Ron Paul Attracts Attention

When nobody takes your campaign seriously, nobody does background research. When Paul called out Rudi he inadvertently brought on a bit of scrutiny he might not have wanted.

From the Houston Chronicle:

Texas congressional candidate Ron Paul's 1992 political newsletter highlighted portrayals of blacks as inclined toward crime and lacking sense about top political issues.

Under the headline of "Terrorist Update," for instance, Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

[...]

"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action,"Paul wrote.

"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal," Paul said.

Paul also wrote that although "we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."

One would think that being on record expressing views like this would be a liability but then you remember he's running as a Republican. Being a racist will probably get you a sizable portion of the Republican vote.

Ron Paul Republican 2008 Election Racism

The Great Unraveling

The Washington Post's editorial page isn't exactly a hotbed when it comes to calling for thorough investigation of the various (and numerous) scandals that have unfolded in the Bush White House. The Post goes so far as to remind us that this is an "account of Bush administration lawlessness so shocking it would have been unbelievable coming from a less reputable source" right in the opening sentence. Here's the meat of the editorial:

The dramatic details should not obscure the bottom line: the administration’s alarming willingness, championed by, among others, Vice President Cheney and his counsel, David Addington, to ignore its own lawyers. Remember, this was a Justice Department that had embraced an expansive view of the president’s inherent constitutional powers, allowing the administration to dispense with following the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Justice’s conclusions are supposed to be the final word in the executive branch about what is lawful or not, and the administration has emphasized since the warrantless wiretapping story broke that it was being done under the department’s supervision.

Now, it emerges, they were willing to override Justice if need be. That Mr. Gonzales is now in charge of the department he tried to steamroll may be most disturbing of all.

The Post is, of course, reacting to the testimony of James B. Comey, "the straight-as-an-arrow" Deputy Attorney General under Alberto Gonzales.

Think Progress has compiled these high-lights of Comey's testimony:

– The high-speed pursuit that took place when Comey learned that Card and Gonzales were on their way to see Ashcroft at the hospital;

– The hospital meeting, in which the seriously ill Ashcroft “stunned” Comey by lifting “his head off the pillow and in very strong terms” rejecting Card and Gonzales’ effort to have him reauthorize the spying program;

– Comey’s admission that he believed he had “witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man, who did not have the powers of the attorney general because they had been transferred to me”;

– Andrew Card’s subsequent “very upset” call to Comey, in which Card claimed that he and Gonzales had visited Ashcroft “just…to wish him well”;

– The White House’s eventual agreement to suspend the warrantless spying in the face of a threat of mass resignations, including from FBI Director Robert Mueller and Attorney General Ashcroft

The New York Times has a full account.

This scandal is setting up to be a long, drawn out unraveling of the Bush Administration. The fact that Alberto Gonzales was deeply involved in 'unsavory' activity at the White House before being put in charge of the Justice Department means that the subject of his constant testimony before congress will become more far ranging - and more damaging - as time goes on.

One would assume that the Bush White House would 'encourage' Gonzales to resign simply to stop the bleeding. They haven't. It doesn't appear likely that they're going to any time soon.

Why?

If there's one thing (only thing?) that the Bush Administration is good at, it's at playing the political 'game.' You could argue that Bush doesn't want go through the confirmation process for a new Attorney General right now. It's a legitimate reason to hold onto Gonzales but I think the real reason Gonzales is still in the Administration is to protect Rove.

As long as Gonzales is in between Congress and Karl Rove, 'Bush's Brain' feels safe.

The Bush White House has decided that damage of the slow bleed resulting from keeping Gonzales around for the next 18 months is better than what can only be assumed to be catastrophic damage that would result from any sort of investigation getting near Karl Rove.

This tells us a couple of things. First, it tells us that Bush has given up on regaining any kind of positive standing in the polls. There will be no attempt to 'dump' the scandal and move on. That means that the Republicans will go into the 2008 elections burdened with a President whose approval ratings are struggling to stay out of the twenties. If congressional GOPers don't feel like they're going to be getting any help from the White House, they're unlikely to feel any great loyalty to the person that may cost them their seats. As long as Bush's numbers continue to slip away, expect Republican support for his agenda in the congress to slip away as well. Lastly, the fact that Gonzales is still running the Justice Department tells us that things within the Bush Administration must be bad. BAD. The Nixon kind of Bad. No administration would make these kinds of political sacrifices to keep people from seeing inside a clean, even clean-ish, administration.

