda' and an inflow of non-Norther European immigrants as forces destroying America. Both agree that the country is 'headed in the wrong direction' but completely disagree about why, how, or what's causing it.

Look at the list of things Americans are 'gloomy' about' the environment, health care, public morals and housing costs. The first two, the environment and health care, are largely Progressive concerns. Public Morals is certainly a Social Conservative concern. Rising housing costs is equal opportunity - Corporate Conservatives are scared of a bubble or decline causing problems for the economy. While Progressives aren't looking for an economic slowdown either, they're equally, if not more concerned, about housing markets literally leaving many parts of society too poor to own their own home.

Despite the bi-partisan nature of the dissatisfaction in America, it should be good news for Democrats/Liberals/Progressives come November...

Pessimism America Wrong Direction

Second take on the Israel / Hezbollah Conflict

Having seen a little more and read a little more, I'm reposting, with a few modifications, a post I put up earlier. No major changes, just some adjustments for clarity and better 'fit' to the events on the ground.

Israel, Hezbollah, Iran and the United States:

First, this is classic proxy war - as clearly as anything from the Cold War - with Israel as the US's proxy, Hezbollah as Iran's. It's important to remember that while Israel is doing what's best for their state's security (and Hezbollah what's best for them) it's the more powerful nations that are largely directing this chess game.

First Iran / Hezbollah: Hezbollah was founded by and is supported by Iran. Many pundits and analysts have noted that the seizure was likely at the direction of Iran, possibly to distract the public from Iran's nuclear weapons program. The part about Iran directing this escalation is correct, but not the reason.

With the removal of Saddam's Iraq, Iran sees itself an emerging military 'power' in the Middle East. The only other nation in the region that can match Iran is Israel. Israel has no desire to see a nation that has publically called for the complete destruction of Israel become a military equal, let alone a nation with a nuclear capability.

Israel has to look at all their problems at least a few steps down the road. Knowing that an airstrike against Iran's nuclear facilities would likely generate some sort of retaliation, Israel set about trying to limit the damage Iran's possible means of retribution could inflict.

Knowing that an unprovoked strike would be strongly condemned, they waited until Hezbollah gave them an excuse.

Yes, the Israelis are trying to recover their captured soldiers and root out Hezbollah militants, but Israel's actions in Lebanon are, at their root, designed to clear the way for the previously mentioned strike against Iran in an attempt to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear state. (The US, Europe, and Israel all agree would be a bad thing.)

If Israel were to attempt the same sort of airstrike against Iranian nuclear facilities that was carried out against Iraq years ago, Iran's proxy (Hezbollah) is in a position to wreak havoc on Israeli population centers with their rockets.

Because a Nuclear Iran would be able to disrupt the flow of oil out of the Middle East without fear of military reprisal, the U.S. (and Europe) are allowing Israel to do a little bit of the heavy lifting for them.

(SIDE NOTE: The reason Russia and China are hesitant to put sanctions on Iran have nothing to do with those nations being 'bad guys' and everything to do with energy supplies. Should Middle East oil production be negatively impacted, the value of Russia's oil reserves would skyrocket overnight. China is hoping that by helping Iran, it can get a sweet-heart deal on Iranian to keep it's economy going.

Interestingly, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt have all issued statements condemning Hezbollah. President Bush and his apologists would love you to believe that this was due to the pressure he has exerted upon them to condemn terrorists. It has nothing to do with this. These nations are primarily Sunni and (with the exception of Egypt) Arab - putting them at odds with Shiite and Persian Iran. The Saudi Arabians, Jordanians and Egyptians are just trying to hedge against a rising Iranian power.)

Israel has little to lose and everything to gain by helping the US prevent a nuclear Iran. It has proven that it can withstand conventional attacks and invasions by it's neighbors. With the US's support, Israel will not be 'wiped of the map.' Therefore, provoking the 'Arab Street' is an acceptable risk when weighed against being nuked by a nation who's leader has declared his desire that Israel be destroyed.

The US, already tied up in Iraq has the ability to conduct the airstrike on Iran's nuclear facilities, but not to survive the aftermath. Troops in Iraq would be at huge risk, the entire region would become more hostile and oil shipping coming through the Persian Gulf would be massacred.

Economic, Strategic and Political ramifications would be damning.

So of course the US is allowing Israel to operate freely. Expecting the US to reign in Israel is expecting the US to act against it's own self interest.

When looking at the wider picture, the 'disproportionate response' arguement loses some of it's power. That wider picture doesn't change the terrible suffering of the largely innocent Lebanese people (Hezbollah being excepted from the innocents) or suffering of the Palestinians.

The Arab World's conflict with Israel doesn't have any true 'good guys' or 'bad guys.' Each side has made mistakes. Each side has done things that they probably shouldn't have. Both sides are driven by their most extreme elements - always a recipe for endless conflict.

If we ever want to stop the violence in the Mid-East, we have to understand the roots of the conflict and get past 'Arabs hate Israelis' and 'Israelis hate Arabs.'

Something to take Back to the Voters

Via Hotline:

Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-OH) 7/25 p.m. gave a letter signed by 48 House GOPers to Maj Leader John Boehner requesting a vote on the minimum wage before the Congress breaks for summer recess at the end of the week. LaTourette, along with Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ), spearheaded a similar effort 7/12, picking up 25 mostly moderate Northeast/Midwest GOPers to help plead their case. House GOP leaders have instead brought up votes aimed at firing up their conservative base over the past 2 weeks.

