Tom Tancredo's office window, apparently.

Living in Arizona, I've had plenty of chances to seethe this summer at the barely-veiled bigotry of conservatives (falsely) accusing immigrants of everything, and then some-- but this just takes the cake. Notice how he stuck "9/11" in there as a reference point, too -- just in case the attempt to appeal to conservatives' basest fears wasn't blatant enough.

If only Tancredo had included a little bit of gratuitous homophobia, like specifying that these were gay illegals. That would have made people really mad.

Type rest of the post here and it will be hidden with a "read more..." link

read more...

Some useless historical trivia: in Joe Biden's last race (1988-- he's older than he looks!), the media widely labeled the Democratic field as the "seven dwarves"-- and whether it was accurate or not, the label was pretty catchy.

So I've been wondering... why haven't any Hillary supporters rolled out a "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves" label for 2008? It sure sets one candidate apart.

read more...

A few ramblings about Monday's YouTube debate:

1) CNN tried hard to play up the "revolutionary" angle, but there really wasn't anything super exciting about the debate. Sure, the moderator was young, hip, sexy (ask any girl I know...) Anderson Cooper, but the debate was basically a town hall format transposed to the 21st century. Questions were, after all, screened by CNN, so nothing revolutionary was going to get through.

2) Instead of revolutionary questions, CNN focused on unorthodox delivery. I'm a huge fan of YouTube humor, and rednecks are funny, but is having people dressed as rednecks really informative in any way, shape, or form? And I'm not going to lie: I cried inside when they had a snowman ask the question on global warming. Here's a surefire way NOT to get one of the most serious issues facing America taken seriously: animatronic snowmen. I can just see Inhofe playing that clip on the Senate floor.

3) As always, the biggest problem was the format. Seven and a half people, standing side-by-side on a stage, delivering their own little 90-second soliloquies with the occasional Anderson-moderated response. Wouldn't it be infinitely more exciting and revolutionary to just let the candidates go at it?

All told, the debate was a huge improvement over the last few, but still left me disappointed-- not in our field, which is by all accounts terrific, but in the media that mangles politics time and time again. Until they get it right, I'm going to go watch Gordon Brown fisticuff his parliament on Question Time.

Cheers!

read more...

Last week's caption contest winner: leaveonlyfootprints! Check his entry and others here.

Since Bush has to dress up extensively during the course of his job, today's caption contest features President Bush and Vladimir Putin garbed in another terrific costume:


Have at it.

read more...

Free from the constraints of having to moderate (I guess?) his views for re-election, Santorum exits stage far-right with a bang....

By a vote of 95-2, the Senate approved President Bush's defense secretary nominee Wednesday... Two Republican senators -- Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Jim Bunning of Kentucky -- cast the only no votes.

I guess Bob Gates is soft on terror? Or homosexuals? One or the other... Islamofascism, we hardly knew you.

read more...

I'm going to try and keep the pictures relatively timely, but this gem from earlier in the year is just too good to pass up. Use the comments to give your most creative caption to the following picture:

The winner will be posted next Sunday in next week's Caption Contest. We want to give Speaker Hastert a fitting goodbye, so do your worst...

read more...

Many of you have probably noticed the unbelievably virulent civil war that's developing between James Carville and the major progressive blogs. The short version: earlier today, Carville trashed Dean's chairmanship and suggested replacing him with Harold Ford. In response, the major progressive blogs are threatening civil war, with Kos literally calling for a war and Matt Stoller at MyDD threatening to have the netroots pull all funding from the Democratic Party.

Seriously? I mean, seriously? We just scored the biggest political victory for the Democratic Party in a generation. Let's be honest-- for all the media drama about a war between Dean, Rahm, and Schumer, all three did a phenomenal job this cycle. I know people who say Dean sucked, and I know people who say Rahm and Schumer sucked. I like all three. At the end of the day, these three people waged the most successful Democratic campaign of my lifetime.

Carville and the blogs have different ideas of how to win elections; that's fine. I have my own ideas, too. We can and should debate which strategy will carry the party forward. But the absolute last thing we need right now is a civil war in the Democratic party over such a non-issue as who James Carville thinks should chair the DNC. I love James Carville, but he made his reputation in politics by making various inflammatory statements to the media. It's won him a lot of elections-- some would say he single-handedly got Clinton out of the draft-dodging hole that threatened his primary campaign by vigorously fighting the allegations on camera. But is an inflammatory Carville statement really the best reason to launch a Democratic civil war? Come on. Dean won't be replaced as DNC chair; he's done a damn good job, and most of the party realizes that. The blogs need to calm down.

