Swing State Project

Tuesday, February 28, 2006

Dem Convention Poll

Posted by DavidNYC

Markos is running a poll to see which city people prefer for the 2008 Dem convention. Go vote here. Also, keep up with convention-related news at Democratic Convention Watch.

UPDATE: You can check out the results here. Denver (my choice) and New Orleans are pretty much tied at about 30% apiece. No other city even breaks out of single digits. (At the moment, Minneapolis is in third at 8%.) I get the sense that Dean likes the whole "western strategy" idea and might favor Denver. Of course, we won't know until the end of the year at the earliest.

Posted at 01:43 PM in 2008 President - Democrats, Democrats | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati

Monday, February 20, 2006

Dem Convention Watch: Initial City List Set

Posted by DavidNYC

Via Democratic Convention Watch, we now have the list of cities which have been formally invited to bid on hosting the convention by the DNC:

Anaheim
Dallas
Denver
Detroit
Las Vegas
Minneapolis
New Orleans
New York City
Orlando
Phoenix
San Antonio

It's also possible that Pittsburgh may be a late entrant.

These cities have not actually submitted bids yet - those aren't due until late May (Roll Call, sub. only). They've just been asked to submit bids, which means it's possible that one or more of these cities won't actually follow through. A final decision won't be announced until after the elections this fall, but I'm not sure if there will be any earlier decision-making "rounds" (eg, semi-finalists, etc.).

I personally think it might not be bad to do it that way, Olympics-style. Build up a little buzz and hype. Sure, it's all "meaningless," but a little extra positive attention never hurt. And I actually think that the conventions themselves are important - we get to spend four days, with lots of free media coverage, showcasing exactly what we want America to see of our party. Conventions may have little to do with nominations any more, but they are an important "sales" tool.

Anyhow, back to the issue at hand. DCW has some handicapping of the various cities. Despite my hometown connection, as you know, I'm a big supporter of Denver. Like Boston two years ago, I think New York as host offers no positives and if anything is a net negative. (You will not often hear me say bad things about NYC.) Denver, on the other hand, is in a slightly reddish state that has been trending blue recently. Plus, as I never get tired of mentioning, the summer weather is about a million times better.

Posted at 02:20 PM in 2008 President - Democrats, Democrats | Comments (9) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati

Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Vilsack Says Dems Will Lose Unless They Embrace Views of Minority of Americans

Posted by DavidNYC

A winning strategy:

Gov. Tom Vilsack said Monday that Democrats risk political backlash if they object to the Bush administration's wiretapping but cannot show that Americans' civil liberties are at risk.

...

"And I think Democrats are falling into a very, very large political trap," he said. "Democrats are not going to win elections until they can reassure people they are going to keep them safe."

Compare with:

That's 56% who favor getting warrants vs. 42% who don't.

Posted at 01:31 PM in 2008 President - Democrats | Comments (8) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati

Wednesday, December 28, 2005

Democratic Convention Watch

Posted by DavidNYC

I've been a big proponent of single-district blogs, but this endeavour takes specialization to a whole new level. And I gotta say, I love it. Take a look at 2008 Democratic Convention Watch, a site devoted purely to news about the next Dem convention - a political junkie's delight. (And I found it randomly by Googling!) A few things worth noting:

• Some 35 cities have been invited to bid to host the convention.

• The deadline for bids is Jan. 13th, so we'll know which cities are in contention at that point.

• The host city won't be announced until after the 2006 midterm elections.

I've gone on record as a strong supporter of Denver, which is probably a leading contender at this point. Its Western location is ideal politically, and the mountain weather ought to be more pleasant than that in most cities during the summer. Colorado Luis notes that Denver might have a labor issue - there's only one unionized hotel in downtown Denver. On the flipside, unfortunately, most cities these days have the same kind of problem. I like Luis' suggestion that Denver be given the convention in exchange for permitting union organizing activities in conjunction with it.

The official Denver Dem Party website has a recent update here on their efforts to lobby the DNC, and a possibly freeped poll at DailyKos shows Denver with a sizable lead. I'm curious to know what drawbacks, if any, people think Denver presents.