While it remains unlikely that there will be anything in the schedule regarding raising the minimum wage before the August recess, it seems likely that a lot of Republicans will have to go on record voting against a minimum wage increase before facing re-election in November.

This vote will also highlight the gap between the moderate Republicans trying to stay electible in Blue States, and the growing numbers of Republicans inhabiting the fringe of the Right Wing.

If only the Economic Conservative part of the Republican base was as Hot/Cold as the Fundi-Christianist-Social Conservatives. If the GOP did something like embracing Civil Unions, the Social Conservatives would very quickly stop giving money to and voting for Republicans. Unfortunately, Economic Conservatives are smart enough to know that sometimes you have to make concessions and that their interests are still best served by the Republican Party.

Minimum Wage Republicans 2006 Election

Ann (Wishes She) Had Issues

Ann Coulter has been dropped from another Newspaper. Editor & Publisher reports that "Yes! Weekly" has dropped Ann in favor of William F. Buckley. Apparently readers voted two to one to have her removed.

I guess Buckley's better than Michelle Malkin, the 'commentator' a paper in Georgia picked up after dumping Coulter...

Ann Coulter

Citation du Jour

Yep, that's French. Just to piss off the people that brought us Freedom Fries. Whatever happened to Freedom Fries?

The Hill, in a story about the Republican's mad scramble to get bills passed in the House before going home to face re-election, House Majority Leader John Boehner gives us this wonderful quip:

"“Everybody wants their bill up this week. It is as if we were never coming back."

With a little luck, you won't be.

BONUS QUOTE!

"Condoms and teenagers work about 50 percent of the time."

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) as quoted by Roll Call.

John Boehner Republicans 2006 Elections

Straight Talk Express?

Think Progress puts a nail in the tire of McCain's Straight Talk Express.

Sen. John McCain appeared on Fox this morning and falsely claimed that [Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-] Maliki has “condemned Hezbollah.” McCain said that, as a result, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and others who have criticized Malaki for his position on Hezbollah are “not qualified to lead.” Video

Reality, with it's left-leaning focus on facts, shows that it was actually Israel that Maliki has condemned. While standing next to George W. Bush at a Tuesday press conference, the Prime Minister decried Israel's "damage and destruction" but made no mention of Hezbollah.

I'm sure that McCain will issue a correction and apology. FoxNews will devote an entire segment to exposing McCain's lie. Fair & Balanced, you know.

John McCain Nuri al-Maliki Republicans Lie

29% of Floridians are... Nuts?

A Mason-Dixon poll shows Rep. Katherine Harris trailing Sen. Bill Nelson by a stunning 28 percentage points.

Were the election held now, Nelson would best Harris 57 percent to 29 percent, according to the poll of 625 registered Florida voters that has an error margin of four percentage points. Only 14 percent were undecided.

All of this begs the question: Who, exactly, makes up the 29% of the public that thinks having Katherine Harris in the Senate would be a good thing?

I understand party loyalty. I understand being opposed to parts of Bill Nelson's platform. But really, you're going to vote for Katherine Harris instead? You're going to trust her with the future of our nation? Scary...

Katherine Harris Bill Nelson 2006 Election

GOP Decides Democracy Best as a 'Symbol'

RawStory points to a registration restricted article in Congressional Quarterly's Congress Today.

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee is preparing for another showdown with the White House, this time over President Bush's use of "signing statements" to challenge provisions he finds objectionable in bills he signs into law.

But opposition from other Republicans means that Arlen Specter will have a difficult time making legislative headway in his latest move to counter executive powers assumed by the Bush White House.

The Republican Leadership have decided not to support any limits on Signing Statements. That is to say that Congressional Republicans are OK with President Bush taking away their Constitutionally granted powers.

Democracy is now nothing more than a facade on a low-grade dictatorship.

Alarmist, you say? I think not. If congress can pass a law forbidding torture and the President can write a note as he signs it say "except when I say it's ok" Rule of Law is gone. Checks and balances fail when one branch can unilaterally decide to ignore the other two.

Say there's a horrific terrorist attack a three days before the 2008 elections. President Bush cancels the elections, saying they'll be held 'when the security situation permits.' Two months pass. Congress writes a law saying that 'Postponed elections must be held within 4 calendar months of the originally scheduled date.' Bush issues a signing statement outlining his objections.

'The Executive Branch holds all power to protect the citizens of America and will ignore any part of this new bill should the safety of Americans be threatened.'

Then what? Seriously. THEN WHAT?

Democracy Republicans Signing Statements

Update on Previous Post

When I posted about the Chicken Sh!t Republican, I called him that because he would only allow the Washington Post to publish his comments if he remained anonymous. Well, the Washington Post (in the Metro section) reports that it was in fact Maryland's Lt. Governor, Michael Steele.

That's Mike on the left.

While one might think that these sorts of comments would be good for Steele, distancing him from a HUGELY unpopular President in a strong Blue State, I'm guessing it probably won't be.

State Democratic Party Chairman Terry Lierman pointed out in a statement that Steele has held fundraisers with the president, Vice President Cheney, Bush adviser Karl Rove and National Republican Party Chairman Ken Mehlman.

"He has taken millions from Bush and his top aides and even endorsed Bush in a prime-time Republican National Convention speech in August 2004," Lierman said.

And how long did it take for some Republican lackey to start complaining that the Post wasn't being fair? Not long.

Steele spokesman Doug Heye did not dispute the accuracy of Steele's quotes in the paper but said Steele spent little time at the luncheon talking about the subject and said the article did not include some comments Steele made praising Bush.

