True paranoia

Originally a comment on Crooks and Liars.

The U.S. Constitution is no longer in force. The rule of law is only for the little people like us.

Comey was impressive for his visible conscience, for his care for the law, and for his concern for John Ashcroft as a defender of America. We are in really deep shit if Ashcroft is our best defender. It just goes to show that there are no depths the Bushists won't stoop to.

The Bushists are undoubtedly data mining all our phone conversations, emails, and blog postings. I don't have direct evidence, only the persistent evasion about illegal wiretapping. Is there any law they won't violate with the flimsiest, most patronizing rationale?

The job the Congressional Democrats face is unpleasant. They must provoke enough outrage in ordinary American sheeple that the fascists in the Executive will take off the gloves. And that's really a suicide mission; they won't even have the Magna Carta left to protect their cushy positions in the old order.

The upside of this is that it might be the quickest way to get the troops home from Iraq. Small upside given that they would come home to suppress democracy. Or maybe it would be safer for the White House to hire Blackwater and leave the disgruntled soldiers in al Anbar.

We may think we're anonymous, but they have enough computing power and data to associate "lovable liberal" to my meatworld identity. They know who we are, and we'll be among the first arrests. Mitt Romney's double Gitmo won't be nearly large enough. See you in the gulag; we'll trap rats together for dinner.

It was a good 212-year run for the old Constitution and a good 210-year run for the old Bill of Rights. Flawed though they are, what comes next will be worse.

Who you calling a mob, punk?

(Responding to this.)

You need to check your definitions. Citizen journalism could conceivably lead to mob rule or could be exploited by fascism, but the real danger of fascism is in the corporate-compromised so-called mainstream media. This is the media that beat the drums for war in Iraq (including the Washington Post and the New York Times, mind you). This is the media that still, after the Democrats have won Congress, overrepresents Republican and conservative points of view, especially on television. This is the media that until very recently rolled over and asked the Bush White House to scratch its belly in exchange for childishly credulous access to the latest Rovian spin - and was willing to type up that spin as if it were true even when the reporter *knew* it was a lie. This is the media that stridently dumps on the earth tones and the haircuts of prominent Democrats, while fawning over Duhbya playing dress-up as a fighter pilot, a rancher, or even a man in control.

So, while I still read widely in the daily press, no one who wants to be informed can omit the citizen journalism of the Internet, particularly the blogs. The virtue of the Internet, at least, is that there is more than one mob. The mainstream media practices much more "journamalism" than real journalism anyway. When the mob comes, if it does, the mainstream media won't protect us from fascism.

Small adjustments

Emergency funding bills to keep the military open while deciding other issues is a good approach.

However, no war in Iran without a separate vote of Congress should be in every bill. This is the critical Constitutional separation of powers and cannot be allowed to lapse. The Bushists have argued that the original Iraq resolution gives them everything in their wildest dreams; words in black and white have to be down on paper denying that authority.

Ordering withdrawal and the toothless departure goal are more negotiable, so Congress could play monthly games with those.

Originally a comment on DailyKos.

How do you know Rove is lying?

Yes, of course, as in the old joke, his lips are moving.

When his memory is hazy, that means he's worrying about perjury.

Originally a comment on DailyKos.

Too soon

Of course, it's not too soon legally to impeach the criminals of this executive branch, but it's too soon politically. Nancy Pelosi was spot on to take impeachment off the table. Only a groundswell of opinion from ordinary voters, not from Dennis Kucinich, however right he may be, can put impeachment back on the table.

This is especially important if the process might lead to a Pelosi Presidency. To be legitimate, it must be popular.

Originally a comment on DailyKos.

Down the rabbit hole

(Adapted from Philosoraptor.)

I've had Duhbya fatigue since the first time I ever heard his blend of patronizing arrogance and resolute cluelessness. I kept listening for a while, but now I can't anymore. The likelihood he will say those words I could listen for - "I resign" - are so slim it's not worth the time and upset. So I won't even watch the State of the Union until he's gone.

...

The Dems, especially in the House, need to wield their subpoena power like a scythe, show daily the thoroughgoing corruption that the Bushists have worked both in dollars and in democracy, and let the people demand impeachment. Or not.

I suspect that the people won't. I think we're too lazy to care about the principles of self-government any more; just give us widescreen HDTV.

But if we do, there'll be hell to pay. Hello, President Pelosi!

The real hell would be the possibility that a large number of right-wingers might well stage armed rebellion. We've had a Constitutional crisis simmering along with the lapdog media too focused on Liebermanesque faux bipartisanship to report it. This would be too visible and violent to ignore.

For once, I hope I'm just paranoid. But the "responsible" right never accepted Clinton's election and immediately set to work to undo it. Would they accept the (necessarily Republican-aided) impeachment and conviction of Darth and Duhbya? I doubt it.