Posted at 03:09 AM in 2008 President - Democrats, Democrats | TrackBack (0) | Technorati

Monday, November 07, 2005

Dems to Move Back 2008 Convention Date

Posted by DavidNYC

From Roll Call (sub. req.):

Democratic Members are lauding their party’s unexpected decision to hold the 2008 Democratic National Convention in late August, saying that the later date should help the party level the playing field against the GOP.

In an unusually early announcement, the Democratic National Committee said Friday that the four-day presidential nominating event would be held Monday, Aug. 25 through Thursday, Aug. 28 — a full month later than the 2004 convention, which began in late July.

DNC officials said the timing allows the party to avoid competition with the 2008 Summer Olympics, while also providing the prospective Democratic nominee a not-too-lengthy period to sustain the traditional post-convention “bounce” in popularity. After the convention closes down, it will be only 68 days until Election Day.

I think this is a wise move, but the article leaves out an added crucial reason why this is a smart change. Though both Bush and Kerry turned down federal matching money during the "primary" campaign, both accepted federal money for the "general election." I put those terms in quotes because they mean very little - the primaries were over long before the technical FEC start of the general election season.

And that start date is kind of screwed up, because the clock begins ticking as soon as your party's convention is over - meaning that John Kerry was stuck with his final cash pool (I think it was $45 mil) for three months, while Bush had to make do with that sum for just two months. This change eliminates that problem.

As to the location, I'm still a supporter of Denver. The Roll Call story mentions that some Dems want to do it in New Orleans, as expected. I think it's a kind gesture, but it goes without saying that Colorado (and its western brethren) represent a good share of our political future as a party, while Louisiana does not. I'd rather see the Dems take back power in 2006 and pressure Bush to spend some serious money to really rebuild N.O. and the rest of the Gulf Coast.

Posted at 02:48 PM in 2008 President - Democrats, Democrats | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati

Sunday, October 02, 2005

2008: HRC Missed Bridge to 21st Century

Posted by Bob Brigham

I've written about this before (here and here), but now that Matt Bai has a major story in the Sunday NYT Magazine, I think the issue of HRC's political positioning needs revisiting. The article is aptly titled, "Mrs. Triangulation"

You can hardly pry up a floorboard in the basement of Democratic politics without finding some sign of the Clinton operation churning underneath.

The chief benefit of this network is that it spans the ideological divide in the party, from far left to far center. The problem is that labels like "left" and "center" seem to have lost much of their meaning in the party, and the divisions in Democratic politics no longer seem to run along traditional lines. Gone are the days when Hubert Humphrey waged war against Strom Thurmond on civil rights, when George McGovern's protesters clashed with Scoop Jackson's hard-liners. In the era after Bill Clinton, the vast majority of Democrats, whether they once considered themselves liberals or centrists, mouth allegiance to the same set of often tepid principles on issues like trade, terrorism and gun control - positions that they will often cite as evidence of hard-won unity but which in truth represent the absence of the real intellectual discussion that once defined (and sometimes doomed) the party. As a result, aside from a few subtle disputes - whether troops should be withdrawn from Iraq now, for instance, or next year - the philosophical differences between liberals and centrists have never been more obscure. Nothing better illustrated the passing of the party's long ideological debate better than the explosive presidential campaign of Howard Dean (now the party's chairman), whose record as a pro-gun, pro-Democratic Leadership Council governor did nothing to prevent him from seamlessly assuming the role of chief spokesman for those liberal voters who had always embodied the so-called Democratic left.

What Dean's candidacy brought into the open, however, was another kind of growing and powerful tension in Democratic politics that had little to do with ideology. Activists often describe this divide as being between "insiders" and "outsiders," but the best description I've heard came from Simon Rosenberg, a Democratic operative who runs the advocacy group N.D.N. (formerly New Democrat Network), which sprang from Clintonian centrism of the early 1990's. As Rosenberg explained it, the party is currently riven between its "governing class" and its "activist class." The former includes the establishment types who populate Washington - politicians, interest groups, consultants and policy makers. The second comprises "Net roots" Democrats on the local level; that is, grass-roots Democrats, many of whom were inspired by Dean and who connect to politics primarily online, through blogs or Web-based activist groups like MoveOn.org. The argument between the camps isn't about policy so much as about tactics, and a lot of Democrats in Washington don't even seem to know it's happening.