Heye did not say why, if that were the case, Steele refused to be quoted by name originally. He said Steele had made similar statements in the past that had not attracted as much attention.

Steele, being an African-American Republican and a Republican looking to take an open seat in a very Blue state, has little to fear in the way of a GOP reaction. The White House and the Republican Party both made statements supporting Steele yesterday. Steele currently trails Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin, but is polling even to Kweisi Mfume, the two leading candidates in the upcoming Democratic Primary.

Of all the quotes in what is really a fluff piece, I liked this quote the best:

Asked whether he [Steele] could run as a proud Republican, he said: "That's going to be tough. It's going to be tough to do. If this race is about Republicans and Democrats, I lose."

With a little luck, that's how it will be all across the country.

Michael Steele Ben Cardin Kweisi Mfume Republicans 2006 Election

Defeat from the Jaws of Victory

The Political Wire reports that Ned Lamont and Joe Lieberman's scuffle for the Democratic nomination in Connecticut has emboldened Republicans.

Republicans now believe they can be serious players in a Connecticut Senate race for the first time since Lieberman beat gadfly Republican Lowell Weicker in 1988. First they must get through two fights. They need to get Schlesinger to take a powder, and then they must quickly settle on a replacement. Interest in the race grows in Republican circles in Washington, with the National Republican Senate Committee rumored to be licking its chops at torturing left-wing Democrats should Lamont win in August.

The route to victory, locals believe, runs through Schlesinger campaign advisor Richard Foley, a former state party chairman and legislator. He is a consultant to the campaign who won'’t want to give up that sinecure before November'’s certain humiliation of his candidate. Foley has defended his candidate against revelations of his gambling under an assumed name and running up debts that caused Atlantic City casinos to sue him.

Republicans seem to think that Bob Dole is the key to a miraculous win over Progressive Darling Lamont or DINO Joe Lieberman (if they don't just give him the Republican nomination out right.)

Foley was a great supporter of Dole's Presidential runs in 1988 and 1996. With his encouragement and fundraising, a replacement for the soon to be more scandal ridden Schlesinger could be found and a war chest could be quickly filled. Pulling off a stunning victory in a Blue State would be a feather in the cap of Liddy Dole's otherwise lackluster leadership of the Republican Senate re-election effort.

This is the sort of fear that crawls down Democrats spines late at night. Just when we think we're going to elect someone we respect, unseating a Senator out of touch with his constituency, the GOP comes and snatches the seat away. FoxNews trumpets the loss and the myth of the 'inept, incompetent, disorganized Democrats' rides on.

God, if this happens, the depression I felt after Bush won re-election will be right back in the pit of my stomach.

Joe Lieberman Ned Lamont Bob Dole Richard Foley Connecticut Senate 2006 Republicans

Chicken Sh!t Republican?

From today's Washington Post we get some quotes from a U.S. Senator running for reelection:

On the Iraq war: "It didn't work. . . . We didn't prepare for the peace."

On the response to Hurricane Katrina: "A monumental failure of government."

On the national mood: "There's a palpable frustration right now in the country."

"We've lost our way, we've gone to the well and we drank the water, and we shouldn't have," he said of congressional Republicans. "You don't go to Congress to become the party that you've been fighting for 40 years." Lamenting "the spending, the finger-pointing, not getting the bills passed," he counseled: "Just shut up and get something done."

Wait, what that? "don't go to Congress to become the party that you've been fighting for 40 years?" Yep, this guy is a Republican.

"Well, you know, I don't know," the candidate said when asked if he wanted President Bush to campaign for him. Noting Bush's low standing in his home state, he finally added: "To be honest with you, probably not."

A pretty damning evaluation of Republicanism from someone on the inside. To bad that this American has the brains to figure out what's going wrong in our country but doesn't have the character to stand up and be counted, to call out his party's leadership on its failings. The Washington Post was only allowed to use the quotes if the candidate remained anonymous.

He spoke of his party affiliation as though it were a congenital defect rather than a choice. "It's an impediment. It's a hurdle I have to overcome," he said. "I've got an 'R' here, a scarlet letter."

This is why such a large portion of the country is angry. They see Republicans more loyal to their party than to the best interests of the country. For a party that runs on 'values' the disconnect between the rhetoric and action is too great. Anybody who's paying attention can see it.

Republicans 2006 Elections George W. Bush

Good News*

RawStory reports that a Georgia Paper, the Augusta Chronicle, has dropped Ann Coulter's column.

A Friday article from its editorial staff claimed that its editorial page "stand[s] for civility," and noted two reasons to part ways with Coulter. First, it saw "stridency" in her declaration that 9/11 widows were "witches." Second, it worried that "Coulter herself had become the issue, rather than the topics she was writing about, which is an unhealthy circumstance for a journalist, even a columnist."

The decision comes two weeks after The Gazette of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, chose to abandon Coulter's column as well, and while the Shreveport Times of Louisiana is reported to be mulling the same move.

Wondering about the asterisk? Well, there's bad news too. The paper will replace Coulter's column with Michelle Malkin's. The irony of booting Coulter over 'civility' and replacing it with a column by "Death Threats to Students" Malkin is mind numbing...

Ann Coulter Michelle Malkin

Life's a Gas

If you own stock in Exxon.

The Houston Chronicle reports that the average price of gas in the United States has passed $3.00 per gallon.

CAMARILLO, Calif. — Nationwide gas prices hit an all-time high in the last two weeks, rising nearly 2 cents to just over $3 per gallon, according to a survey released Sunday.

The national average for self-serve regular stood at $3.0150 a gallon Friday, up 1.98 cents in the last two weeks, according to the Lundberg Survey of 7,000 gas stations across the country.