Alberto Gonzales Karl Rove Bush Administration Attorney-gate Republicans 2008 Elections

GOP Debate: These Guys are Scary - UPDATED

Last night the GOP had their debate on - you guessed it - FoxNews. A couple of downright frightening quotes:

MITT ROMNEY: I am glad [detainees] are at Guantanamo. I don’t want them on our soil. I want them on Guantanamo, where they don’t get the access to lawyers they get when they’re on our soil. I don’t want them in our prisons, I want them there. Some people have said we ought to close Guantanamo. My view is we ought to double Guantanamo.

Candidates were asked whether they would support the use of waterboarding — a technique, defined as torture by the Justice Department. Two said they would.

Rudy Giuliani: "every method [interrogators] could think of and I would support them in doing it."

Tom Tancredo: "I'm looking for Jack Bauer"

ThinkProgress has video of the applause those comments drew.

And these guys want to run our country.

UPDATE: Youtube Video

The Washington Post has a pretty decent run-down of the inter-candidate goings on at the debate.

Republican Debate Guantanamo Mitt Romney Tortue Rudy Giuliani

Hagel / Bloomber Ticket?

Two Republicans running together doesn't exactly sound like a 'third party ticket' to me, but...

Via CNN:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Expressing dismay over the Republican Party's trajectory, Sen. Chuck Hagel said Sunday that an independent presidential bid would be good for the nation.

And Hagel, R-Nebraska, did not rule out the possibility that he might be the one to do it, perhaps in alliance with New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg.

"I am not happy with the Republican Party today," the self-described lifelong Republican from Nebraska told CBS' "Face the Nation." "It's been hijacked by a group of single-minded, almost isolationist insulationists, power-projectors," he said.

Hagel said he would decide by late summer whether to run for president.

"I think a credible third party would be good for the system," he said.

In reality, a Hagel / Bloomberg ticket would be less a 'third party run' and more a sign of the final schism between the two wings of the Republican Party.

While I applaud Hagel for his courage to speak out about the direction of the Republican Party, but his critique is a bit off. "It's been hijacked by a group of single-minded, almost isolationist insulationists, power-projectors."

Power-projectors are unlikely to be isolationists. Isolationists are unlikely to get American bogged down in intractable wars of choice. Insulationists are unlikely to be Republicans for the simple fact that keeping American wages high will cut into profits.

I think that if Hagel had said that the Republican Party had been hijacked by fiscally irresponsible religious interventionists, he'd have been more accurate. And incidentally, a platform of disentangling American from Iraq, fiscal responsibility, and movement away from legislating religion would probably be a pretty fertile platform for a third party - except that the Democratic Party has that pretty well staked out.

Sorry Chuck.

Chuck Hagel Michael Bloomberg Third Party

This Really Bothers Me

The headline from Shailagh Murray and Jonathan Weisman's Washington Post story today:

Bush Told War Is Harming The GOP

Before we delve into the contents of the article, let's examine what's going on here. A bunch of GOP Representatives went to the White House and told the President that he might want to rethink the way he's handing Iraq because the way he's handling it right now may lead to political losses in the 2008 election.

Bush needs to change the way that he's handling Iraq BECAUSE IT'S DAMAGING THE FUCKING COUNTRY!

Apparently the fact that there are American men and women fighting and dying in Iraq to referee a civil war isn't a good reason to change course. Devastating and lasting damage to the readiness of our military isn't a good reason to change course. The damage to America's standing in the world isn't a good enough reason. The fact that the Iraqis want us gone isn't a good enough reason.

But Republicans loosing elections just might work.

The contents of the Washington Post story:

House Republican moderates, in a remarkably blunt White House meeting, warned President Bush this week that his pursuit of the war in Iraq is risking the future of the Republican Party and that he cannot count on GOP support for many more months.

The meeting, which ran for an hour and a half Tuesday afternoon, was disclosed by participants yesterday as the House prepared to vote this evening on a spending bill that could cut funding for the Iraq war as early as July. GOP moderates told Bush they would stay united against the latest effort by House Democrats to end U.S. involvement in the war. Even Senate Democrats called the House measure unrealistic.

But the meeting between 11 House Republicans, Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, White House political adviser Karl Rove and presidential press secretary Tony Snow was perhaps the clearest sign yet that patience in the party is running out. The meeting, organized by Rep. Charlie Dent (Pa.), one of the co-chairs of the moderate "Tuesday Group," included Reps. Thomas M. Davis III (Va.), Michael N. Castle (Del.), Todd R. Platts (Pa.), Jim Ramstad (Minn.) and Jo Ann Emerson (Mo.).

