Category: Democrats

Just Say No To Joe!

Call Your Senators NOW

Jane Hamsher at FireDogLake outlines the case against keeping Joe Lieberman as a member of the Democratic caucus, specifically as a committee chair.

But it was with the 2008 presidential election that his bitterness became his rocket fuel.  Lieberman was unbound. In addition to acting as McCain’s sidekick and protector, he stumped for Republican senator, campaigning for Susan Collins of Maine and Norm Coleman of Minnesota against their Democratic opponents.

Lieberman promised Reid privately that he would not attack Obama directly and personally. But when prevailed upon by the McCain operatives, Lieberman could not help himself. He played the paragon of decency even as he gleefully accepted the role of snarling attack dog:

  • He said that “Obama has not always put country first.”
  • He thought it was a “good question” to inquire whether Obama is a Marxist.
  • He misleadingly accused Obama of having “voted to cut off funding for our troops.”
  • He repeated the claim that “Hamas endorsed Obama” and said it “suggests the difference between these two candidates.”
  • He sent out an email for McCain, referring to the “Democrat” Party, the derogatory term of art preferred by the most partisan Republicans.

Lieberman went on to deride Obama in a speech before the Republican National Convention (after promising Reid he would not do so), saying he was an “an eloquent young man” who lacked the experience to be President. Reid’s office said that Lieberman’s seniority within the Democratic caucus, and his Chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee might be in jeopardy. Obama’s press secretary Robert Gibbs went on CNN to declare that Lieberman engaged in “flat out lies.” But Lieberman would not let up against Obama.

McCain had wanted to name Lieberman as his running mate. He would then have become the first man to run for vice president as both a Democrat and a Republican. But McCain’s handlers warned him that Republicans would not accept a Democrat on the ticket and that the right-wing would mount opposition to it on the floor of the convention. Instead, McCain chose Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska. Lieberman’seffort to secure Jewish votes for McCain, especially in Florida, were undercut by Palin’s presence. In the end, his strenuous efforts had no effect.

After the meeting between Reid and Lieberman last week, it was reported that Reid told him he was welcome to stay in the Democratic caucus if he traded in his powerful chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee for a less influential one as chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee.  Lieberman gave a press conference afterwards in which he threatened once again to caucus with the Republicans and called Reid’s offer “unacceptable.” But how big a threat was that? Would Lieberman join a diminished Republican minority, have no chairmanship whatsoever, and enter a party in which he could never hope to win a 2012 election in Connecticut?

Lieberman’s aides say he is mulling over his options, whatever those might be. Reid says the discussions will go on. But Lieberman’s call to let bygones be bygones rings as hollow as his promise to draw troops down from Iraq.

During the Bush administration, as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, Lieberman showed no interest whatsoever in investigating a multitude of scandals, including those of Hurricane Katrina. He abandoned his promise to investigate them after Rove helped him hold his Senate seat.

If Reid buckles to Lieberman’s threats, permitting him to keep control of the Homeland Security Committee, the Democrats will no doubt discover that Lieberman has a new zeal for investigating that will be a thorn in Obama’s side for the next four years. Still wielding power the turncoat would exact his revenge on the new president.

This really should be a no-brainer. But of course it isn’t, so please take a moment to call Democratic members of the Steering and Outreach Committee and ask them to strip Lieberman of his committee chair.

Concern Trolling Perfection

A few days ago my friend Fred Gooltz wrote about the great steps media outlets are going to appear balanced and in so doing fail miserably to report fact in politics.

Across town at the Old Gray Lady, the funniest headlines are the ones that try the hardest to not be criticized as liberal. The New York Times is apparently scared of being called liberal. How else to explain this headline:

Democrats See Risk and Reward if Party Sweeps

Holy. Slippery. Fuck. What!?

The point of a political parties is to win elections. This year, Democrats are going to win the big elections. To report such is not liberal. It is fact.

To feign an argument that a win for the Democrats is somehow a bad thing is so stupid that when the Philadelphia Phillies win the World Series on wednesday, and when there isn’t a pearl -clutching headline in the Times to the effect that:

Phillies Win, Worry Sinks In

or

Phillies Win, Will Phillies Lose?

or

Phillies Win, Lose

There’s a lot of this sort of nonsense going around and we’ll only see more of it into the election and in the immediate aftermath.

Chris Bowers of Open Left identified even more of this media concern trolling, both in terms of the Times’ article Fred posted about and bold pronouncements of risk for Obama purchasing 30 minutes of national tv time.

Look, the raison d’etre electorally focused political party is to win as many elections as possible. To argue that winning more seats is somehow a negative for any political party is exactly as stupid as arguing that it is bad for a sports team to win a championship. To even attempt an argument that winning an election is bad for a party is to enter the final level of concern troll mastery, where you begin to take on a light glow. …

Arguing that tonight’s commercial could hurt Obama is akin to arguing that campaigning at all could hurt Obama. It doesn’t quite give you the concern troll mastery glow, but it does mean you have almost achieved that level.