On a related note, Lieberman today reassured reporters that he's still committed to voting with the Democrats. I'm as loyal a Democrat as they come; I supported Lieberman in the primary and Lamont in the general election. Unfortunately, we lost in Connecticut-- but I'd have rather lost that seat than any other Senate election this cycle. Regardless of our problems with Joe, he's going to vote on our side and he's going to give us a Democratic majority. Let's welcome him back (if not with open arms) and move on to dealing with what really matters: implementing Democratic policy and keeping the Senate blue for years to come.

Okay, I know I've earned some flames. I'm ready.

read more...

Just when you think the election can't get any stranger.

In 1964, LBJ's re-election campaign ran the most famous political ad of all time: Peace Little Girl. More commonly known today as Daisy, the ad not-so-subtly implied that a Barry Goldwater victory would lead America to nuclear war. (If you haven't seen it, I definitely recommend that you take a look. There hasn't been anything scarier on political TV since.) After the nuclear explosion engulfs the screen in all its horror, the ad goes black, and the narrator intones, "These are the stakes."

After one showing, the controversial ad was pulled off the air amid intense criticism from, among others, the RNC. Said the RNC chair of the time, "This horror-type commercial is designed to arouse basic emotions and has no place in the campaign." Fair enough-- I'm as devoted a Democrat as they come, and even I will agree that Daisy was a pretty dirty trick on the part of the LBJ campaign.

Which is why I could not believe my eyes when I saw the ad currently playing on the RNC's front page. Take a look; it's the kind of blatant plagiarism that would get you failed at even the easiest class at Georgetown. They didn't even bother changing the tag line.

Well, let me denounce the ad with some original words of my own. I'd like Ken Mehlman to know that this horror-type commercial is designed to arouse basic emotions and has no place in the campaign. That's one for Familiar Quotations, straight from Or Skolnik.

read more...

Remember Team America: World Police, one of the 21st century's greatest cinematic achievements? You should. Unfortunately, some Republicans seem not to. I wish this was a joke, but Tom Tancredo-- a Colorado Republican, and one of the most virulent opponents of immigration in Congress-- has started Team America PAC.

Someone really should sit Tom Tancredo down and watch Team America with him. Tancredo may be a little nuts, but I'm pretty sure he's firmly anti-puppet sex. I wouldn't want any sort of embarrassment to come to the poor Congressman.

On the bright side, this entire Team America business gives me an idea. I just might know how to resurrect Santorum's dying political career...

read more...

When Rick Santorum wrote It Takes a Family, most of us thought he was writing a book about his favorite subjects-- conservatism and/or homosexuality. Unfortunately, we were wrong: "It Takes a Family" is Santorum's new campaign strategy (watch the ad before you read further).

Whether it's desperation, shamelessness, or some combination of the two, Santorum's resorted to buying his kids air time to ressurect his troubled campaign. I guess the new definition of "family values" is throwing your family on TV so they can protect your values?

The not-so-subtle subtext of the ad: Bob Casey hates Rick Santorum's children because he criticizes Rick Santorum for abandoning his Pennsylvania residence. Some might see the ad as a disgusting political ploy, but I take a much more optimismic view. We've entered a brave new world of political advertising, and when Chelsea Clinton debates Jack McCain for the presidency in place of their parents, we'll have Rick Santorum to thank for it. After all, it takes a family.

In other news, Bush gave the most insightful quote of his presidency yesterday night on CBS News:

"One of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror."

That is hard. I feel your pain.

read more...

The fall 2006 semester officially starts next week, and all of us here at Georgetown Dems HQ are getting ready for another busy election season. Before we move on, though, I'd be honored if you would join me for a walk down memory lane with my favorite political clips of summer 2006. Without further ado...


5) George Allen and the macaca. What, exactly, is a macaca? Well, depending on who you ask, it's either a macaque, a horrible racial slur, or a Spanglish abbreviation for "shithead." (By the way, you know a Senator is in trouble when his alibi is that he just meant to call the guy a shithead.) Either way, it's one of the worst Republican political gaffes of the summer-- and that makes for great entertainment.