The price exceed the previous high of $3.0117 set in September last year, analyst Trilby Lundberg said.

Living in the DC Metro area, Gas Buddy puts the average price in my area at $3.175.

Thank god for my 32 mpg Honda.

Gas Prices

Blue States Turning Bluer?

As a companion piece to my previous post, the Washington Post outlines some races in the North East (and other Blue States) where Democrats can unseat Republicans.

Rep. Nancy L. Johnson first won election to the 5th District in northwest Connecticut in 1982, and the popular former teacher has kept her seat for nearly a quarter-century. By most accounts, however, this achievement has been more in spite of her GOP affiliation than because of it. Voters perceive her as a moderate Yankee Republican and not a true conservative.

But as the electorate becomes more polarized around party identification, Democrats hope to make the "R" after her name and those of other Northeastern Republicans stand for "radioactive." This has happened to Johnson before. In 1996, she won by one percentage point when Democrats capitalized on her ties to then-Speaker Newt Gingrich. This year, she is running against Democratic state Sen. Chris Murphy.

Other 'Yankee Republicans' (aka Rockefeller Republicans) mentioned by the article include Michael Arcuri, a District Attorney running an uphill race against State Sen. Ray Meier for an open House seat in Upstate New York, and in my Home State's 6th District, Lois Murphy is mounting another run at Jim Gerlach who won by only some 6,000 votes in a district that includes some upscale Philly suburbs. Gerlach's close ties to Bush and to Jack Abramoff bode well for Murphy.

Similarly (but strangely different) is the case of Bob Casey Jr. in Pennsylvania. Running for U.S. Senate against Blue State aberration Rick Santorum, Casey, the son of popular ex-Governor of PA Bob Casey Sr., is a Anti-Choice Democrat. This information does a little to dispel the idea that the 'Blue' North East will always elect strong Progressives. In the end, Casey is a great step forward from Santorum for a 'Blue' state with many rural voters.

A combination of breaking the GOP's strangle hold on the South and Mid-West and reducing the number of Republicans (no matter how moderate) elected in solid 'Blue' states is a recipe for retaking the House and Senate.

Bob Casey Jr. Lois Murphy Chris Murphy Michael Arcuri Democrats 2006 Election

Red States Turning Blue?

The Washington Post has a great series on 2006 'Bellwethers.' It could easily be the material for a number of entries, but I'll start with just one section: Rethinking Red States

If you want to understand why Democrats are the minority party in Congress, look at four states: Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina and Kentucky. Before the 1994 elections, when Democrats still controlled both chambers, these Southern states had 24 Democratic House members and 14 Republicans. Among senators, there were five Republicans and three Democrats.

Look today. There are 24 GOP House members and 15 Democrats, and all eight senators are Republicans.

Quite the turn-around. How do Democrats hope to make inroads into 'strong' red territory?

They hope to underscore that they do not fit stereotypes of Democrats as cultural liberals, and they hope to win voters with a mix of economic populism and traditional values. There is talk of raising the minimum wage and creating more jobs, but usually little about abortion or gun control.

First, no Democrat has talked about gun control in a decade. They know that as an issue, gun control kills them in rural (and many suburban) areas and does little to benefit them in urban areas. The only time 'gun control' gets mentioned is when it's used as a electoral boogie-man by Republicans. Abortion is just red meat for social conservatives. Ensuring a woman's right to choose could be a similar incentive for liberal/progressive/sane voters to come to the polls as well. With the current political climate becoming more an more favorable for a roll-back on Roe v. Wade, the majority of Americans that support a woman's right to choose could become an important voting block.

The Washington Post highlights some races where Democrats could make some pickups in 2006. Most of the districts are in states on the border of 'Red America.' Two are in Virginia: First, is Virginia's 2nd District where Democrat Phil Kellam is running against Rep. Thelma D. Drake. Also in Virginia we find James Webb, Ronald Reagan's Secretary of the Navy as a new Democratic Convert, running against George Allen for the Senate.

Kentucky, Tennessee and North Carolina all have races which the Post considers bellwethers. In Kentucky, Ken Lucas (D) is running to take back the House seat he held from 1998 to 2004. Ex-Washington Redskins quarterback Heath Shuler is trying to have more luck than Ex-Steeler Lynn Swann in North Carolina's 11th district.

The 'sixth year' midterms has seen the opposition party gain ground all but once in the last century. This election, baring any sort of October Surprise, should be no exception. Time Magazine observes that the White House is going to skip the August 'working vacation' at the Crawford ranch in favor of campaigning for various Republican Candidates. The article also includes this:

"Their [the White House's] outlook thus far seems so ominous for the G.O.P. that one presidential adviser wants Bush to beef up his counsel's office for the tangle of investigations that a Democrat-controlled House might pursue,"

Doesn't sound good for Bush or the GOP in general come November. Hopefully in 2008 we'll be able to continue our gains.

Jim Webb Ken Lucas Heath Shuler Phil Kellam Red States Democrats 2006 Elections

Friday Link Dump

I'll be leaving the office (and the computer) early today, so all I have time for is a quick link dump:

The Political Wire reports from my Home State indicating another Democrat is making a strong run for office, in this case Joe Sestak, trying to unseat Rep. Curt Weldon.

The Las Vegas Review-Journal reports that it is now illegal to feed homeless people in city parks.

The Washington Post reports that a disruption due to heckling of the President at his recent speech before the NAACP has been replaced "applause" on the official White House transcript.

