pageviewsSome 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.
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.
There are so many Republicans in Congress, it seems daunting to challenge them all. But in order to take back Congress, not just for two years and not just with a slim majority, we must challenge as many Republicans as possible. We are fortunate this year to have 425 congressional districts with a Democratic candidate, more than at any period in American history.
In my home district in Northern New Jersey, Scott Garrett is by far one of the most ultra-right-wing members of Congress and ranked by nearly every independent analyst the most conservative member of Congress in the Northeast. That's why today, I have started my own blog, Retire Garrett, which is dedicated to defeating Scott Garrett for reelection and electing Paul Aronsohn, our Democratic candidate, to Congress. I hope all of you, especially those from New Jersey, will check out my new blog, and will comment and tell everyone you know from the New York Metro Area to read my blog.
We must challenge Republicans everywhere.
So tonight I open up Firefox, and up pops a little red exclamation point. Pay attention to me!, it says. Something else nasty's going to happen with your weather!
However much I know that ignorance is bliss, I can't stop myself from clicking.
National Weather Service County - DCC001
SEVERE THUNDERSTORM WATCH OUTLINE UPDATE ...
"Where's the religious right claiming that this is God sending President Bush a message?" quoth a friend.
Well, I'm not sure, but He sure is hating on our fine capital city for some reason.... read more...
Okay, so this isn't really a legitimate posting about a pressing political issue... but it's funny, so I'm going to justify this post using the "it was just too good to ignore" grounds.
Apparently, The Hill reports, because Joe Biden wasn't already kind of freaky enough, he for some reason felt the need to declare to a roomful of supporters (who were presumably as disturbed by this thought as me) that he could live without the presidency. "I'd rather be at home making love to my wife while my children are asleep."
Sen. Biden's spokesman, following up on the inquiries of confused reporters and perturbed political wonks everywhere, clarified that Biden was just trying to explain that the presidency was "not an egotistical pursuit for him" and that he is "frankly totally in love with his wife."
My view: thanks for the explanation, dude, but come back to me when you can go back in time and keep the image of Biden in flagrante delecto out of my head.
I know what you're all thinking-- "Gee, Rach, thanks. Now I have to think about this all day, too." To that I say: If I have to suffer, I'm taking all of you down with me.
As a lifelong New Jersey Democrat, I'm proud of my party and my state. I think New Jersey Democrats have done a pretty good job, funding stem cell research, placing a moratorium on the death penalty, creating domestic partnerships for gay couples, improving education, creating stricter laws for the environment, investing in renewable energy, expanding health care for New Jerseyans, and a host of other measures.
It is no wonder that New Jerseyans agree with us on the issues, whether it is on health care, education, the environment, energy policy, a woman's right to choose, gun control, the death penalty, stem cell research, gay rights, the minimum wage, and a host of other issues. New Jerseyans are socially liberal, believe that activist government can do good, and that we must look out for everyone in our state.
But we have been in power now for five years with control of the legislature and the governor's office. And while we have done amazing things, New Jersey Democrats are in danger of losing a key constituency.
Democrats in New Jersey consistently win because of a coalition of urban minorities, socially liberal suburbanites, strong public sector unions, and strong religious and ethnic groups like Jews, Italians, Irishmen, Poles, Russians, Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans. But the biggest of those groups, the socially liberal suburbanites, are about to turn away from us.
Socially liberal suburbanites make up close to a third of New Jersey's population, mostly women. They are pro-choice, pro-gun control, anti-death penalty, pro-education, pro-environment, and pro-stem cell research. They have voted with Democrats because the idea of conservative Republicans taking away those rights seem anathema to them. But if socially liberal Republicans like Tom Kean, Jr. are able to convince them that he will support them on those issues, but also cut their taxes, get rid of government waste, and reform our system of corrupt, unethical government, Republicans may win.
But Democrats can prevent this. We must coopt the Republicans on these issues. If we streamline government, eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse, make government efficient, institute stronger ethics, stop handing out political favors, and seriously cut taxes for most of New Jersey, we will endure a permanent majority in New Jersey for generations. If we don't, we will go into permanent minority status, only winning when the Republicans decide to go too far to the right on social issues on occasion and screw up entirely when governing.
This won't be easy, but if we're strong, New Jersey Democrats will dominate and demonstrate to the rest of the nation that liberal Democrats can win if we demonstrate that taxpayers can trust us with their money and that voters can trust us with political power.
You know what I think is disgraceful?
The wanton sacrifice of our nation’s most treasured rights—those to free speech, press, petition, religion—by an administration driven by a megalomaniacal desire to hide or eliminate all evidence of their mistakes.
You know what George Bush thinks is disgraceful?
Reporters who do their jobs and investigate actions taken by the government. Reporters who dare ask questions about the limits of executive power. Reporters who have the courage to imply the administration may have erred in the past. And reporters who work daily to ensure such mistakes won’t be repeated in the future.