4) Ted Stevens' A Series of Unfortunate Tubes. In all fairness, I don't see why it's such a big deal that Ted Stevens doesn't understand how the internets work. Republicans have never been on the cutting edge of hip, and back when Senator Stevens was our age (circa 1835), the only way to communicate probably was through a series of tubes (though dump trucks weren't introduced until the 20th century). Nevertheless, it's a pretty damn stupid statement, and the remix is one of this summer's classics. (The original is funny, too, if rambling old Republicans are your kind of thing.)

3) Arnold's Neighborhood. Yeah, it's a brazen attack video by a campaign we know and love, but it's just too funny not to include. And you won't be able to stop humming the tune for days. Laugh at Ken Von Lay at your own peril, though-- you just might end up going to hell.


2) Brad Miller's Fiesta. Think nobody can put immigration, gay marriage, flag burning, and unadulterated bigotry into a coherent 60 second spot? Think again. This is the funniest, most absurd radio ad of the summer, and one of the most ridiculous attack ads you'll ever see. You might have trouble believing it, but this ad is not a joke-- and neither is Vernon Robinson's newest offering. While the second ad is a little less funny, it makes a convincing case for why Republicans should never get into the recording industry.

1) The Lamont Bear Ad. Far and away, my favorite political clip of the summer. If you needed another reason for why Joe Lieberman crashed and burned in the primary, look no further than this truly awful ad. The good news: if Lieberman loses, his team has a bright future in Saturday morning television. GRRRR!

(Note: All Colbert Report and Daily Show clips are automatically disqualified, since there are just too many good ones for me to post here.)

What other clips did I miss? Let me know in the comments.

read more...

Some of you may know my anal-retentive attention to political detail (ask me about the difference between "Democrat" and "Democratic" sometime...). Even though it's a bad idea to get caught up on the little things, they do count. How we say something is just as important as when and if we say it in the first place. Liberal or progressive, environmentalist or conservationist, death tax or estate tax; the words all mean the same thing on the surface, but each version carries its own implications for each type of audience. Since Republicans figured this out a long time ago--read anything by Frank Luntz and see the painstaking attention to linguistic detail--it really warms my heart when Democrats pay attention to the little things, too. And I don't just mean relatively obvious stuff, like calling yourself a progressive in Nebraska instead of a liberal.


One little detail is George Allen's middle name. These days, Allen's strategy (for 2006 and, more importantly, 2008) is to sell himself as a folksy Bush-Reagan cowboy hybrid. It's a good, proven strategy; nobody really challenged the populist cowboy-ness of either Bush 43 or Reagan. Fortunately, though, Webb's campaign pays attention to the details. Take a look at Jim Webb's press release page. Due to a stroke of bad luck at birth, George Allen's middle name happens to be "Felix"-- which doesn't exactly sound like a salt-of-the-earth rancher down in Texas. And to add insult to injury, GFA happens to be a Junior. Put it all together and George Felix Allen, Jr., is about as un-cowboy as it gets. You'd expect a guy like that to be an obnoxious kid in some snobby east coast private school who walks around with salmon polo shirts and popped collars.

Webb's press people realize this. Every press release I've seen from Webb's campaign refers to Allen's name in all its splendor. Yeah, it sounds retarded when you read "George Felix Allen, Jr." five times in a row, but that's kind of the point. After all, who can fault them for using his real name?

Of course, saying Felix doesn't win the election. It might not even get Webb one vote, but it's an integral part of building a narrative. I doubt anybody chose to cast their vote for Bush because they saw a picture of John Kerry windsurfing, but the windsurfing signified a lot more than Kerry's love for sport. Bush's campaign made the campaign narrative about "the flip-flopper" versus "steady leadership in times of change", and every time people saw Kerry go from side to side in the wind, it just played into the larger narrative. George Felix Allen, Jr. may not win votes, but a narrative of snobby, elitist George Felix Allen, Jr. just might. And nothing says "snobby" and "elitist" better than a guy with the middle name Felix.

read more...

I don't need to tell anyone reading this that 2006 is our chance to reverse six horrible years of Democratic losses. In less than five months, we may once again control the Senate, the House, or both. If not, we'll at least be much closer to a majority and much more able to influence policy for the better. Either way, 2006 will be a good year, and this is our chance to shine.