The Guardian (among other news sources) reports on Ethiopian military forces on the ground in Somalia. Somalia, already a haven for terrorists, is quickly becoming on of the biggest destabilizing forces in Africa.

A Reuters report on Israel's calling up of additional reservists only reinforces my suspicions about the real aims of Israel's current military operations.

And the New York Times reports that the Senate has renewed the Voting Rights Act unanimously. Only because it's an election year...

Enjoy your Friday and have a good weekend!

No, Dogs Aren't, Mr. Dobson, But...

James Dobson's Focus on the Family has started a counter-campaign to Born Different's campaign to end homobigotry. Dr. Dobson's great scientific observation?

"Dogs aren't born mooing, and people aren't born gay."

Thanks for missing the point. And, incidentally, just because you choose to ignore it doesn't mean that homosexuality doesn't show up in the animal kingdom. Take Silo and Roy for example. But then again, Focus on the Family has never bothered to let facts (or gay penguins) stand in the way of hate.

James Dobson BornDifferent No Moo Lies Focus on the Family

Home State Politics

Things are looking blue in Pennsylvania.

Strategic Vision (R) has released poll results showing many very good things. A few selections:

1. Do you approve or disapprove of President Bush's overall job performance?
Approve 26%
Disapprove 64%
Undecided 10%

7. Would you like to see the United States Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade?
Yes 37%
No 55%
Undecided 8%

15. If the election for Governor was held today, and the choice was between Ed Rendell, the Democrat, Lynn Swann, the Republican, and Russ Diamond, the Independent, whom would you vote for?
Ed Rendell 49%
Lynn Swann 36%
Russ Diamond 2%
Undecided 13%

16. Do you approve or disapprove of United States Senator Rick Santorum's job performance?
Approve 46%
Disapprove 46%
Undecided 8%

17. If the election for United States Senate were held today, and the choice was between Robert Casey, Jr., the Democrat and Rick Santorum, the Republican, whom would you vote for?
Robert Casey 50%
Rick Santorum 40%
Other 2%
Undecided 8%

19. Who is your choice for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2008? (Democrats only)
Hillary Clinton 35%
Al Gore 16%
John Edwards 15%
Russ Feingold 8%
John Kerry 5%
Mark Warner 2%
Wesley Clark 2%
Joseph Biden 2%
Ed Rendell 1%
Evan Bayh 1%
Bill Richardson 1%
Tom Vilsak 1%
Barbara Boxer 1%
Undecided 10%

20. Who is your choice for the Republican Presidential nomination in 2008? (Republicans only)
Rudy Giuliani 42%
John McCain 25%
Newt Gingrich 5%
Mitt Romney 5%
Bill Frist 4%
George Allen 3%
Rick Santorum 1%
George Pataki 1%
Chuck Hagel 1%
Undecided 13%

A lot of rather random information, I know. But here's what I'm going to glean from those numbers:

Pennsylvania is getting bluer. Yes, the state has voted for the Democratic candidate in the last four Presidential Elections and has a Democratic Governor, but the state in 2004 the state was balancing on a knife edge.

The Pittsburgh and Philly metro areas vote Democratic, but rapidly expanding suburbs could have been (and could still be) rich areas for Republicans. The 'Alabama in Between' Pittsburgh and Philly, especially areas north of Harrisburg, are as red as any part of Texas or Kansas. The rapidly shrinking Union base is a problem for Democrats, very similar to states like Michigan. Pennsylvania could conceivably end up being a lot like Ohio.

These new poll results, however, are encouraging. The Anti-Choice movement makes up only 37% of voters. George W. Bush's approval rating is far below the national average at just over 1 in 4. Democratic candidates for U.S. Senate and Governor have strong leads over their Republican opponents. Senator Santorum seems to be on his way out.

Good news all, but let's not get too confident. The Republicans didn't field the best candidates this cycle. (Lynn Swann?) There's a lot of anti-Bush sentiment that is carrying over into other elections. But still. Let's take good news when we get it.

Pennsylvania Rick Santorum Bob Casey Ed Rendell Lynn Swann

Global Warming?

After a week of insufferably hot weather here in DC (temperatures in the triple digits, high humidity) it amazes me that anybody let alone fat-white-guys-in-suits (Republican Lawmakers) can deny the existence of Global Warming.

Now we have this bit of evidence to add to the mountain we already have. It seems that the first six months of 2006 have been the hottest ever.

"Every summer we do see periods of above-normal temperatures, and heat waves are not uncommon in the United States, in the Northeast or in other parts of the country,"

What is unusual, [Jay] Lawrimore [of the National Climatic Data Center] said, is to have a six-month period as warm as the period from January to June this year.

Global warming is not a definitive cause of this warmth, but is a contributing factor, he said. So is the drought that has extended to 45 percent of the United States, because extremely dry soil can lead to high air temperatures.

But Wait! I thought the jury was still out on Global Warming. Only in Jesusland, I guess.

Global Warming US Temperatures Heat Wave

Lamont Edges Ahead of Lieberman

In a Quinnipiac poll released today, Ned Lamont pulls ahead of Joe Lieberman, 51% - 47%, in the Connecticut Democratic Primary for Senator.

Here, however, is the part that really pisses me off:

In possible general election matchups:

-Lieberman defeats Republican challenger Alan Schlesinger 68 - 15 percent;

-Lamont beats Schlesinger 45 - 22 percent, with 24 percent undecided;

-Running as an independent, Lieberman gets 51 percent, to 27 percent for Lamont and 9 percent for Schlesinger.