...

Oh, TVD, how sweet of you. Except you've before pointedly declined assent to the "defend to the death" hyperbole. Still, I wasn't expecting you to take part in the violence either way.

I promise you that I would rather not be Cassandra.

But, since you've shunned me, a couple of rhetorical questions:

• Who has the guns in the U.S.?
• Who has engaged in recent political violence against people in the U.S.?
• Which side has prominent advocates who urge political violence?
• Has there ever been widespread political violence in the U.S.?
• Can it happen here?

You don't think Duhbya is like Putin. I think you may be wrong.

All in all, though, it's an unlikely scenario that we'll get to impeachment, even though by any reasonable legal standard we should.

Patron saints of CW

Man, I'm sick of the media viewing its job as constantly reinforcing the conventional wisdom and then disclaiming all responsibility.

(Originally posted here.)

Blogging for dollars

Delay's blog is just a way to cash in, the grandchild of the book deals that used to be so common, so remunerative, and so pulped.

Originally a comment on Crooks and Liars.

Rumor and the MSM

Obviously, the MSM shouldn't publish unconfirmed rumor - sorry Drudge. But to fail to take advantage of Google is arrogant, stupid, and short-sighted.

Of course, reporters need to learn how to distinguish fact from fantasy in cyberspace. But they pride themselves (not always justifiably) with the ability to do that in real life, and this is just one more domain they need skills in.

I'll try to check with my MSM contacts to see whether they avail themselves of the internet. The tiny paper I wrote for in a semi-pro capacity up until 2000 didn't have any web resources. It was so technically backward the editor preferred that I file by fax!

(Originally here.)

"Stand there and bleed"

stand there and bleed is a great counterbranding of the Bushists' insane war strategy.

(Originally here.)

Bklsnarg

Bklsnarg has been the policy of the Bush Administration. The fact that bklsnarg includes all the elements formerly pertaining to the word 'torture' does not mean that U.S. policy allows torture, since that definition has now been changed.

We'd let you read the new definition, but it's top secret eyes only, so we would have to imprison or shoot you if we did let you read it. You wouldn't want that, now would you? No? Thank you for your democratic consent to the policy, which conforms to all the laws of the land, except for those we don't have to obey, which really is all of them in time of war. And the war could last forever, and its battlefield is everywhere.

But of course we're fighting for your freedom.

Originally posted here on Philosoraptor, and there's more to boot.

Trying to get someone's (pet) goat

Fun times slinging jibes on Attytood about Duhbya's deer-in-the-headlights Sept. 11 look...

To stop swiftboating

Go the the Vietnam Memorial, roll up your sleeves, and say, "I have friends, friends that I served with whose names are on this wall. George Felix Allen didn't serve. He has never heard a shot fired in anger. I have. If he would like to compare his patriotism to mine, let him come down here and settle it with me, one on one, man to man. Pause. He doesn't have the guts."

Call the asshole out. Kick his ass. Win Norfolk and Bristol, not just Northern Virginia.

Originally a comment on DailyKos.

Insurgents v. party regulars

Over and over again in the history of the Democratic Party, insurgent candidates and their people (Patrick, Bonifaz, Dean, Reich, Bradley) butt heads with party regulars and their people (Reilly, Galvin, Kerry, O'Brien, Gore). I've been on both sides (Patrick, Galvin, Dean, O'Brien, Gore), so maybe I have some useful observations, and hopefully they'll be unifying.

Regulars are often too insular. Many of them think they own the party and actively resist the arrival of new people. C'mon, these are reinforcements. We need the fresh blood of patriots - but unspilled.

Insurgents are often too self-entitled. Many assume that anything that goes against them is nefarious and illicit. C'mon, the regulars have been fighting the good fight for years; you can't expect to show up and run things just because you're young and beautiful and impatient. Good ideas are just talk unless you work to put them on the agenda and try to pass them.

Regulars carp that they've never seen the insurgents until they just showed up at a caucus. Insurgents sometimes encourage this by winning once and then never coming back to do the steady work of reform from within.

Insurgents often think that some ideal of fairness that they grasp intuitively can override the rules. They may be unhappy if you exclude them from voting at a caucus because they missed the deadline for registering as Democrats, as if the regulars are supposed to be able to see in their hearts that they really were Dems in time.

Process reforms can help these relationships work better. Transparency is a big one. I've been to at least six Mass. Democratic Conventions so I'm prepared for strange delays while the power brokers put the fix in. New people are very put off by this. I don't like it either, but the rules permit it. My desire to change those rules doesn't mean I'm blustering about changing their outcomes this time around.

Politics is both competitive and cooperative, a combination of hard ball and burying the hatchet. The rules are the rules, but we need to help each other when the primary is done.

Often in the past, we haven't helped each other. Scott Harshbarger would've been governor if both wings of the party regulars had cooperated. (Can't blame insurgents for that one.)