The activist class believes, essentially, that Democrats in Washington have damaged the party by trying to negotiate and compromise with Republicans - in short, by trying to govern. The "Net roots" believe that an effective minority party should disengage from the governing process and eschew new proposals or big ideas. Instead, the party should dedicate itself to winning local elections and killing each new Republican proposal that comes down the track. To the activist class, trying to cut deals with Republicans is tantamount to appeasement. In fact, Rosenberg, an emerging champion of the activist class, told me, pointing to my notebook: "You have to use the word 'appease.' You have to use it. Because this is like Neville Chamberlain."

This is an ominous development for Hillary Clinton, because the activists' attack on the party hierarchy is a direct and long-simmering reaction to the Clintonism of the 90's and the "third way" instinct of the D.L.C.

My thoughts after the jump.

This article seems to back up those of us who have questioned Hillary's political instincts. As far as internal Democratic Party politics go, it appears Hillary is trying to bridge old divides that no longer exist and in the way she is going about doing so, has put herself on what will inevitably be the losing side of the current debate going on in the Democratic Party.

I firmly believe the new divide is between the establishment and the base; the bosses and the netroots; the past and the future.

Under these conditions, is the following helpful?

The pollster Mark Penn and the ad-maker Mandy Grunwald, both of whom worked for Bill Clinton and are among Hillary's closest advisers, have longstanding ties to the centrist, pro-business Democratic Leadership Council, while two other Clinton confidants, the operatives Ann Lewis and Harold Ickes, remain close to women's groups and Big Labor, respectively. The trusted aides Howard Wolfson and Patti Solis Doyle have been associated with the Glover Park Group, one of the most influential consulting firms among Democratic interest groups.

Hillary's attempt to staff up to bridge the old divides only cement her position on the side of the tired old Democratic establishment that is currently in a tug-of-war with the base.

By failing to understand the current realities in the Democratic Party, Hillary has embraced a misdiagnosis that has compromised her political standing and exposed the out-of-touch advice that she is receiving. The fact that HRC appears unable to grasp the current dynamics within the Democratic Party actually lends credibility to the activists in the netroots and grassroots who think that many Washington DC Democrats have lost touch.

Additionally, Clinton's ties to Al From's DLC could tether her presidential ambitions:

"I think people are looking for leadership from Hillary Clinton, and she's not showing any leadership on anything," says Markos Moulitsas of Dailykos.com, one of the new movement's leading blogs. Even in Hollywood, where the Clintons have been royalty for more than a decade, patience for bipartisanship is running low. Last month in Beverly Hills, I talked about Clinton with Norman Lear, the television and film producer who founded the liberal organization People for the American Way. "I love her," he told me. "But as terrific as I think she is, my concern is that we need someone who will tell the truth as they see it all of the time. She, like all of them, is not somebody who does that."

That Clinton doesn't fully understand the depth of this resentment seemed painfully apparent in July, when, at the D.L.C.'s annual gathering in Columbus, she accepted the assignment of fashioning a new agenda for the group and publicly called for a truce between factions on the left and center. Her aides thought she was actually delivering a mild rebuke to the D.L.C. for criticizing Dean and the bloggers; what they didn't understand was that her presence at the D.L.C. event itself was enough to infuriate the "Net roots," and the suggestion that the two sides should work together made it only worse. The response from the blogosphere was swift and bilious. "It's truly disappointing" that this is the garbage "Hillary has signed on to," Moulitsas wrote on Dailykos.com, provoking the blog's devotees to write hundreds of passionate and often profane diatribes in agreement. In a strikingly blunt appraisal, John Podesta told The Washington Post that Clinton had "walked into a cross-fire maybe she should have realized was out there." ("I didn't get any carnations for that one," Podesta told me later, laughing.)