I don't know which pisses me off more, voters in Connecticut who would vote for Lieberman even though he basically went around the rules to get on the ballot or Joe Lieberman who demonstrated such a lack of decency in ignoring the will of the voters within his own party.

In the end, at least the seat is safe from a Republican pick up.

Ned Lamont Joe Lieberman Quinnipiac

Is anybody paying attention?

Republicans are spouting things that should be making people's heads explode. The New York Times via Brendan Nyhan:

"Another Georgia Republican, Representative Phil Gingrey, said support for traditional marriage "is perhaps the best message we can give to the Middle East and all the trouble they'’re having over there right now."”

Excuse me while I clean up the brain matter splattered all over the office.

Phil Gingrey Gay Marriage Middle East Republicans

Scary John McCain Numbers

Tagan Goddard's Political Wire runs a headline stating "Poll Suggests Trouble for McCain in 2008" while siting a Gallup Poll that actually seems more scary for Democrats.

On the Republican side, Rudy Giuliani and Sen. John McCain "typically vie for the lead in Republican preference polls, but a greater percentage of Republicans say they would find Giuliani acceptable than say this about McCain (73% to 55%)." In fact, 4 in 10 Republicans "say they would not find McCain to be an acceptable GOP presidential nominee."

However, McCain's "strength as a presidential candidate would be in his cross-party appeal if he were able to secure the Republican nomination. Independents (55%) and Democrats (56%) are about as likely as Republicans (59%) to view McCain favorably... Thus, McCain could be a very formidable candidate in the general election, but may have difficulty winning the Republican nomination."

Emphasis Mine.

Is it just me, or does the fact that more Democrats than Independents view McCain favorably scare the bejesus out of you? How have Independents been more successful in smelling the "McCain the Maverick" bullshit? Should he get the nomination, McCain seems the early favorite for winning in 2008. It would take a lot of re-education of voters to clear the misconception that McCain is less Right-Wing-Fundie than Bush.

John McCain 2008 Gallup Poll

Israel in Lebanon = Cheap(ish) Oil

Media reporting seems to be all Israel, all the time, and rightly so. As usual, the media reports what's happening without any sort of examination of why it's happening and what the events will lead to. As such, you will now be subjected to my analysis.

First, this is classic proxy war - as clearly as anything from the Cold War - with Israel as the US's proxy, Hezbollah as Iran's. It's important to remember that while Israel is doing what's best for their state's security (and Hezbollah what's best for them) it's the more powerful nations that are largely directing this chess game.

First Iran / Hezbollah:

Hezbollah was founded by and is supported by Iran. Many pundits and analysts have noted that the seizure was likely at the direction of Iran, possibly to distract the public from Iran's nuclear weapons program. The part about Iran directing this escalation is correct, but not the reason.

With the removal of Saddam's Iraq, Iran sees itself as the lone military 'power' in the Middle East. The only other nation in the region that can match Iran is Israel. As long as Israel is strong, Iran's dreams of being a sort of 'local hegemon' won't happen.

Hoping to keep Israel tied down with problems closer to their own borders, Iran, through Hezbollah, escalated what had been a relatively stable situation in Lebanon.

Ok. Now we know why the spark was set to the powder keg. Let's look at Israel's much criticized reaction.

The United States / Israel:

Yes, the Israelis are trying to recover their captured soldiers and root out Hezbollah militants, but Israel's actions in Lebanon are, at their root, designed to clear the way for a strike against Iran in an attempt to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear state, something that the US, Europe, and Israel all agree would be a bad thing.

Should Iran become a nuclear state, Israel would probably attempt the same sort of airstrike against Iranian nuclear facilities that was carried out against Iraq years ago. Regardless of success, partial success, or failure, Iran's proxy (Hezbollah) is in a position to wreak havoc on Israeli population centers with their rockets.

Because a Nuclear Iran would be able to disrupt the flow of oil out of the Middle East without fear of military reprisal, the U.S. (and Europe) are allowing Israel to do a little bit of the heavy lifting for them.

(SIDE NOTE: The reason Russia and China are hesitant to put sanctions on Iran have nothing to do with those nations being 'bad guys' and everything to do with energy supplies. Should Middle East oil production be negatively impacted, the value of Russia's oil reserves would skyrocket overnight. China is hoping that by helping Iran, it can get a sweet-heart deal on Iranian to keep it's economy going.

Interestingly, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt have all issued statements condemning Hezbollah. President Bush and his apologists would love you to believe that this was due to the pressure he has exerted upon them to condemn terrorists. It has nothing to do with this. These nations are primarily Sunni and (with the exception of Egypt) Arab - putting them at odds with Shiite and Persian Iran. The Saudi Arabians, Jordanians and Egyptians are just trying to hedge against a rising Iranian power.)

Israel has little to loose and everything to gain by helping the US prevent a nuclear Iran. It has proven that it can withstand conventional attacks and invasions by it's neighbors. With the US's supports, Israel will not be 'wiped of the map.' Therefore, provoking the 'Arab Street' is an acceptable risk when weighed against being nuked by a nation who's leader has declared his desire that Israel be destroyed.

The US, already tied up in Iraq has the ability to conduct the airstrike on Iran's nuclear facilities, but not to survive the aftermath. Troops in Iraq would be at huge risk, the entire region would become more hostile and oil shipping coming through the Persian Gulf would be massacred.

Economic, Strategic and Political ramifications would be damning.

So of course the US is allowing Israel to operate freely. Expecting the US to reign in Israel is expecting the US to act against it's own self interest.

It won't happen. Of course that doesn't make it right.