Basically, he finds reporters disgraceful. (If I were petty, I’d say that reporters represent accountability and freedom. And that a hatred for the press just reveals a deep-buried hatred of freedom. But I’m not petty.)
In a press conference televised this morning from the White House, a reporter questioned the President about the newly revealed program that secretly monitors the financial transactions of suspected terrorists. The question was not posed in an inflammatory manner—the reporter asked for details about the program and about legislative oversight of it.
In response, President Bush went on a bitterly worded diatribe in which he condemned the member of his administration who revealed the existence of the program, criticized the press for reporting the information, defended the program without revealing anything about it, and essentially refused to offer anything that approached an answer to the question.
“For people to leak that program and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America,” the President said with emphatic gestures. Disclosure of the program “makes it harder to win the war on terror,” he continued.
The program the President defended so ardently was begun shortly after the attacks of September 11, 2001, and was disclosed last week by the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Los Angeles Times. You can read the original report here at the New York Times. According to CNN.com, the program uses “broad government subpoenas… and allows U.S. counterterrorism analysts to obtain financial information from a vast database maintained by a company based in Belgium. It routes about 11 million financial transactions daily among 7,800 banks and other financial institutions in 200 countries.”
Let’s set aside, for the moment, the idea that once again our government is spying with questionable legal authority. Instead let’s concentrate on the fact that once again, the Bush administration is less worried about doing something potentially illegal than they are about people finding out about it.
Our country is based on the principle that we elect our leaders based on substance—the substance of their campaigns, the substance of their administrations, what they plan to do, and what they do. And after observing the things they have done for us, we get to judge for ourselves the merits of their actions. We get to decide whether the things they have done have improved our lives or made them more difficult. Then we vote again, to voice our approval or condemnation.
We can’t do our job if the press can’t do theirs. The press—the fourth branch of the US government—is an essential part of the system that must not be silenced. This administration has tried time and again, through methods direct and indirect to do just that. By offering only carefully rehearsed press conferences, and showing an obvious contempt for their services, the administration has marginalized a noble profession.
Sure, it’s weird that I’m defending those members of our society who are often driven more by the dream of a Pulitzer than by one of defending freedom, but they need defending. Reporters, journalists, correspondents, and commentators are the newest target of the Bush administration, but they can’t well tell us that.
It’s our turn to point our fingers.
The first debates for the New Jersey and Montana Senate races were broadcast yesterday. You can see the NJ debate here and the Montana debate will probably be up on C-SPAN in the next few hours. There will be another New Jersey debate tonight at 8 pm if you guys want to see Senator Menendez lay a smackdown on Tom Kean, Jr.
Democrats are cruising in Pennsylvania with Bob Casey up 15 points and Ed Rendell up 14 points in their respective races for Senate and Governor against Rick "man on dog" Santorum and Lynn "overturning Roe v. Wade will make abortion nationally illegal" Swann.
Senate Democrats won't commit to supporting the Democratic nominee in Connecticut even while Republicans say they will support the Republican nominee in Rhode Island (both Senators Chafee and Lieberman face tough primary battles from the right and left, respectively, and may run as Independents if they lose their primaries).
Israel sadly overreacts to a tragic assault on their soldiers, who were killed, wounded, and kidnapped by Gaza militants over the weekend. Israel is preparing to raid Gaza and send troops back in for the first time since their withdrawal last year.
Some gajillionaires have a soul. Warren Buffett is donating 85% of his fortune ($40 billion) to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. How exactly do people accumulate that much wealth when tax rates are so burdensome anyway? I guess American socialism as embodied in a graduated income tax and inheritance tax and capital gains taxes don't stimy entrepreneurship after all. Go figure!
The Supreme Court shows its stuff. They took up a case deciding whether carbon dioxide must be regulated by the EPA (maybe they'll understand that globaln warming is real, as is evidenced by the torrential rains that hit the Northeast and DC this weekend). Also, they struck down Vermont's campaign finance law which regulates campaign spending. Also, they uphold Kansas' death penalty in a 5-4 ruling. Who knows how Sandra Day O'Connor would have voted?
An Al-Qaeda terrorist becomes the leader of Somalia, Hamid Karzai is losing power in Afghanistan, and yet we're spending our time in Iraq. Misplaced priorities anyone?
Claire McCaskill is up six points in Missouri against Jim Talent. Looks like another Democratic woman in the Senate.
There's an old trick in politics. When the polity is divided on an issue, demonize the other side and then co-opt their ideas. It works wonders. The Republicans know the game.
Nixon did it in Vietnam. Calling the hippie protesters crazy kids and the like and demonizing the left for trying to make America look weak, Nixon began his program of Vietnamization and withdrew American forces while secretly negotiating peace with the North Vietnamese.
Clinton did it with Republicans on welfare reform. He demonized the Republicans as being harsh and uncompassionate with regard to those in poverty while supporting and signing a welfare reform bill itself and claiming the credit.