In fact, Clinton's advisers disagreed about whether a bunch of 20-something bloggers really mattered. In a conversation last month, Mark Penn scoffed at my suggestion that there might be a strong backlash in the party against the ethos of Clintonism. "Strong backlash?" Penn said. "Former President Clinton is at a 70 percent approval rating, stronger than even during his presidency. More people would like to see him president than President Bush. In this environment, that is a notion I would have to laugh at." It's true that most Democratic voters are probably too busy working and raising kids to spend a lot of time debating political tactics online, and the importance of the "Net roots" can be overstated. And yet, the blogosphere is bound to be an important organizing force in 2008, and some other candidate will almost certainly rise to fill the space that Dean once occupied. If nothing else, this would make it harder for Hillary Clinton, the heir to her husband's legacy, to run the unity campaign her advisers envision.

After I spoke with Penn, I repeated his assessment of the backlash to Podesta, whose reach into all aspects of the progressive world - from bloggers to members of Congress - makes him as knowledgeable about the party's crosscurrents as anyone in Washington. "The D.L.C. incident is over, and it isn't particularly meaningful," Podesta told me. "But in the long run, if you believe what Mark believes, it will get you in trouble."

Clinton is chair of the DLC's "American Dream Initiative, which has already been marked DOA. If Clinton wanted her DLC membership to be good for more than negative articles in major newspapers, she would immediately call for Al From to be fired. But for that to happen, she would have to understand the where the Democratic Party is headed, which she doesn't. In part, because she hangs out in DC with the likes of Al From and the other dinosaurs who have failed to cross the bridge into the 21st century. In fact, every single move the DLC has made this millennium has been a disaster. Every single move.

The Clintons may have allowed us to go to where we are, but they didn't join us. And we aren't waiting for them to catch up, because we are too busy following their example and pushing on.

Posted at 02:01 PM in 2008 President - Democrats, Democrats, Netroots, Scandals | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati

Thursday, September 29, 2005

2008: Feingold Stakes Out Moral High Ground on Iraq

Posted by Bob Brigham

Many Establishment Democrats considering a run for President have refined an Iraq stance of holding their hands over their ears and chanting, "wawawawawawawawa I can't hear you." Strategically, this makes zero sense, as we found out in 2002 and 2004. Going forward, if we do what we've done we'll get what we've got in 2006 and 2008.

And then there is Russ Feingold. At the start of the war, Feingold followed his instincts and voted against the war, but for the $87 billion. History has proven that his vote against the war was the proper thing to do.

Today, Senator Feingold takes his case to the floor of the U.S. Senate with his "Bush is Weakening America" speech. Full text as prepared after the jump.

Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold

“How the President’s Policy is Weakening America”

From the Floor of the United States Senate

Mr. President, I rise once again to comment on the deeply disturbing consequences of the President’s misguided policies in Iraq. I have spoken before about my grave concern that the Administration’s Iraq policies are actually strengthening the hand of our enemies, fueling the insurgency’s recruitment of foreign fighters and unifying elements of the insurgency that might otherwise turn on each other.

But today, Mr. President, I want to focus on a different and equally alarming issue – which is, that the Bush Administration’s policies in Iraq are making America weaker. And none of us should stand by and allow this to continue.

It is shocking to me that this Senate has not found the time and energy to take up the Defense Authorization bill and give that bill the full debate and attention that it deserves. Our men and women in uniform, and our military families, continue to make real sacrifices every day in service to this country. They perform their duties with skill and honor, sometimes in the most difficult of circumstances. But the Senate has not performed its duties – and the state of the U.S. military desperately needs our attention.