Israel Hezbollah Iran Nuclear Proliferation Oil Proxy War

Veni, Vidi, Veto

The Washington Post reports that the Stem Cell bill has passed.

The Senate voted to lift restrictions on federally funded human embryonic stem cell research yesterday, setting the table for President Bush's first veto and producing an emotional campaign issue that Democrats believe will help them this fall.

Senators voted 63 to 37 to approve a House-passed bill that would pour millions of dollars into a field of medical research that is promising -- but also controversial because it requires destroying human embryos to extract the cells. Bush announced in his first nationally televised address, on Aug. 9, 2001, that he would ban government funding for research using embryonic stem cell colonies created after that date, and he has vowed to cast his first presidential veto to block the legislation rescinding his executive order.

Since the MSM is only reporting that Bush is vetoing the bill because he "opposes anything that destroys a human life" (in places other than Iraq) let's examine the real reasons a Stem Cell bill will draw Bush's first Veto:

First, the easy answer. He's so beholden to the Christianists that he doesn't dare piss them off now. His 36% approval rating could drop significantly. Far-Right Christian Fundamentalists make up a large part of that 36% and angering them would make President Bush nearly irrelevant.

Second answer: It provides a campaign issue for Republicans. "Without your vote to put more Christianists-Republicans in congress, Stem Cells will cover the land and take away your Bibles."

Real answer: Writing a signing statement that says he will ignore this bill looks far to ridiculous, even for the Bush Administration.

When Bush signed the Anti-Torture bill, he wrote a signing statement that said he could at times ignore any part of the bill when fulfilling his duties as Commander in Chief. When Congress passed a bill requiring judicial oversight of any spying conducted by the United States, the signing statement said that he could ignore this requirement when he felt it benefited national security to do so.

Writing a signing statement saying that he won't actually provide the money for Stem Cell Research because he's morally opposed to it would draw a little to much attention to the fact that for the last six years, he hasn't bothered to veto anything because he would just ignore laws he didn't like. Hence his first veto.

George W. Bush Stem Cells Signing Statements Veto

Things that Make Me Smile

Ralph Reed has lost. Or at least conceded Georgia'’s Republican primary for lieutenant governor

I'm happy when Mr. Reed (and others of his ilk) lose at checkers. I'm happy when they're not quick enough to get to the check out line at the grocery store in front of the guy with two carts and three screaming children. I'm fucking ecstatic when voters say, 'thanks, but no thanks' to his brand of politics.

Ralph Reed Christian Coalition Republicans Georgia

Something is Rotten in the State of Connecticut

The Stamford Advocate breathlessly reports that,

"Ned Lamont's primary campaign against U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman has rallied plenty of angry Connecticut Democrats eager to unseat the 18-year incumbent for his unwavering support of the Iraq War.

But a list of campaign donors shows there are hundreds of nonresidents seeking Lieberman's ouster, from celebrities such as Barbra Streisand to an ex-"Baywatch"-lifeguard-turned-activist to a California strawberry farmer and craft-store owner in Illinois.

[...]

70% of donors to Lamont's campaign are from out of state."

Gasp! It must be a 'Left Wing Conspiracy' to unseat a moderate Democrat and move us one step closer to socialism.

Wait.

Open Secrets reports that 79.6% of Joe Lieberman's money comes from out of state.

In fact, let's take a look where most of Joe's money comes from, by zip code:

10021 (New York, NY)..................$437,050
06831 (Greenwich, CT)................$295,350
90210 (Beverly Hills, CA..............$188,560
10024 (New York, NY).................$184,370
10028 (New York, NY).................$182,350

I don't know why the press is so surprised that Lieberman is facing a tough primary challenge. He's backed a President that's wildly unpopular in the state of Connecticut, not only been a strong supporter of a war that also unpopular among his constituents, but went so far as to question the patriotism of people questioning the President's handling of that war. He's staked out positions far to the right of most of the Democrats in Connecticut on issues from Social Security to Women's Rights.

And we're surprised that Democracy is working?

The Right Wing and their media lackeys want us to believe that we should vote for people who are firm in their beliefs, regardless of whether we agree with them? They want us to just be grateful that we have a Democrat to represent us (at least until they can gerrymander that problem out of existence) and forget that we have the ability to choose leaders that share our values?

Seriously, we're supposed to be overwhelmed by Joe's strength to support unpopular policies and say "wow, he's so strong, I'll vote for him even though he's trying to do the exact opposite of what I want?"

The fact that Lieberman is so self-centered and self-important to set up a run as an independent should he lose the primary is a much better 'non-ideological reason' to NOT vote for Joe than his 'strength' is to vote for him.

Joe Lieberman Campaign Finance Ned Lamont

Compassionate Conservatism

We'll rescue you from war torn Lebanon, but you gotta pay us.

Oh, and once we get you to Cyprus, you're on your own. Personal responsibility, you know. Have fun.

How fucking Christian of the Bush Administration.

U.S. Nationals Lebanon Rescue Compassionate Conservatism

Computer Virus Evolution

Via the BBC:

Security researchers have infected a Radio Frequency ID tag with a computer virus to show how the technology is vulnerable to malicious hackers.

[...]

"This is intended as a wake-up call," said Andrew Tanenbaum, one of the researchers in the computer science department at Amsterdam's Free University that did the work revealing the weaknesses on smart tags.

"We ask the RFID industry to design systems that are secure," he said.

RFIDs are essentially smart barcodes, a tiny computer processor with shipping information stored on it used by many manufacturers and retailers to keep track of large containers of product during shipment. (They're expensive now, so they are used mostly during the 'bulk' scanning stage. As they get cheaper, they may replace the barcodes that get scanned at check out.)