"It was a very remarkable, candid conversation," Davis said. "People are always saying President Bush is in a bubble. Well, this was our chance, and we took it."

You cannot imagine how much this disgusts me. It is one more example of this Administration putting party before country.

THAT'S being un-American.

George W. Bush War in Iraq Republicans Party Before Country

Pro-Life My Ass...

From the AP:

The chance that an Iraqi child will live beyond age 5 has plummeted faster than anywhere else in the world since 1990, according to a report released Tuesday, which placed the country last in its child survival rankings.

One in eight Iraqi children died of disease or violence before reaching their fifth birthday in 2005.

Sanctimonious 'Pro-Life' politicians spout off about Abortion being murder, stem cell research as murder. I want to know how these hypocritical bastards square 'saving the (unborn) children' with the fact that their war is killing real live children in Iraq right now. RIGHT NOW.

That any party that has the words 'Pro-Life' tattooed onto their party platform could start a war of opportunity and obviously not care about the implications disgusts me.

War in Iraq Republicans Pro-Life Iraq Child Mortality

We're in Iraq to Protect (Certain) Americans

Via Think Progress, the transcript of 'winger Dick Morris on Hannity & Colmes:

MORRIS: I think that withdrawal from Iraq — it obviously gives al Qaeda a huge victory. Huge victory. On the other hand, if we stay in Iraq, it gives them the opportunity to kill more Americans, which they really like.

One of the things, though, that I think the antiwar crowd has not considered is that, if we’re putting the Americans right within their arms’ reach, they don’t have to come to Wall Street to kill Americans.

So let me make sure I understand what Dick just said: We should put certain Americans - young men and women that don't make huge profits and large campaign contributions - in Iraq so that the terrorists can kill and maim them more easily so that certain other Americans - rich ones that rake in huge profits and write fat checks to the GOP to ensure those profits - can go about their lives in safety.

I think I get it, but let's review: Make it easy for terrorists to kill unimportant Americans so that the rich, important ones can keep the gravy train running.

And all this is ignoring the fact that the 'fly paper' strategy has no basis in fact.

Former White House counterterrorism director Richard Clarke:

Of course, nothing about our being "over there" in any way prevents terrorists from coming here. Quite the opposite, the evidence is overwhelming that our presence provides motivation for people throughout the Arab world to become anti-American terrorists.

Even the slightest amount of critical thinking shows the flaws in the 'over there, not over here' argument. The vast majority of the insurgents in Iraq are Iraqis that just want foreign troops out of their country. As soon as we leave, they'll have their hands full as the already present civil war escalates. The longer we stay in Iraq, however, the more angry 'foreign fighters' - the ones that already wanted to fight us over here - we create.

But I guess it's all okay as long as you say that you support the troops...

Dick Morris War in Iraq

The Picture of 'Establishment' Authority

I cannot imagine a group of men more unsuited to be the pool from which the leader of this nation will be chosen.

And their biggest problem is that these candidates and their party members think that a rich, old, white male is the only image of authority.

Republican Debate Patriarchy

Does He Think We Won't Notice?

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) on Friday:

Inhofe, speaking to the press before Cheney’s arrival, lambasted Democrats for Thursday’s Senate vote to begin withdrawal from Iraq by Oct. 1 and the press for "mischaracterizing" the reasons for U.S. involvement.

"The whole idea of weapons of mass destruction was never the issue, yet they keep trying to bring this up," Inhofe said. […]

Pressed for an explanation, Inhofe said weapons of mass destruction were "incidental" to the decision to invade Iraq.

"The media made that the issue because they knew Saddam Hussein had used weapons of mass destruction."

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) in August 2002:

"Our intelligence system has said that we know that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction — I believe including nuclear. There's not one person on this panel who would tell you unequivocally that he doesn’t have the missile means now, or is nearly getting the missile means to deliver a weapon of mass destruction. And I for one am not willing to wait for that to happen."

Senator Inhofe is 73 years old so maybe he isn't too familiar with the fact that 'the tubes' allow us to fact check his current dishonest, self-serving drivel against the factless, partisan drivel that fell out of his mouth five years ago.