The Administration’s policies in Iraq are breaking the United States Army. As soldiers confront the prospect of a third tour in the extremely difficult theater of Iraq, it would be understandable if they began to wonder why all of the sacrifice undertaken by our country in wartime seems to be falling on their shoulders. It would be understandable if they -- and their brothers and sisters in the Marine Corps -- began to feel some skepticism about whether or not essential resources -- like adequately armored vehicles -- will be there when they need them. It would be understandable if they came to greet information about deployment schedules with cynicism, because reliable information has been hard to come by for our military families in recent years. And it would be understandable if they asked themselves whether or not their numbers will be great enough to hold hard-won territory, and whether or not properly vetted translators will be available to help them distinguish friend from foe. At some point, Mr. President, the sense of solidarity and commitment that helps maintain strong retention rates gives way to a sense of frustration with the status quo. I fear that we may be very close to that tipping point today.

We may not see the men and women of the Army continue to volunteer for more of the same. It isn’t reasonable to expect that current retention problems will improve, rather than worsening. We should not bet our national security on that kind of wishful thinking.

Make no mistake, our military readiness is already suffering. According to a recent RAND study, the Army has been stretched so thin that active-duty soldiers are now spending one of every two years abroad, leaving little of the Army left in any appropriate condition to respond to crises that may emerge elsewhere in the world. In an era in which we confront a globally networked enemy, and at a time when nuclear weapons proliferation is an urgent threat, continuing on our present course is irresponsible at best.

We are not just wearing out the troops; we are also wearing out equipment much faster than it is being replaced or refurbished. Just days ago the Chief of the National Guard, General H Steven Blum, told a group of Senate staffers that the National Guard had approximately 75% of the equipment it needed on 9/11. Today, the National Guard has 34% of the equipment it needs. And the response to Hurricane Katrina exposed some of the dangerous gaps in the Guard’s communications systems.

What we are asking of the Army is not sustainable, and the burden is taking its toll on our military families. This cannot go on.

Many of my colleagues, often led by Senator Reed of Rhode Island, have taken stock of where we stand and have joined together to support efforts to expand the size of our standing Army. But this effort – which I support -- is really a solution for the long-term, because it depends on new recruits to address our problems. We cannot suddenly increase the numbers of experienced soldiers so essential to providing leadership in the field. It takes years to grow a new crop of such leaders. But the annual resignation rate of Army lieutenants and captains rose last year to its highest rate since the attacks of September 11, 2001. We are heading toward crisis right now.

Mr. President, growing the all-volunteer Army can only happen if qualified new recruits sign up for duty. But all indications suggest that at the end of this month, the Army will fall thousands short of its annual recruiting goal. Barring some sudden and dramatic change, the Army National Guard and Army Reserve too will miss their annual targets by about 20 percent. And Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army's chief of staff, told Congress recently that 2006 "may be the toughest recruiting environment ever."

Too often, too many of my colleagues are reluctant to criticize the Administration’s policies in Iraq for fear that anything other than staying the course set by the President will somehow appear weak. But the President’s course is misguided, and it is doing grave damage to our extraordinarily professional and globally admired all-volunteer United States Army. To stand by while this damage is done is not patriotic. It is not supportive. It is not tough on terrorism, or strong on national security. Because I am proud of our men and women in uniform, and because I am committed to working with all of my colleagues to make this country more secure, I am convinced that we must change our course.

As my colleagues know, I have introduced a resolution calling for the President to provide a public report clarifying the mission that the US military is being asked to accomplish in Iraq and laying out a plan and timeframe for accomplishing that mission and subsequently bringing our troops home. It is in our interest to provide some clarity about our intentions and restore confidence at home and abroad that U.S. troops will not be in Iraq indefinitely. And I have tried to jumpstart this discussion by proposing a date for US troop withdrawal: December 31, 2006. We need to start working with a realistic set of plans and benchmarks if we are to gain control of our Iraq policy, instead of letting it dominate our security strategy and drain vital security resources for an unlimited amount of time.

This brings me to another facet of this Administration’s misguided approach to Iraq; another front on which our great country is growing weaker rather than stronger as a result of the Administration’s policy choices: the tremendously serious fiscal consequences of the President’s decision to put the entire Iraq war on our national tab. How much longer can the elected representatives of the American people in this Congress allow the President to rack up over a billion dollars a week in new debts? This war is draining, by one estimate, $5.6 billion every month from our economy, funds that might be used to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina recover, or to help address the skyrocketing health care costs facing businesses and families, or to help pay down the enormous debt this government has already piled up.