What has to be recognized in this is that this sort of coverage doesn’t stop after the election. Every positive action Obama and the Democratic majority take will be met in the press by some level of concern trolling about the potential risks associated with it. The source of these concern troll narratives will be the Republican Party, conservative business lobbies, and Blue Dog Democrats who will seek to undermine the progressive parts of Obama’s agenda.

It’s going to be a rough ride, folks, and we need to prepare for previously unimagined levels of stupidity from the punditocracy.

***

[ Find Your Polling Place | Voting Info For Your State | Know Your Voting Rights | Report Voting Problems ]

10/25/02

Paul Wellstone died six years ago today. The video above was made by Senate Democrats last year.

I’m not going to add much to the tribute above, other than to say that Paul Wellstone remains one of my few real role models in Democratic politics. He’s still teaching me, six years after his death, through his books, stories about him, friends of mine who worked on his campaigns. He is missed.

Strange Patriotism

Josh Schrei has a very thoughtful post up that aims to blow up the flawed perception that Republican views are normative for defining patriotism, while Democratic views are somehow unpatriotic. Based in large part on Josh’s time working on the NASCAR circuit and experiencing these memes first-hand in debates with people across the country, he identifies several of the central falsehoods that underly the “Republicans are more patriotic” narrative. It’s a long post worthy of repeated readings, but here are the bullet points that Schrei takes down:

1. Wanting smaller government = being more patriotic
2. Rekindling the rebelliousness of the confederacy = being more patriotic
3. Questioning your nation’s foreign policy = being less patriotic
4. Being an intellectual = being less patriotic

These are insidious, pervasive narratives that underlie the key to much of the contemporary Republican Party’s argument to voters. Needless to say, Schrei’s rebuttals are powerful and accurate.  Rather than quote them here, I hope you will just go read the original post.

Nasty Attack, Good Response

I had a conversation on Friday night with a friend who does a lot of work in Minnesota about the nasty attack ads Norm Coleman has been running against Al Franken in the Senate race. Specifically, Coleman used video of Franken telling a heartwarming story about deceased Senator Paul Wellstone and his son to make Franken look angry. I tracked down the ad Franken put up in response and it truly is appalling how Coleman’s campaign twisted this footage for political purposes.

Coleman has since pulled down all negative ads, though he didn’t have the courage to tell Minnesota voters that it was because his campaign smears have failed and he can no longer chance voters responding to his attacks.

Mark Begich for US Senate

I’m happy to announce that I’ve joined Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich’s campaign to represent Alaska in the United States Senate. I’ll be working as the campaign’s Online Communications Director and I look forward to continuing to bring Democratic politics to Americans in exciting and dynamic ways over the internet. This also means that, for now, I will be shuttering Hold Fast.

I think the Alaska Senate race is going to be one of the most hard-fought opportunities for Democratic gains in America this cycle. Ted Stevens has represented Alaska in the Senate for forty years. He’s not so much a Senator in Alaska, as a symbol. And symbols are hard to beat. But I’m up for the challenge and I know Mark Begich is ready to lead.

It’s time for Alaska to retire Ted Stevens. From his unquestioning support of the Republican party line on endless war in Iraq, to his repeated votes for retroactive immunity for the big telecom companies, to his vociferous — if ill informed — opposition to net neutrality, to the ever-growing clouds of corruption that surround him, it’s clear to me that Alaska can do better than Ted Stevens.

I first spoke to Mark Begich last month. I’d been in talks with his campaign about coming on board and while I had heard good things about him, I wanted to get a better sense of what sort of person he was and what sort of candidate he will be. Ideally I would have had the meeting in person in Anchorage, but for time considerations, that just didn’t make sense. On Mark’s suggestion we instead had a Skype video conference call that lasted 40 minutes.

Beyond learning that Mark was very tech-savvy, I found him to be an interesting, smart person who was ready to take his career of public service for Alaska to another level. What stood out was that Mark is a dynamic politician with a good sense for solving problems. He impressed me with his experience building a successful health care system for Anchorage’s municipal employees in the face of massive rising private costs. Begich’s ideas for using a full slate of non-renewable and renewable energy sources prevalent in Alaska, combined with strong conservation efforts, to build an Alaskan energy policy that would make America more secure strike me as the sort of solution that could both win in Washington and free us from our dependence on foreign oil.