There are a lot of exciting Senate races this year where Democrats have a terrific chance to pick up seats. To find out which one has our party's activists are really excited about, I conducted a quick, non-scientific Google search on DailyKos in the past 3 months. Montana, with a great candidate in blogosphere-favorite Jon Tester? A search on "Burns" reveals 28,200 hits. What about Pennsylvania? Canine enthusiast "Santorum" gives 26,800 hits. And how about the nail-biting Rhode Island race? "Chafee" shows 9,550 hits. Well, those are the most exciting races; 28,200 isn't bad. Just for kicks and giggles, though, let's look at a little primary campaign in the Northeast. It's a safe Democratic seat, and the winner will be a Democrat no matter what, so there isn't a whole lot to be excited about as far as taking back the Senate. So how many hits does a search on "Lieberman" give?

45,500. Activists are more riled up about a Democratic incumbent in Connecticut than any Republican seat up for the taking in 2006.

Look, I follow Democratic blogs religiously. I know the arguments. Lieberman supported the war and still supports it whole-heartedly. Lieberman appears on Fox News and isn't always kind to other Democratic senators. Lieberman criticizes Bush less than he should. Lieberman is a centrist senator from a reliably progressive state. Lieberman runs absolutely God-awful campaign commercials against his challenger. All of these things are true, and none of them make me like Lieberman a whole lot (though the ad is... entertaining).

But Joe Lieberman is a Democrat. And as hard as it may be to believe, he's a pretty damn devoted Democrat, even if he doesn't toe the party line as much as we'd like him to. Progressive Punch is a website that tallies all the votes of every elected official and determines how progressive they are. Their methodology isn't perfect, but take a look and I think you'll agree that it's close enough. With 100 being the most progressive, Joe scores a 76.46, more than 3o points above the nearest Republican. Yes, he's much closer to the center than we would like him to be, but in the grand scheme of things, he's solid blue.

Besides, Lieberman's Senate career isn't nearly as bad as some make it out to be. Remember the Climate Stewardship Act? Sometimes it helps to have a centrist who can rally some support from the other side. It didn't pass, but that was because of the Republicans-- i.e., the people we should be spending our time and money beating. And what about the 2000 campaign? I might just be nostalgic after watching the incredible An Inconvenient Truth, but Lieberman was a pretty good and well-liked Democrat back then. He was a centrist, but people were okay with that; he was recognized as a good guy.

Lieberman still is a good guy. The war vote didn't change that. Unless you're single-issue voting on Iraq, there are much better things to worry about than Joe Lieberman. Once we take back a majority in the Senate, we can have vigorous primaries. Primaries are healthy and a great forum for intra-party debate. But right now, we have bigger races to worry about. Conrad Burns, Rick Santorum, and Lincoln Chafee, for example.

Besides, as ridiculous as the "Joementum" incident may have been, it just doesn't compare to making fun of Rick Santorum. And he's the real problem here.

read more...

I'll keep this short; the news speaks for itself. This morning, USA Today reported that the NSA has been building a database of American phone calls. So far, they've collected information about tens of millions of US citizens. Their ultimate aim?

"It's the largest database ever assembled in the world," said one person, who, like the others who agreed to talk about the NSA's activities, declined to be identified by name or affiliation. The agency's goal is "to create a database of every call ever made" within the nation's borders, this person added.

Every. Single. Call. Did you pick up the cell to wish your friend good luck before a final? The government has a record of that. Call your parents asking for advice? The NSA knows. Phone your girlfriend to tell her good night? General Hayden is well aware.

The Patriot Act was nothing compared to this; who cares if a few library records are compromised? Even the NSA wiretapping scandal pales in comparison; after all, very few people actually had their phoned tapped. But today, we know that the government is keeping records on the private conversations of every single American. Me, you, your parents, my friends-- the government has a list of every phone call they've made for the past five years. The largest database ever created is being used to collect private information from you, your friends, and your neighbors.

This is the end. The Patriot Act and NSA wiretapping were complicated, and the Republicans managed to squeek by thanks to their complexity. They painted Democrats as against all wiretapping, not just warantless wiretapping, and they made it seem as if the courts were an impediment to stopping terrorists. They were wrong, of course, but they managed to squirm out of facing the music. This is utterly inexcusable; spying on every single American is impossible to defend. Spying on every single Russian was the job of the KGB; spying on every single person was the job of Orwell's Big Brother. We live in the land of freedom, liberty, and democracy. Here in America, there is simply no excuse.

read more...