And not only are we weakening our economy today, this costly war is undermining our nation’s economic future because none of that considerable expenditure has been offset in the budget by cuts in spending elsewhere or revenue increases. All of it -- every penny -- has been added to the already massive debt that will be paid by future generations of Americans. For years now, this Administration has refused to budget for the costs of our ongoing operations in Iraq that can be predicted, and has refused to make the hard choices that would be required to cover those costs. Instead, the President apparently prefers to leave those tough calls to our children. In effect, we are asking future generations to pay for this war, and they will pay for it in the form of higher taxes or fewer government benefits. They stand to inherit a weakened America, one so compromised by debt and economic crisis that the promise of opportunity for all has faded.

And there is no end in sight.

In addition to that debt, the war will leave other costly legacies. Here again, it is the members of the military and their families who will endure the most severe costs. But even if the war ended tomorrow, the nation will continue to pay the price for decades to come. Linda Bilmes of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard estimates that over the next 45 years, the health care, disability, and other benefits due our Iraq war veterans will cost $315 billion. We owe our brave troops the services and benefits they are due. We owe it to them and to their children and to their grandchildren to guide the course of this country and this economy to ensure that we are in a position to deliver for our veterans and for all Americans.

I cannot support an Iraq policy that makes our enemies stronger and our own country weaker, and that is why I will not support staying the course the President has set. If Iraq were truly the solution to our national security challenges, this gamble with the future of the military and with our own economy might make sense. If Iraq, rather than such strategically more significant countries as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, were really at the heart of the global fight against violent Islamist terrorism, this might make some sense. If it were true that fighting insurgents in Baghdad meant that we would not have to fight them elsewhere, all of the costs of this policy might make some sense. But these things are not true. Iraq is not the silver bullet in the fight against global terrorist networks. As I have argued in some detail, it is quite possible that the Administration’s policies in Iraq are actually strengthening the terrorists by helping them to recruit new fighters from around the world, giving those jihadists on-the-ground training in terrorism, and building new, transnational networks among our enemies. Meanwhile the costs of staying this course indefinitely, the consequences of weakening America’s military and America’s economy, loom more ominously before us with each passing week. There is no leadership in simply hoping for the best. We must insist on an Iraq policy that makes sense.

Indeed.

Posted at 01:52 PM in 2008 President - Democrats | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati

Tuesday, September 20, 2005

Supreme Court: I Oppose John Roberts

Posted by Bob Brigham

The Feminist Bloggers have announced opposition to John Roberts and I posted in the comments my signature to their letter and urge you to also.

The political optics are very simple: when Roberts drives the court away from Americans, Democrats need to be able to have clear contrast.

This is especially true for Democratic presidential candidates. Roberts will have a couple of years to do his worst before the primary heats up. Any presidential candidate who votes for Roberts will be blamed for Roberts.

As for rank and file Democrats, the play is easy to see. If you are on the judiciary committee you damn well better vote with your team. If a senator is going to make a comment other than opposition, don't. STFU.

Democrats win when we play as a team (i.e. Social Security). We need that now more than ever. We're watching to make sure every Democratic senator plays off the Democratic playbook;

WASHINGTON - Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid has told associates he intends to oppose confirmation of John Roberts as chief justice, Senate sources said Tuesday as rank and file Democrats began staking out positions on the man named to succeed the late William H. Rehnquist. [...]

As party leader, Reid had urged fellow Democrats not to announce their positions until the conclusion of last week's confirmation hearings for Roberts.

By stating his own position first, Reid likely would set the stage for strong Democratic opposition to the 50-year-old appeals court judge and former Reagan administration lawyer.

We're watching.

UPDATE: And we're talking. From MSNBC:

Bob Brigham, a Democratic blogger who writes for Swingstateproject.com said Democratic activists are following the Roberts battle more closely than they did the 1991 Clarence Thomas saga.