Perhaps this is an insight into my own mind, but the first thing I thought of was how easy it would be for a thief to alter the information on the tag, have a shipment sent to a warehouse of his or her choosing, then disappear. Of course the ability to implant a data mining type of thingy (I'm technical) could be equally damaging.

This isn't really terribly political, but it is vaguely scary, so the Republicans will probably try to use it as a campaign issue this fall. Actually, they'll probably stick to gays. Anyway...

The article did contain this gem:

In some cases, said the researchers, viruses could be spread by household pets such as cats and dogs that are injected with the tags to help identify their owner.

"Why don't you have your homework?"

"The Dog's virus ate it, Mrs. Appleby, I swear!"

RFID Computer Virus

Why Small Government Sounds Appealing

I just figured out why the "smaller government is better" rubbish that the GOP trots out every elections cycle sells.

I have just come back from a two hour trip to the Maryland MVA to get an updated sticker for my car's license plate.

Apparently, if you get your car inspected in Maryland, the mechanic doesn't put the new sticker on the car. This is entirely foreign to me. As a mechanic that periodically did inspections in Pennsylvania, I used to put the new stickers on myself. Therefore, after having my car inspected a month ago, I didn't bother to do anything with the paper work other than throw it in the glove box.

So a week ago I noticed that the stickers on my license plate showed that my car wasn't currently inspected. A week of being nervous every time a cop drove by and I finally found a chance to get to the MVA. Long story short, I sat and played games on my cell phone for much longer than I should have.

The point of this mind-flatteningly boring story is that for 95% of voters, their interactions with 'Government' is almost entirely this sort of thing. Well, that and complicated tax forms. Both of these give the average voter little confidence in the ability of government to get things done and a great deal of incentive to believe the Republican propaganda about "the government must be made small enough to drown in a bathtub."

I'd have liked to drown myself in a bathtub after 90 minutes of cell phone darts.

I don't necessarily have a solution for this. It's more of an observation. Identifying a problem that we have to deal with.

Somehow we have to communicate to voters that 'government' may not be the best at getting you a new sticker that says "08" for your license plate, but it is, by far, the best at doing things like helping economically depressed areas, protecting minorities, the environment, and preventing 'Enron' type fiascos.

Small Government Republicans Democrats Framing

Dan Who?

It seems Dan Quayle finally found a way to get mentioned. He walked out of a John John Mellencamp concert. From MercuryNews:

Dan Quayle took time out from participating in the American Century Celebrity Golf Championship in Stateline, Nev., on Friday to attend John Mellencamp's concert only to run into a political statement.

He then made a statement of his own by walking out during Mellencamp's rendition of "Walk Tall." Before launching into the song, Mellencamp told the Harveys casino crowd, in effect, that it was dedicated to everyone hurt by policies of the current Bush administration.

[...]

Quayle said through a publicist: "Well, I think Mellencamp's performance was not very good to begin with, and the comment put it over the top."

Seems lyrics like "Bigotry and hatred are enemies to us all/ Grace, mercy and forgiveness/ Will help a man walk tall." were just a little too strong for Mr. Quayle.

But don't be to hard on Danny. Having you're beliefs challenged can be really scary.
Dan Quayle John Mellencamp Republicans

G8 vs. Uranium

The Boston Globe reports that the G8, currently meeting in Russia, has failed miserably to make good on the promises it made four years ago.

Four years after the leaders of the world's eight largest economies vowed to raise $20 billion over 10 years to prevent terrorists from obtaining nuclear materials, only $3.5 billion has been donated -- and far less has been used to secure enriched uranium, the key ingredient of a nuclear weapon.

This despite the fact that a worker at a Russian Nuclear Plant tried to sell 11 kilos of Uranium.

The fact that the program was meant to prevent nuclear terrorism, what President Bush called, "greatest threat we face today," seems to be worth little when it comes to actually shelling out the money to have the program work effectively.

This is a theme for the Bush Administration. NCLB, FEMA, and any other number of programs are desperately underfunded. But Bush stood up and bumbled through his speech, reassuring Americans that he would provide money to save them from the boogie man of the current news cycle. As soon as the public's awareness has passed, BushCo. quietly allow funding to dry up.

It's a pretty good scam, actually. And the kicker is that the people, the American Public, let the George Bush and his Rubber Stamp Republicans get away with it. I realize (sadly) you can't expect the majority of the population to pay attention to these things. But that's what Congress is for. To make sure that the government (read: The President) lives up to promises made to the American People.

Even as the minority, Democrats is Congress should be reminding the media and the population that George and The GOP have failed to deliver on promises.

Republicans George W. Bush Uranium Terrorism G8

My Triumphant Return

Well, it's been a little bit more than a month.

Between getting married, moving to a new apartment and being busy at work, I haven't posted in a while. I'd be lying if I didn't say that a little bit of burn-out wasn't involved as well.

It's tremendously hard sometimes to continually document everything that's going wrong in this country and around the world. Especially when I was desperately trying maintain my 'happy level' after my wedding and my honeymoon. But I miss doing this and I've had enough of a vacation to be excited to come back to 300 Dollar Wonder.

I can't promise the same number of posts. I'm in a position with a little bit more responsibility at work now, so the 8 or 9 post days are probably going to only happen rarely. Even the 5 or 6 post days are likely going to be a little less common. I'll try to make up for in quality what I will leave in quantity.

I hope that the few readers I managed to attract before my hiatus will not hold my absence against me.