That said, weapons of mass destruction were "incidental" to the reasons for going into Iraq? "Smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud" anybody? Is he that contemptuous towards the intelligence of the American People? Did he really think we're so stupid to forget the Bush Administration's arguments about mobile weapons labs, anthrax, and YELLOW CAKE FROM NIGER?

In the end, what shocks me most is that he has the audacity to go on record spouting such obvious lies for self-serving reasons.

James Inhofe Weapons of Mass Destruction Media War in Iraq

War on Science? Not at the Pentagon

The Republican War on Science is well documented. The fact that America's national security is endangered by that war is certainly less widely. The Pentagon has seen a dwindling in interest in science and of scientific expertise - both vital for our military - and has taken some unorthodox steps to preserve our scientific leadership.

From the Christian Science Monitor:

the triumvirate of Messrs. Gundersen, Barker, and Singer is serious about getting science - and scientific heroes - into the movies. In fact, they see it as vital to the health of American technological prowess, to say nothing of national security.

So what they've done for the past three years is convene a three-to-five-day screenwriting class at the venerated American Film Institute in Los Angeles. Called the Catalyst Workshop, it's a lot like other screenwriting classes that have become a cottage industry across the nation. But here's the twist - all participants in this one are actually scientists. Hardcore, PhD-laden, lab-certified scientists. Here's the second twist - the training was all paid for by the Pentagon.

These screenwriting classes are indeed your Department of Defense tax dollars at work. Egregious example of DOD waste? Some bizarre recruiting promise? The cinematic equivalent of $700 toilet seats? Actually, it's the Pentagon's way of trying to enhance the nation's science-and-technology adroitness.

***

America, it turns out, is suffering from a science and engineering shortage. Students are bypassing the sciences for sexier and more lucrative jobs in law, venture capital, and competitions to be on "American Idol." That means, in addition to national deficits in sleep, fitness, and the federal budget, we have a dearth of particle physicists and electromechanical engineers.

If the Pentagon says we're short on scientists, I'm inclined to believe them. When it comes to engineers, I know we're short on them from personal experience.

I graduated with a degree in Architecture got a good job making a decent salary. Friends of mine, graduating from the same university at the same time with engineering degrees were recruited by multiple companies, and easily make twice as much as I do.

The law of supply and demand doesn't lie.

And, I suppose, it was my choice to pick the sexy profession (architecture) that cost me the money. I never really thought of architecture as sexy, but it really kind of is. Have you ever noticed how many commercials for things completely unrelated to architecture have (physically attractive) architects in high-rise offices with big glass windows locking out over cities? Maybe it's just me...

And being a mechanical engineer is definitely un-sexy. It's like the old joke says: "How can you tell the difference between and architect and an engineer? - The architect's clothes match." The stereotypes aren't flattering.

Anyway, back to the point.

The Republican Party has allowed certain internal elements and interests to degrade science in general (and science education in particular) to such a degree that the Pentagon is sponsoring scientists' screen plays.

Think about that.

I don't think it's a bad idea. It's a sort of 'under the radar' P.R. campaign for science, something many other areas of study and/or professions use all the time.

Of course a sound education and more affordable college educations might be a better way to get similar results...

Science Engineering Pentagon

That Rudy Giuliani Post I Promised

Since I mentioned it earlier, I better actually write it, I guess.

From the Washington Post:

NEW YORK, Dec. 18 -- His national poll numbers are a dream, he's a major box office draw on the Republican Party circuit, and he goes by the shorthand title "America's Mayor." All of which has former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani convinced he just might become America's president in 2008.

He is showing the early signs of a serious candidacy: Giuliani's presidential exploratory committee throws its first major fundraiser in a hotel near Times Square on Tuesday evening, and he recently hired the political director of the Republican National Committee during 2006. A Washington Post-ABC News poll released last week found that Republicans give Giuliani an early lead over Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who is far ahead of the former mayor in organizing a national campaign.

Despite that lead, conservative party strategists and activists in key primary states are skeptical and warn that the socially liberal Republican faces a difficult campaign. They question whether a Republican who has had one marriage end in annulment and another in divorce, and favors abortion rights, gun control and immigrant rights, has much retail appeal in the evangelical and deeply conservative reaches of the GOP.

That and Republican electoral power is now concentrated in the South. How much excitement do you think a somebody from New York City is going to generate there?

It's like that old 'Pace' salsa commercial where a bunch of cowboys are complaining about a bad bottle of salsa and one reads that it was made in New York City. 'New York City?!?' the cowboys say in surprise and disgust. The commercial ends with the cook looking frightened.