You don't need me to tell you that gas prices are rising to ridiculous (see: European) levels. This is a huge problem for everyone: people who can't afford to fill up and companies who suddenly face a significant increase in spending. As far as fixing the problem, our party wants to crack down on price-gougers, while Bush reminds us that there's no magic wand to wave. Price gouging is certainly a problem, and I'm glad that W has finally figured out the difference between fairly tale and reality. But Bush certainly isn't fixing the problem, and as much as I hate to say it, neither are the Democrats. The blame game isn't going to fix high gas prices; it's time to solve the problem once and for all.

Plain and simple, the only way we're ever going to permanently cure high gas prices is to switch to alternative energy. I'm not saying this is easy, I'm not saying this is simple, but if any country can do it, it's America. And other countries are doing it. The New York Times ran a terrific article a few weeks ago about Brazil's use of sugar-based ethanol. If you haven't read it, do so now; it'll make you realize just how ridiculous our energy problems are. In a nutshell, Brazil is producing 8.3 times as much energy from sugar cane as it expends in the process, while the US receives a rate of return at only 1.3 units on corn. I'm no scientist, but I refuse to believe that sugar cane is the only crop in the world that can be efficiently converted to ethanol.

To be clear, I'm not sure if ethanol is the best way to switch to alternative energy, but it's as good as any of a place to start. My point is that we need to stop making token efforts and begin pursuing serious investments in new fuels. The government needs to spend a significant sum of money-- in the billions (which isn't a lot, as you'll see in a second)-- specifically on researching alternative energy. There are many ways to do this. We could provide grants to corporations or NGOs. We could implement enormous tax benefits (similar to what is already in place for people financing oil and gas exploration) to individuals and companies that invest in alternative fuels. We could even put in place financial rewards for the first person or organization to reach a particular milestone of energy development or efficiency. I'm a progressive; I believe that the government can be a force for good. What better way to positively change America than to seriously invest in energy independence?

That was a little bit vague, so here's my idea. The government should invest, say, $10 billion in developing energy-efficient ways to produce ethanol from any crop that can be grown in America. Meanwhile, American farm subsidies have reached $143 billion over the past 10 years. Once we find an efficient plant to turn into energy, we should ask subsidized farmers to convert their fields into said crop. Since we'll be using the crop to fuel our cars, demand will rise significantly, and we can finally cut our farm subsidies without harming American farmers. Within a few years, we'll have saved a lot more than $10 billion, and gone a long way to resolving farm subsidies.

More importantly, we'll have solved our energy problem. We'll have solved high gas prices, which are bad for everyone: the poor can barely afford to drive, the middle class have to cut expenses, and corporations lose money when their vehicles all cost twice as much to operate as they did a few years ago. By switching from fossil fuels, we will have solved a plethora of environmental issues, including the stark reality that we're going to run out of oil in the not-so-distant future. Perhaps most significantly, we will have resolved the security issue; the fact that American fortunes are tethered to countries like Saudi Arabia is incredibly dangerous and is simply not acceptable to our national interest. Not to mention the fact that with our energy grown by American farmers and refined by American engineers and scientists, the new industry of alternative fuels will be bringing plenty of good jobs back to America.

Maybe my plan is a completely untenable and a bunch of science fiction written by a liberal arts student. It doesn't matter. America has enough amazing scientists that can figure out a working plan with $10 billion. My point is that it's time for the government to take real action on developing alternative energy. Maybe $10 billion is a lot of money, but considering how much we spend on farm subsidies and how much the country as a whole spends on high gas prices, I think it's pretty doable (not to mention that $10 billion is roughly what we spend every month in Iraq!). With a significant investment, there's no reason that America can't become the world leader in alternative fuels and break our crushing dependency on foreign oil. The Democratic Party is today in an incredible position to give America a vision for our energy future. Voters want a vision for how to solve the problem of gas prices; we can give it to them, and enact it as soon as we're elected. To paraphrase a great movie about the cornfields of Iowa (not to mention Rachel's blog post): if we give a vision, the voters will come.

read more...