But most of all, when I asked him about what he thought of retroactive immunity and the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping Begich was able to show his appreciation for the US Constitution. Citing his civil libertarian tendencies, Mark made clear that he opposed retroactive immunity and he would stand up for the Constitution as a US Senator. I don’t know yet whether or not civil liberties will be a part of the discussion in Alaska this year, but I do know that Mark Begich will be another vote for the rule of law come January 2009. That’s an issue of immeasurable importance to me and I was glad to hear Mark is where we need more Senate Democrats to be.

There will be much more to come, but for now, please visit www.begich.com (the new version of which goes live later today), join the campaign’s email list, and stay tuned for updates from Alaska on the Begich blog.

The Zellification of Joe Lieberman

Joe Lieberman is about to go fully Zell Miller on the Democratic Party. Though in fairness to Zell, he just retired and Joe is embracing the GOP while serving in the US Senate as a self-proclaimed independent-Democrat.

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), the Democratic Party’s 2000 vice presidential nominee, is leaving open the possibility of giving a keynote address on behalf of Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) at the Republican National Convention in September.

Republicans close to the McCain campaign say Lieberman’s appearance at the convention, possibly before a national primetime audience, could help make the case that the presumptive GOP nominee has a record of crossing the aisle. That could appeal to much-needed independent voters.

<!– if (!document.phpAds_used) document.phpAds_used = ','; phpAds_random = new String (Math.random()); phpAds_random = phpAds_random.substring(2,11); document.write ("”); //–>

<br>

McCain has yet to ask Lieberman to speak, either in primetime or elsewhere, at the convention. But if McCain thinks it will help make his case for the White House, as some of his allies suspect, Lieberman would be willing to speak on his behalf.

“If Sen. McCain, who I support so strongly, asked me to do it, if he thinks it will help him, I will,” Lieberman said in a brief interview.

Steve M. at No More Mister Nice Blog frames the situation and needed response well:

This is bad because the speech won’t be Zell Miller, it will be Zell Miller plus. The plus is the fact that the press — still — treats Lieberman as the cuddly, adorable, highly appealing independent (I almost typed “maverick”) who’ll make swing voters sit up and take notice…

Endless repetition of the notion that support from Lieberman equals support from a Democrat makes it seem true.

That’s why, well before this speech happens, the Obama campaign needs to neutralize Lieberman. Obama needs to make sure that everyone in American realizes that that elfin, soft-spoken, apparently nice guy is possibly the biggest apologist in America for a war the vast majority of the country hates. Obama needs to portray him as a dishonest faux-naif who acts shocked, shocked, when anyone dares to suggest that he’s exactly what he is, a Republican apparatchik still pretending not to be one.

Will that happen? I doubt it. But if it doesn’t, this speech will do real damage.

I think this is a spot-on assessment and I just don’t see Democrats doing what is needed to inoculate themselves from Lieberman.

Lieberman has been actively campaigning for John McCain since December 2007. He is willing to support Republican incumbent Chris Shays in the CT-04 against Democratic challenger Jim Himes. He has not, to my knowledge, endorsed a single Democrat this cycle. And now he sits on the verge of being a key speaker at the Republican National Convention.
The real question at hand is, what does it take to get someone kicked out of the Democratic caucus?

Jim Himes’ Great Quarter

Jim Himes had a phenomenal fund raising quarter in the CT-04, my home district. He’s campaigning to defeat Chris Shays, the last Republican in Congress from New England. According to My Left Nutmeg, Himes has over $1 million cash on hand and is poised to be the best funded challenger Shays has faced yet. Himes is a strong candidate, a good Democrat, and he’s lucky to have a really good team working for him that includes a number of veterans of the Lamont campaign and the Connecticut blogosphere. I expect Himes to continue to show a strong grassroots donor base as the cycle evolves, giving him the resources he needs to defeat Shays in an expensive media market.

FISA Was Different

Glenn Greenwald points out that the Republicans may be dropping FISA as an imperative issue for the remainder of the legislative session. He makes the case that the reason this happened was the strong principles shown by Democrats:

This is the first time in a long time that right-wing fear-mongering on Terrorism hasn’t succeeded. Given that virtually everyone (including me) assumed that the Congress would ultimately enact the new FISA bill demanded by Bush, it demonstrates that smart strategies combined with intense citizen activism can succeed, even when the Establishment — its lobbyists, Congressional representatives and pundits — lines up in bipartisan fashion behind their latest measure. And it removes the Democrats’ principal excuse that they cannot resist Bush’s Terrorism demands without suffering politically.

I think this is exactly right. It can be tied back to the strong grassroots pressure from blogs, the leadership by Chris Dodd, and the involvement of advocacy groups like the ACLU, EFF, and MoveOn.  Together we created the political will to defend the rule of law and stand up to the Bush administration. As a result, Democrats have possibly secured a critical victory. They just need to stick by their guns and refuse to allow a bad bill to move forward. Beyond that, they should remember the recipe that lead to their success and their support so they can continue to do the right thing legislatively and electorally in the future.