Rovian 'play to the base' politics has made a Northern Republican as un-electable as a Northern Democrat used to be. The race-based immigration politics that some of the Republicans in government can't seem to get away from is just going to make all of this worse.

I'm not complaining.

Rudy Giuliani 2008 Republican Nomination

The New Southern Problem

Harold Meyerson in the Washington Post:

[In last month's election] The Democrats won control of five state legislatures, all outside the South, and took more than 300 state legislative seats away from Republicans, 93 percent of them outside the South. As for the new Senate Republican caucus that chose Mississippi's Lott over Tennessee's Lamar Alexander to be deputy to Kentucky's Mitch McConnell, 17 of its 49 members come from the Confederacy proper, with another three from the old border states of Kentucky and Missouri, and two more from Oklahoma, which is Southern but with more dust. In all, 45 percent of Republican senators come from the Greater South.

More problematic, so does most of the Republican message. Following the gospel according to Rove (fear not swing voters but pander to and mobilize thy base), George W. Bush and the Republican Congress, together or separately, had already blocked stem cell research, disparaged nonmilitary statecraft, exalted executive wartime power over constitutional niceties, campaigned repeatedly against gay rights, thrown public money at conservative churches and investigated the tax status of liberal ones. In the process, they alienated not just moderates but Western-state libertarians.

The one strategist who fundamentally predicted the new geography of partisan American politics is Tom Schaller, a University of Maryland political scientist whose book "Whistling Past Dixie: How Democrats Can Win Without the South" appeared several months before November's elections. Schaller argued that the Democrats' growth would occur in the Northeast, the industrial Midwest, the Mountain West and the Southwest -- areas where professionals, appalled by Republican Bible Beltery, were trending Democratic and where working-class whites voted their pocketbooks in a way that their Southern counterparts did not. Al Gore carried white voters outside the South, Schaller reminded us; even hapless John Kerry came close.

Yes.

No time to comment. Go read the whole thing!

Problems for Romney

A Rasmussen Reports survey has found that 43% of Americans would never vote for a Mormon. From the Salt Lake Tribune:

WASHINGTON - Some 43 percent of Americans wouldn't even consider voting for a Mormon for president, according to a new poll that shows an increase from previous surveys in the number of voters unwilling to support an LDS candidate for the White House.

The latest poll, released Monday, is bad news for Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Mormon Republican who is expected to make a 2008 presidential bid. Previous polls have shown a smaller share of Americans saying they would not vote for a Mormon presidential candidate.

The Los Angeles Times and Bloomberg in June found 37 percent of those surveyed wouldn't vote for a Mormon while other surveys from the late 1990s showed about 20 percent were opposed to a candidate from that faith.

Some 38 percent in the Rasmussen poll said they would consider voting for a Mormon, while 19 percent were unsure. Of those who identified themselves as evangelicals, 53 percent said they wouldn't consider voting for a Mormon candidate.

It's interesting that the only sub-group that is mentioned is Evangelicals. It would be interesting to see breakdowns by party affiliation, race, income, education, and region. Of course 'Evangelical' is code for 'White, socially conservative Republican' - of which only 53% would vote for a Mormon. This must scare the shit out of Romney. If this bias against people that have different ideas about God can't be overcome quickly (with either speeches, TV spots, or appropriately timed attacks on Gays) Romney's candidacy is dead in the water.

Romney has the deck stacked against him. He's running for the nomination of a party with its powerbase in the South and West when he's from the North East. This poll shows that he's looking to attract voters that are hostile to his religion. He has low name recognition and, as far as I've seen, no 'proto-platform.' He's not the 'immigration candidate' or the 'Iraq candidate' or the 'trade candidate' or the 'tax candidate' or any other 'candidate' except the 'Mormon candidate' and his base has basically rejected that.

For what it's worth, I would have no problem voting for a Mormon. I just can't imagine voting for Mitt Romney.

Here's the other part of Rasmussen's survey that I found interesting:

A potential Mormon presidential candidate fared better than one who is Muslim or an atheist running for the White House, the Rasmussen poll also found.

Some 61 percent of likely voters would not even consider voting for a Muslim presidential contender while 60 percent wouldn't vote for an atheist, the poll found.

I always knew I was unelectable... Atheism is the new gay...