Modern campaigns need such deep organizations that those organizations have to be permanent. They can't be put together overnight. As Democrats, we are waaaay behind the Republicans on this.

My challenge for regulars and insurgents alike:

Build your organizations. Don't settle for precinct captains; we need eyes and ears and eventually voices on the street (or apartment building floor) level. But prepare something lasting; don't worry about ideological purity or a long history of working with the party. Unify. Come September, be ready to hand over as much of your grassroots as possible to the nominee and the local party committees. That's one part of the formula for winning.

Originally posted on Blue Mass Group with this poll attached:

How many times in the 5 listed contests were you an insurgent?

o Never (hack!)

o Once

o Twice

o Three times

o Four times

o Five times (Green!)

Convention transparency

After the 2002 convention fiasco, we Dems spent four years working through the McGovern-Dukakis process to reform approval and endorsement of primary candidates. On the plus side, voting on the floor was smooth and efficient. But what was the net result?

All candidates gained the ballot. Counting fewer than 5000 votes still took so long that the convention lasted into the evening. Each of the gubernatorial candidates is a credible candidate; I will support the winner after September. So, what's wrong with the outcome?

The problem is that the process is dishonest - or looks dishonest. Votes delivered by power brokers to give razor-thin margins of approval matter more than the rest of our votes.

A fair and above-board process would have the following features:

No counting of votes until all votes are recorded. No changing of votes once voting closes. All challenges during the convention must be made in view of the convention by identifiable delegates. After voting has closed, the only admissible challenge is teller accuracy. Counting must take place in public view of the convention. The tallying should be complete in fifteen minutes. And then we could get on with convincing the electorate.

Originally posted on Blue Mass Group.

Propaganda conduits

Why is it so easy for advertisers to turn ordinary nouns into slogans? The network that carries the event is probably contractually obligated to stuff marketing slogans into the title. I hope they get a discount because this dilutes their own ability to sell "messages". But why a print reporter, for instance, would ever use the whole venal phrase I don't get.

(Originally here.)

Rather be at recess

why a recess appointment for Bolton, but the threat of the nuclear option for judges?

War-gaming: Dems say, "Fine, we're happy to give Bolton a vote. Just come across with the documents first." Reasonable, plays well on TV. Uh-oh, what's in those documents? My guess: wickedly smoking gun, no, actually smoking arsenal. Worse for Duhbya than anything would be to get a vote and lose, but winning narrowly with an obvious power-mad perjuring jerk who used the internal security apparatus for political purposes would have been bad enough.

(Originally a comment on Next Hurrah.)

Fear and conservatism

Brennan Hawkins, the 11-year-old scout lost in Utah, nearly died because his parents inculcated in him the fear of strangers.

As reported on CNN, his mother said:

We've ... told him don't talk to strangers ... when an ATV or horse came by, he got off the trail ... when they left, he got back on the trail.

Conservatives have no monopoly on fearmongering, but they seem to me to be much more likely to feel personally unsafe. My mother's Republican husband constantly sends out warnings about this or that danger, particularly if women are ostensibly threatened. These warnings almost always turn out to be urban legends, but I've given up trying to get him to check first. He just can't help himself.

This fear factor is why local Fox News affiliates, who all lead with what bleeds, are almost as bad for America as the national cable propaganda outlet.

Fear is the mindkiller!

Originally posted on DailyKos.

Defining Platinum down

More oppo on Republican fund-raising, in this case the National Republican Senatorial Committee...

If it works, the GOPers use it, no matter how cheesy.

Be it known to all who bear witness, that the Chair, by virtue of authority invested in the Executive Director of the Republican Presidential Task Force, confers this warrant of Platinum membership ...

There's more pseudo-official drivel filled with whereases and grand seals and facsimile signatures. In it, I am libeled as a steadfast supporter of President George W. Bush! They wish. Come the great fascist triumph of the homeland, though, I don't think a form letter will help me escape the gulag or dodge the reality of my liberalism.

Faux exclusivity works for Providian, why not for other predatory organizations!

But wait, this is not about me. Chair Liddy Dole is offering me Platinum status for the pittance of $120! She and Executive Director Mark Stephens would even let me pay in $10 installments. The Republicans are still eating our lunch by mining the small-dollar contributions and turning them into something more.

You know, though, my great aunt used to send her small contributions to liberal organizations even if she could only spare $10 a year. We need to be sure to tap our real constituencies, not just the corporate interests that want to buy our support.

So, where is the corresponding Democratic direct mail piece? I get email from my party all the time, and here's what I hope: The good people of the DNC, the DSCC, the DCCC, and every other organization starting with 'D' have identified me as an Internet donor and are saving their paper and stamps for less techie targets. Why do I doubt this pollyannish thought?