Well, President Bush hasn't forgotten the 'Ole Switcharoo.
After last week's fantastic villification of Democrats as the party of "cut and run," no one could have expected that President Bush would be secretly planning to cut and run himself.
On Friday, the Times of London reported that the Iraqi government would announce a 28 point peace plan worked on by our Ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, the Iraqi government, and an array of insurgent groups during secret negotiations over the last few months. Part of the plan involves a "UN-approved timeline for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq."
Furthermore, our top commander in Iraq, General George Casey, was reported to have briefed officials of his plan to begin a withdrawal of American forces immediately and would withdraw essentially all American troops by the summer of 2009.
What happened to President Bush's argument that setting a deadline would just allow the insurgents and terrorists to wait us out? Or what about the President's argument that we wouldn't leave until Iraqi security forces can defend themselves? Or what about the President's argument that leaving would send a signal to Iraq, our allies, and the world that America makes messes and then doesn't stay to clean them up? Or what about his call that we stay until we've accomplished the mission?
The President has lied to us again. Does anyone else here see a pattern? The President has consistently lied about Iraq and I'm sick of it. We need to hold this President accountable.
The GOP has really gone nuts. It's a little frightening.
Ann Coulter has called for Congressman Murtha's murder (which I'm pretty sure is illegal, to conspire to kill a congressman).
Rick Santorum thinks that we found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
These GOoPers are seriously getting on my nerves. When they do stuff like this, we should be screaming from the rooftops about how crazy they are.
I've heard a lot of people over the last few years talk about the need for Democrats to start speaking to Christian conservatives and reaching out to them. What I've heard in response is either a blatant pandering to the right on social issues like gay marriage and abortion form conservative Democrats or Dems without a spine, or Democrats who cynically create rhetoric like John Kerry who now talks about "driving the money changers out of the temple of democracy," when talking about corruption in government, referencing Jesus' call to rid synagogues of money changers.
Democrats do not need to follow either of these paths. Religious voters, whether they be Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or any other faith, tend to hold the same basic moral values about how society is set up, what is right and wrong, and how we should act toward others. The remarkable similarity between the major faiths is even more remarkable when you consider that liberalism is not just compatible with these basic moral principles of faith; in fact, liberalism's entire philosophy stems from core religious moral principles.
1) "Do to others as you would have them do to you." - Luke 6:31. The golden rule is a very simple concept, one rooted deep in our moral guide as human beings. Liberals believe in the Golden Rule, conservatives don't. Liberalism is founded on the principles of tolerance and mutual respect. Jesus believed wholeheartedly in this principle and conservatives have completely rejected this very important idea, tolerate others, don't discriminate, respect others. The shameful attacks on immigrants, gay marriage, and women who have abortions by conservatives demonstrates that the conservatism is out of step with mainstream religious values.
2) "Have we not all one Father? Did not one God create us?" - Malachi 2:10. We are all created equal in the eyes of God. Religions of all faiths believe in the absolute equality of humanity. Non human being is worth more value than any other. This firm belief in equality is an important value to liberalism and we cherish the idea that "all men are created equal." Conservatism, unfortunately, does not believe we are all equal, and they have made a business out of division, inequality, and entrenched status. Conservative policies further divide people based on class, income, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, nationality, ethnicity, and ideology. Christians and liberals are lockstep on this idea of equality.
3) No one said that any of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had everything in common." - Acts 4:32. All religions believe that community is far more important than ownership. Liberals too believe that we live in a community, that we must share our resources for the betterment of all, that we must regard certain activities as the duties of the commons, not the individual. Our environment is a shared resource. Our health is a shared resource. Our intellectual capital is a shared resource. And therefore, liberals believe in the moral principle of community, leading us to support universal health care, universal, world-class education, and a strong commitment to preserve the environment. Conservatives believe in private ownership and give the finger to the idea of communal life.
4) "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." - Matthew 5:3. The commitment to ending poverty, to helping those that are less fortunate, is a religious and moral principle in which liberals deeply believe. Conservatives take the opposite view, rewarding greed and wealth, instead of hard work and struggle.
5) "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God." - Mattew 5:9. The power of peace and love over war and hate is not a liberal hippie fantasy but a real religious virtue. Using diplomacy, alliances, and global unity to overcome global challenges is both smarter policy and better in keeping with the commitment to peace that God has commanded. Conservatives who deride diplomacy as weak on defense, do so in opposition to the teachings of Jesus.
So, there you have it. Tolerance, equality, community, charity, and peace. Five values which form the core of all religious faiths and the foundation of liberalism. Conservatives believes in bigotry, division, privatization, greed, and hate. These are not deep moral principles and Christian conservatives can find a home in the Democratic party far more appealing that a Republican party that rejects the teachings of Jesus Christ. We need to start talking about our values as Democrats and people will understand that our faith is just as profound as theirs, and a lot more in sync with religious principles.