Mitt Romney Mormon Religion+in+Politics Atheism

The New Minority Whip

The new Minority Whip, Sen. Trent Lott, Republican from Mississippi, shall henceforth and forever be known as:

Strom Thurmond Lite

New and Improved! It still has all the 'old time South' flavor you love, but now without the troublesome hood!

Trent Lott Minority Whip

AP Photo/Rogelio V. Solis

Talkin 'Bout My Generation

From RawStory:

Washington- Younger voters turned out in higher numbers in Tuesday's US congressional elections, giving a lift to Democratic candidates in a contest that gave the party control of the US House of Representatives for the first time in 12 years. "This is a new generation," Hans Riemer, political director of Rock the Vote, an organization that seeks to mobilize young voters, told Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa. "They're more involved, more engaged, and less cynical."

Exit polls showed that voters between the ages of 18 and 29 cast 13 per cent of all votes, up from 11 per cent in the 2002 elections, the last non-presidential national election. Voter turnout is typically higher in presidential elections.

That increase is important because the proportion of young voters has become smaller in the same time period, causing the increase to outpace the growth in turnout among all voters, Rock the Vote said.

Young voters traditionally favour Democratic candidates and did so by a 22 point margin on Tuesday, the organization said, citing exit polls.

Long, protracted wars with dubious rational and illusive benefits often bring out voters of military age, but I don't really think that's what's going on here. Yes, a larger proportion of young people are opposed to the war than the population at large, but that is a reflection of the ideology, not self preservation. (This would change quickly if the draft were to return.) I think that my generation, people 18-29, reject much of the GOP's social agenda as well as the devisive politics that use that agenda.

Jonathan Rauch at ReasonOnline explains:

A March Los Angeles Times poll finds that more than 80 percent of young people (ages 18 to 29) favor anti-discrimination protections for gay people. More than 70 percent believe gays should receive the same kinds of civil-rights protections that are afforded to racial minorities and women. More than half favor gay adoption, three-fourths believe that "a gay person can be a good role model for a child," and more than 70 percent can "accept two men or two women living together like a married couple." Seventy percent describe themselves as sympathetic to the gay community (versus 43 percent of people 65 and older). And three-fourths support gay marriage or civil unions—with the plurality favoring marriage.

That's my generation's standing on just one of the GOP's bugaboos. Young people are also less religious than previous generations. Only 27% of people 18-34 describe themselves as 'religious' - the lowest among any demographic. Almost one in four in the same age group call themselves 'secular' or 'somewhat secular,' also topping all other groups. The fastest growing religion in America is Wicca. The number of Americans who claim no religion has doubled since 1990.

Young people are more likely to be pro-environment and to believe that government has a responsibility to regulate business and help the disadvantaged.

More than half of young people self identify as Democrats.

People in their 40s had the Reagan Revolution as their formative Republican experience. People in their 30s saw Newt Gingrich bring the GOP to power.

My generation has the disastrous presidency of George W. Bush as our only model of Republicanism. Endless war, lies, bigotry, hate, scandal, corruption, and bitter, divisive politics has not and will not endear the GOP to my generation. Like Americans in their 50s (who had the Nixon administration to form their first ideas about Republicans) my generation will probably carry our party identification with us for the rest of our lives. (See the chart above.)

I'm not saying that as my generation makes its way into office that it will usher in an age of Democratic dominance, but it will change the nature of the debate.

Generation Y Politics Social Issues Democrats Republicans

Only Fear can Save Them Now

Eugene Robinson's op-ed in today's Washington Post is a good one, though one feels that it could have been written months ago:

If Democrats manage to take control of one or both houses of Congress on Tuesday, the reason will be that voters were not adequately roused into a state of heart-pounding, knee-knocking, teeth-chattering fear.

Not that Republicans haven't been trying. George W. Bush used to claim he was "a uniter, not a divider," but that was a long time ago. These days, he'd probably try to deny the quote the same way he tried to disown "stay the course." The Karl Rove formula for political victory has been to draw a bright line between "us" and "them" and then paint those on the other side not as opponents but as monsters.

Thus Bush openly accused those who disagree with his policy in Iraq of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. "The Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses," he said the other day.

The remainder of the piece points to all the woes that the GOP faces this cycle. The irony that a group of Republicans that never served demonize decorated veterans like John Kerry for being 'unpatriotic.' The way that Democrats who question tax cuts in a time of war get turned into Liberal, tax-raising madmen. The inability on the part of Republicans to get any traction out of the New Jersey Gay Marriage ruling after Mark Foley and David Kuo exposed the hypocrisy and opportunism of the GOP. Even the fact that a woman (gasp!) from San Francisco (shudder!) would become Speaker of the House (and third in line for the Presidency) if Democrats take control of the House has failed to generate any real 'fear.'