If you haven't yet seen Stephen Colbert's spectacular performance at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, do yourself a favor and watch the video. It's pretty shocking, very funny, and most of all, it'll make you admire the sheer enormity of what Mr. Colbert describes as his "big brass balls." They keynote speaker at the White House Correspondents Dinner is traditionally a comic who makes fun of the President, something which has never been controversial. Then again, there's no comic with a style quite like that of Stephen Colbert.

Colbert's performance at the White House Correspondents Dinner has been characterized on a scale ranging from brilliant and hysterical to just not that funny, largely depending on where the reviewer stands on the political spectrum. In particular, the blogs have erupted with Colbert posts, predictably grading Colbert's performance according to their ideologies. So let me get a quick disclaimer out of the way: I'm a huge fan of Colbert's, and obviously, I'm a diehard progressive. With that in mind, Colbert's peformance is just being blown way out of proportion.

Anyone who watches The Colbert Report with any regularity realizes that the Correspondents' dinner was the exact same routine for Stephen Colbert as his show. As always, Stephen 'championed' truthiness and George W. Bush while vilifying the non-Fox News media. The only difference was that this time, Colbert was standing about ten feet away from Bush, and performing to virtually every major player in the media. Colbert really had two choices: tone his performance down for a less friendly (to put it mildly) audience, or keep his character the same. Considering what we know about the size of Colbert's... ego, I think the choice was pretty clear.

Yes, Colbert is getting panned for perhaps being too harsh on Bush. But as Colbert lifted half his speech from previous jokes he'd made on the Report, how can you be surprised at Colbert's monologue if you've ever watched his show? Well, apparently by not watching his show. The New York Times notes that "Mark Smith, a reporter for The Associated Press who is president of the White House Correspondents' Association, acknowledges that he had not seen much of Stephen Colbert on Comedy Central before he booked him as the main entertainment for the association's annual black-tie dinner on Saturday night." In all fairness to Mark Smith, vetting your performer is probably a good idea if you don't want to shock your audience. Luckily for us, though, Smith skipped the background check, and we got an amazing show.

The Colbert Controversy has ignited so many passions that it's even led to a doubly ridiculous post by Kos calling for a primary challenger to Steny Hoyer in 2008. Hoyer's being silly for calling what Colbert does every night "in bad taste." Meanwhile, I've written before on how ridiculous I think it is to spend resources on derailing Democrats when we're so far behind the Republicans in seats, and though I enjoy reading DailyKos, there is perhaps no worse reason to invest in a primary challenger to Steny Hoyer than his dislike for Stephen Colbert.

As for whether he was any less funny than on his show, I think the answer is that comedy has everything to do with the audience. If Colbert did the same skit in his studio, it would get plenty of laughs, but obviously that changes a little bit when the entire room is looking to see if Bush is laughing. My personal opinion? Except for the unspectacular audition tape bit, Colbert was hysterical. Colbert's also probably the bravest (rather, ballsiest) comic I've ever seen for not diluting his performance at all in front of the same people he makes fun of. Even more admirably, those same people just happen to be some of the most powerful individuals in the world. But regardless of how amazing (or, if you're a Republican, not funny) Colbert was at the dinner, he still did the same thing he does every night. Criticizing Colbert's performance for being too political, pointed, or over-the-top is kind of like criticizing Robin Williams for being too hairy. If you ask either comic to come, what you can expect is pretty obvious.

read more...

You've probably heard about this-- the Sierra Club's recent endorsement of Lincoln Chafee in the RI Senate race. On the surface, this seems like a great idea for the Sierra Club. Endorse a moderate Republican who surely helps the environment as much as any Democratic, and send a message to the Republican Party that their help on environmental issues will be rewarded. What's not to like?

And I'm sure NARAL thought the same thing when they endorsed Chafee last year, especially with the prospect of a pro-life Democratic challenging him. Why not show those Republicans that it's in their best interests to come to the pro-choice side and establish a zero-tolerance policy for pro-life Democrats in the process?

Both of these groups are following the same short-term policy: look out for #1. They're interest groups, and maybe it's the nature of single issue interest groups to not care about anything except their own immediate interests. It's not in their job descriptions to care that they're hurting the Democratic Party. But in the long run-- and even in the not-so-long run-- NARAL, the Sierra Club, and almost all the other progressive groups who endorse Republicans are only hurting their own pet issues.