The fundraising letter itself is filled with the kind of right-wing bullshit that has me drinking my second dose of Bombay Sapphire straight from the freezer. Here's a fun example of their complete divorce from reality:

Step-by-step [Duhbya] is cleaning up the economic mess that Bill Clinton left behind and the good economic news continues to mount. Key growth rates are setting records, home ownership is at an all time high, the stock market is up and we are making progress on creating new jobs. Experts credit his tax cuts and low interest rates for this improving picture.

In this tissue of lies is one truth: Low interest rates are instrumental in the rise in home ownership. Thanks, Alan Greenspan. Of course, cautions from Paul Krugman apply, as usual.

The letter also calls Duhbya a respected Commander-in-Chief! Respected? In his own feeble mind!

Still, the GOPers know that even if their bullshit walks, money talks. And they're reloading where it matters - the bank.

(Note: Business reply mail. Yes, another Republican dollar sucked dry!)

Originally posted on DailyKos.

The quiet wingnut raises money

Through no fault of my own, I have found myself on a number of GOP mailing lists lately. Since they generally have business reply envelopes, I send 'em back, minus identifying information. I'll keep costing them money as long as they cooperate.

What the fascist right says when it's raising money is instructive. Here are some excerpts from Dennis Hastert's spiel in favor of KOMPAC, which is already raising money for the 2006 election cycle (emphasis mine here and below):

[W]e must ensure that the liberals cannot seize power in Congress since it is clear they would radically change America's direction.

They are going to attack us as liberals, no matter what. They will call a Democrat who opposes even civil unions but favors hospital visitation rights for domestic partners a heinous liberal. We must redeem the word. A start: "I believe in justice for all. If that makes me a liberal, so be it." Voters take our failure to join this fight as symbolic of our wishy-washiness.

The Goobers Of Projection also charge us with their own ugliness. They have seized power and intend to radically change America, but they want to make us sound like radicals.

Hastert's fundraising also exposes his assumptions and tactics. For example:

Question #11 - The Social Security Administration estimates that by 2018 Social Security will begin paying out more than it takes in from payroll taxes. In theory, at that time the Trust Fund will begin drawing on the surpluses that accumulated from previous years. However, for decades Congress has taken the Social Security surpluses and used them to make the deficit look smaller. Some leading Democrats are content to ignore the serious problems facing Social Security to scare senior citizens into supporting their Party and the do nothing approach. Do you think the Republicans should try to explain to the American people the dangers facing Social Security and expose the intellectual dishonesty of those who say everything is just fine?

It's pretty obvious that the Republicans want to break their promise to the American people. What they really mean is that the full faith and credit of America is null and void, that they stole the Trust Fund fair and square and gave it to their rich buddies.

The surpluses are the Trust Fund. The Republicans are going to take both `trust' and `fund' out of Trust Fund, just as they want to take `social' and `security' out of Social Security.

They use the same approach in public, accusing us of:

• scare tactics
  
• a do-nothing approach
  
• intellectual dishonesty

Two of these - fear and dishonesty - are, in fact, their tactics. More from the letter:

[W]e can build an America ... where our commitment to family is demonstrated by having the faith and values that guided our grandparents ... instead of the pervasive sex, drugs and violence that pollute our television, movies and music.

The crusade to keep social conservatives in the middle class distracted is censorship, but the unprincipled GOP doesn't care.

More:

[W]e can build an America where the federal government gets out of our state and local affairs and out of our pockets

Classic Republican appeals to the cryptoracists and homophobes, plus the ever-present tax-cutting, for the rich, of course. More:

They opposed the President on the war, even when our troops were in harm's way. They would have given the United Nations a deciding role in deciding whether, when, where, and how to defend America.

This is just a crazy lie. But it goes on:

They are critical of how we have waged our war on terrorism.

Poor babies. Can't take a little awful criticism. And, of course, they want all the credit for every drop of American blood.

They opposed [Duhbya's] efforts for the Department of Homeland Security.

Another bald-faced lie. They have a lot of experience telling this one. Here's a possible rejoinder: "The Republicans thought it was more important to lavish port security funds on Wyoming than to ensure the government has to treat its employees fairly." Then:

[T]hese liberal Democrats have even announced their opposition to some of the President's programs even before he has announced the program and outlined the details.

Who writes this crap? It's Duhbya's fault he hasn't "outlined the details". Of course, Hastert knows that the White House never discloses details until Karl Rove has found out the limit of what he can get away and he thinks it's too late to stop him. (This is why we must make only political proposals and not careful policy-wonk proposals that contain compromises.)

So... What do we say in response?

Originally posted at DailyKos, where this poll was attached:

Hearing about wingnut fundraising rhetoric makes me:

o Fire-breathing mad

o Jealous of their money machine

o Feel like my head is filled with C4

o Bored beyond belief

o Confused about why this matters