It's a good column, if vaguely unexciting in a 'I've seen all this before' sort of way. Perhaps for people who don't spend hours a day pouring over political news and commentary, the distillation of the results of 12 years of Republicanism would be timely.

That's the key word - timely. For what Robinson's piece lacks in excitement, it makes up for in timeliness and it does so in spades. This is the perfect column to run four days before an election. It is clear, to the point, and devastatingly effective in exposing the failures of Bush and his Republican lackeys. I'm sure that's why Mr. Robinson put it together the way he did.

The end of the piece is one that would make any snarky blogger proud:

But while Kerry's recent gaffe produced some last-minute outrage, mere outrage probably isn't enough this time. The only thing that might work is fear, and so far not enough Americans have been made to quake in their boots.

I take that back: The president did say that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld will serve out the remainder of his term. Run for your lives!

Vote Republican or we'll bring Freedom and Democracy to your state!

Fear Mongering Eugene Robinson 2006 Election

Thank God I'm Married...

Otherwise I'd be the target population for the White House's new Abstinence program.

Did I mention I'm closer to 30 than 20?

From the USA Today:

The federal government's "no sex without marriage" message isn't just for kids anymore.

Now the government is targeting unmarried adults up to age 29 as part of its abstinence-only programs, which include millions of dollars in federal money that will be available to the states under revised federal grant guidelines for 2007.

The government says the change is a clarification. But critics say it's a clear signal of a more directed policy targeting the sexual behavior of adults.

"They've stepped over the line of common sense," said James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth, a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit that supports sex education. "To be preaching abstinence when 90% of people are having sex is in essence to lose touch with reality. It's an ideological campaign. It has nothing to do with public health."

Abstinence is probably the best policy for 14 year olds, though they should have accurate knowledge about contraception. When it comes to 17 year olds, the idea that 'just say no' will prevent pregnancy and STDs becomes silly. If we're talking about 24 year olds, it's downright ludicrous. At age 18, you're old enough to fight and die for your country in Iraq, vote, smoke, and be treated like an adult in the eyes of the law - but not old enough, apparently, to decide if a sexual relationship is ok outside of wedlock.

The National Center for Health Statistics puts the percentage of 20-29 year olds having sex at 90%.

Wade Horn, the Department of Health and Human Services' assistant secretary for children and families says that the reason for the targeting of 19-29 year olds is that 19-29 year olds have the most babies out of wedlock. "The message is 'It's better to wait until you're married to bear or father children' ... The only 100% effective way of getting there is abstinence."

My guess is that 19-29 year old women probably have the majority of babies period. I could be wrong, but I'm not.

The idea that the only acceptable form of a family is a 'Leave it to Beaver' sort of nuclear family is one deeply rooted in the Social Conservative mind. This change is an effort, funded by your federal tax dollars, to stigmatize anybody who doesn't fall in line with what a bunch of Christianist assholes think is right.

If a man and a woman (or two women or two men) decide that they want a child but don't want to get married, as adults, that's their business. The government shouldn't be interfering in their personal lives.

If the government's effort is to prevent accidental pregnancies among adults, 90% of which are sexually active, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that proper education about contraceptives is the better way to go.

Who says that the new, Radical Christianist Republican Party is out of touch with the real America?

Abstinence Only Christianists Republicans

Democratic Victory = "America Loses"

From the lips of George W. Bush.

Once you understand this, the logic (yes, logic) is perfect.

Democrats winning in this election is only 'bad for America' because it's bad for Republicans and really bad for George W. Bush himself. But then again, for GOoPers, it's always about them. That's why the insurgency in Iraq is about the midterm elections.

I know it's Halloween and all, but I think that they're starting to sound scared...

George W. Bush Democrats Republicans 2006 Election

A Dirth of Trust

Sebastian Mallaby's op-ed in the Washington Post looks at the current political climate through an interesting lens - trust:

You don't hear much about trust these days. Instead, we want accountability.

[...]

In the 1990s, after academics and pundits began talking about trust, the nation did actually become more trusting. The share of Americans saying they trust government "most of the time" or "just about always" rose from 21 percent in 1994 to 56 percent in 2002. Equally, elections became less abrasively focused on accountability. In 2000, according to John Geer of Vanderbilt University, a relatively low 40 percent of the messages in presidential TV spots were negative, down from 47 percent four years earlier.