Let's come up with a dream scenario in 2006. We keep all our contested seats. We even take Montana, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri, and Tennessee. But we lose the extremely liberal Rhode Island in a narrow race, thanks in no small part to environmental and pro-choice support for Chafee. Okay, no big deal-- he's a moderate, right? He's more liberal than some Democrats anyway (wrong, but we'll deal with that later). So now the Senate is tied 50-50 (counting the new Senator Sanders as a Democrat, of course). It's time to vote for Majority Leader. 50 votes go to Reid, 50 to whichever Republican replaces Frist as head of his party in the Senate (let's say McConnell just for kicks and giggles, since he's whip). Assuming he hasn't had another tragic hunting accident by then, Cheney steps in and casts his tie-breaking vote for McConnell.

Guess what, NARAL and the Sierra Club? Republicans still control the Senate. Republicans control the committees. Republicans decide what bills come up for a vote, and when. Conservative Republicans have plenty of leeway to shove whichever amendments they'd like down your bills. NARAL, Republicans will still control the Judiciary Committee, so they can pretty much get whichever judges they want. Oh, I forgot... the chair is a pro-choice Republican, so we don't ever have to worry about any anti-choice judges! Right, Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts?

Let's take the case of Samuel Alito. Harry Reid is a devoted pro-life Democrat, Arlen Specter is a devoted pro-choice Republican. I think it's safe to say that voting against Alito was probably the most important pro-choice vote you could make so far in the 109th Congress, and vice versa. Reid voted against Alito; Specter didn't. Why? Reid has a whole list of progressive agenda items, while Specter has his own list of Republican stances. Alito conformed with most of Specter's list, and pro-choice was just an unfortunate disagreement between the two men (note to NARAL: they were two men. A Democratic chairman of the judiciary committee could have shot down Alito and had Bush resend a nominee who wouldn't bring the court backwards in diversity.)

Now to the Sierra Club. I think it's obvious enough that having a Democratic Senate would give environmental legislation an astronomically better chance of reaching the Senate floor and passing, so I'll move on to the next step. Chafee's a wonderfully moderate Republican, but guess what? He's still more conservative than the most conservative Democrat. Some of you may know of Progressive Punch. For those who don't, it's a site that ranks all Senators and Congressmen from 1 to 100 by how progressive they are (with 100 being most progressive). Granted, there is no single definition for progressive and this is impossible to calculate entirely correctly, but if you look at Progressive Punch's methodology, I think you'll agree that they do a pretty damn good job at it. On the combined index of all issues, Chafee is more conservative than even Ben Nelson of Nebraska, by far the most conservative Democrat. Chafee is somewhat more progressive on the environment, but he's stull a full 45 points shy of Jack Reed's (the other Senator from Rhode Island, a Democrat) phenomenal score. Considering RI's liberal electoral, another Jack Reed is exactly what we'd be getting with a Democratic victory. Not to mention that the Sierra Club has opposed Chafee's environmental proporsals in the past...

There's a lot more to talk about in this subject. Markos Moulitsas of DailyKos is a big champion of ending this type of single issue politics, and he's written at length about the NARAL situation in Rhode Island. But even he falls into the trap of ideology over the tangible benefits of a Democratic Senate with his quest to topple Joe Lieberman (check his healthy Progressive Punch score for a shock... yes, he's a Democrat after all.) That probably belongs in a different blog entry, but the point is this: single issue groups aren't helping anyone when they endorse Republicans to make a point. They're hurting themselves, they're hurting their voters, they're hurting their issue, and most damagingly in the long run, they're hurting the Democratic Party.

...on second thought, maybe they are helping someone. With such a tough year, I'm sure Bill Frist and the Republican Senate appreciate the assistance.

read more...

Like most Democrats, I'm an enormous fan of Barack Obama. I want him to be President. But I don't think Obama should run in 2008. Adam's right in that race is more an asset than a liability for Obama. However, I have a few problems with his argument about age, and completely disagree with his argument about experience. Finally, Adam leaves something important out of the equation: opposition.

Let's start with the section on age. Obama is definitely not physically too young to be president. However, in politics, actual age matters a lot less than perception of age. Kennedy was a young president, Clinton was not. The three years didn't make a difference; Kennedy was just "youthful." Similarly, Edwards was a young candidate. It doesn't matter at all that he was 51; the same youthful good looks that made certain people on the GUCD board fall head over heels for Edwards made sure that everyone saw him as a young guy. Of course, a good campaign can define the candidate as whatever age it wants to, but it takes a considerable amount of effort to redefine a "young" candidate as "seasoned." With that said, Obama's age is not an insurmountable obstacle, and with some effort, he can make his youth work for him strategically. However, it's not the non-issue Adam makes it out to be.

Next, let's talk about experience. The past presidents section is nice, but by only counting raw time as an elected official, it's missing a lot. I'll go through these guys one by one:

Wilson: Sure, he won election after being governor for only two years... with less than 42% of the vote. Wilson had the distinction of facing not one, but two serious Republican contenders for President. I'm sure Obama would win if, say, McCain and Frist both ran in the general election. Too bad that's not going to happen. Also, Wilson was a governor, and as we all know, being a governor is a lot better than being a senator if you want to win an election for President. There's a world of difference between being one of 100 legislators and being an executive, not to mention the contradictory morass you generally have to get yourself into in order to be an effective senator. This is going to be a recurring theme.

FDR: Adam left out his seven years of experience in the cabinet as Assistant Secretary of the Navy. Think that's a trivial post? It had already propelled Theodore to the vice-presidency three decades earlier. Additionally, like Wilson, FDR was a governor. FDR was elected twice (though he only completed one term), while Obama's been elected once (and wouldn't even complete that if he won in '08). FDR had also already been the (unsuccessful) Democratic vice-presidential candidate, which I hear is pretty good for name recognition. Finally, FDR was a Roosevelt. Family ties shouldn't count in a theoretical democracy, but in the real world, they do.

Eisenhower: Ridiculous comparison. Sure, he had no elected experience, but to paraphrase Ron Burguny, Supreme Allied Commander in WWII is kind of a big deal.

Carter: Ultimate outsider in a time of ultimate scandal. Yes, he didn't have much experience, but he came in the wake of Watergate. To add insult to injury, Ford was a terrible candidate (hey guys, let's pardon Nixon!), having barely won the nomination even though he was a sitting VP. And Carter managed to drop from a 30 point lead after the convention to a 2 point victory margin. I admire Carter, but things were just right for him to win a general election. Plus, as a governor, Carter got to be both an outsider and an executive; Obama has neither advantage.

Reagan: Like you said, eight years as governor. That's twice as long as Obama will have been a statewide elected official. And, governor. And, the largest state in America.

Bush 43: I'll put my revulsion aside to try and give an objective analysis of why his experience managed to get him elected. He was governor of a large state, and he won two terms (see: Reagan). Six years is inexperienced, but again, Obama will only have four. Also, he ran an outsider campaign (see: Carter). One of the advantages of inexperience is that you can be less entrenched, but that's much, much harder to do as a senator. Finally, he's a Bush (see: FDR).

Ultimately, only Wilson and Carter have as little experience as Obama will, and both were elected during exceptional circumstances that probably won't repeat themselves in 2008. And I can't stress this enough-- both were governors. Think about common perceptions of governors and senators: running a state vs. sitting in an ineffective body that talks all day. Being a governor is just a better qualification, and it can make up for not having been a senator for x number of years.

Finally, opposition. Remember that Obama basically got handed his senate seat; his last-ditch opponent was, shall we say, insane. Yes, he's a spectacular candidate and he would have won anyway, but he didn't have a serious campaign waged against him. Nobody's spent millions dollars to define him as a flip-flopping liberal, tax-and-spend liberal, weak-on-defense liberal, Massachussetts liberal, San Francisco liberal, or flaming liberal homosexual. Sure, these are all false, but if Republicans know how to do anything, they know how to find a negative label that sticks (see: 2000, 2004 campaigns.) Obama won't be the immaculate golden boy forever; huge negative ad buys and concentrated attack campaigns do take their toll.

I want to see President Obama as much as Adam does, but Charlie Cook made a great point when he said that Obama gets one chance. If he loses, regardless of why he loses, people will think America won't elect an African American president, and won't try again for decades. In 2012, or 2016, Obama could be an unstoppable dream candidate. But do we want to risk the Obama presidency on shooting the moon in 2008? Maybe things will change, but right now the answer looking like a firm no.

read more...