But some time after the Iraq invasion, these trends reversed. In 2004 the share of Americans saying they trusted government fell to 47 percent, and this month a CBS News-New York Times poll put it at a rock-bottom 28 percent. Meanwhile Geer's measures show that in the 2004 election negative messages jumped to 50 percent of the total, and he guesses that this year's congressional races are the most negative in history.

[...]

But trust, when not abused, is nonetheless an asset. Accountants, lawyers and online training sessions impose costs on businesses; it would be cheaper to trust people if that were possible. Likewise, as Marc Hetherington of Vanderbilt University has demonstrated, government is constrained if nobody trusts it. The Great Society programs were possible because Americans trusted government in the 1960s; the creation of the Medicare prescription drug program arguably reflected the peaking of trust in government in 2003. But Bill Clinton's health care reform was thwarted in the low-trust early 1990s, and nobody now trusts government to modernize entitlements. Meanwhile President Bush had enormous foreign policy momentum in 2002-03 because Americans trusted him. Thanks to the Iraq mess, Americans are now focused on holding Bush accountable, and his options are limited.

To borrow a phrase, Americans tried the 'trust' thing and have moved on to 'verify.'

As a Liberal, I believe that government can be a great force for good. Enlightened government can affect change that no private citizen or private institution can achieve. This is only possible, though, if the population trusts its government.

As Mr. Mallaby notes, the dawn of the 21st century, both for good reasons and tragic ones, provided the American government with a population that didn't just trust its government, but hungered for it to act.

Unfortunately for America and the world, that government was lead by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Supported by the likes of Tom Delay, Duke Cunningham, Scooter Libby, Bob Ney, Armstrong Williams, Jack Abramoff, Mark Foley, Ken Lay, Denny Hastert, Rick Santorum, and the full weight of FoxNews, our government squandered that trust in an effort to enrich themselves and their supporters, enact legislation to divide America, engage in questionable foreign policy, and ensure their own continued power.

The 2006 election is shaping up the way it is because the people of America don't trust George W. Bush and don't trust a Republican congress to verify that he's acting in America's best interest.

The absence of trust isn't limited to America's internal politics. The idea that a French leader would echo De Gaulle's sentiment that "the word of the president of the United States is good enough for me" is laughable. The mistrust of the United States in the Middle East is bad enough, but even our long-time allies in Europe don't trust America.

As every person who has ever been in a relationship knows, trust is something that is easily broken and can take a long time to regain. A Democratic sweep of the House and Senate a week from today, even if the gains are retained and the presidency added in 2008 would only be a small step back towards a trustworthy government in America.

Trust America George W. Bush Republicans 2006 Elections

The 'Big Tent' is Collapsing

From the L.A. Times:

A major effort to draw Latinos and blacks into the Republican Party, a central element of the GOP plan to build a long-lasting majority, is in danger of collapse amid anger over the immigration debate and claims that Republican leaders have not delivered on promises to direct more money to church-based social services.

President Bush, strategist Karl Rove and other top Republicans have wooed Latino and black leaders, many of them evangelical clergy who lead large congregations, in hopes of peeling away the traditional Democratic base. But now some of the leaders who helped Bush win in 2004 are revisiting their loyalty to the Republican Party and, in some cases, abandoning it.

[...]

The Latino backlash has grown so intense that one prominent, typically pro-Republican organization, the Latino Coalition, has endorsed Democrats in competitive races this year in Tennessee, Nebraska and New Jersey. The coalition is chaired by Hector Barreto, the former administrator of the Small Business Administration under Bush; its president is a former strategist for the Republican National Committee.

What we see here is the results of governing by and for a 'base' that is both a minority of the population and outside the political mainstream. To win elections, the Republicans pursue legislation to excite the base. That legislation, the 'red meat,' included a strong anti-immigration stance that alienated Hispanic voters. Black voters, seen as receptive to GOP overtures based on religious and social conservatism are angered that while 'white' churches received money under the President's Faith Based Initiatives program, Black congregations did not.

And there was that whole Katrina thing, too.

The Latino Coalition released a study finding that registered voters of Latino decent favored Democrats over Republicans 56% to 19%. Not surprising when the GOP is calling for every undocumented immigrant to be kicked out. It plays real well in Kansas but when your mother or grandmother might be the one deported, it's different.