“With the decentralization of politics and the blogs, there are a lot more people paying attention. The Democratic base is following this very closely,” Brigham said.

If he is confirmed, Brigham predicted, “Roberts is going to have a chance to hand down some serious decisions before the 2008 presidential race heats up. And every bad decision he makes will be blamed on any Democratic senator who votes for him. Democratic senators will be held accountable individually for the bad decisions he makes between now and 2008.”

Democratic Senators need to do the right thing.

UPDATE: Full statement from Leader Harry Reid:

“One of the Senate’s most important constitutional responsibilities is to provide “advice and consent” with respect to a President’s nominations. The task is especially important when the nomination is of an individual to be the Chief Justice of the United States.

“No one doubts that John Roberts is an excellent lawyer and an affable person. But at the end of this process, I have too many unanswered questions about the nominee to justify a vote confirming him to this enormously important lifetime position.

“The stakes for the American people could not be higher. The retirement of Justice O’Connor and the death of Chief Justice Rehnquist have left the Supreme Court in a period of transition. On key issues affecting the rights and freedoms of Americans, the Court is closely divided. If confirmed, Judge Roberts, who is only 50 years old, will likely serve as Chief Justice and leader of the third branch of the federal government for decades to come.

“The legal authority that we will hand to Judge Roberts by this confirmation vote is awesome. In my view, we should only vote to confirm this nominee if we are absolutely positive that he is the right person to hold that authority. This is a very close question for me. But I must resolve my doubts in favor of the American people whose rights would be in jeopardy if John Roberts turns out to be the wrong person for the job.

“Some say that the President is entitled to deference from the Senate in nominating individuals to high office. I agree that such deference is appropriate in the case of executive branch nominees such as Cabinet officers. With some important exceptions, the President may generally choose his own advisors.

“In contrast, the President is not entitled to very much deference in staffing the third branch of government, the judiciary. The Constitution envisions that the President and the Senate will work together to appoint and confirm federal judges. This is a shared constitutional duty.

“The Senate’s role in screening judicial candidates is especially important in the case of Supreme Court nominees, because the Supreme Court has assumed such a large role in resolving fundamental disputes in our civic life. As I see it, any nominee for the Supreme Court bears the burden of persuading the Senate and the American people that he or she deserves confirmation to a lifetime seat on the Court.

“Let me start by observing that Judge Roberts has been a thoughtful, mainstream judge on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. But he has only been a member of that court for two years and has not confronted many cutting-edge constitutional issues. As a result, we cannot rely on his current judicial service to determine what kind of Supreme Court justice he would be.

“I was very impressed with Judge Roberts when I first met him, soon after he was nominated. But several factors caused me to reassess my initial view.

“Most notably, I was disturbed by the memos that surfaced from Judge Roberts’s years of service in the Reagan Administration. These memos raise serious questions about the nominee’s approach to civil rights.

“It is now clear that as a young lawyer, John Roberts played a significant role in shaping and advancing the Republican agenda to roll back civil rights protections. He wrote memos opposing legislative and judicial efforts to remedy race and gender discrimination. He urged his superiors to oppose Senator Kennedy’s 1982 bill to strengthen the Voting Rights Act and worked against affirmative action programs. He derided the concept of comparable worth and questioned whether women actually suffer discrimination in the workplace.

“No one suggests that John Roberts was motivated by bigotry or animosity towards minorities or women. But these memos lead one to question whether he truly appreciated the history of the civil rights struggle. He wrote about discrimination as an abstract concept, not as a flesh and blood reality for countless of his fellow citizens. The memos raised a real question for me whether their author would breathe life into the Equal Protection Clause and the landmark civil rights statutes that come before the Supreme Court repeatedly.

“Nonetheless, I was prepared to look past these memos, and chalk them up to the folly of youth. I looked forward to the confirmation hearings in the expectation that Judge Roberts would repudiate those views in some fashion. Instead, the nominee adopted what I consider a disingenuous strategy of suggesting that the views expressed in those memos were not his views, even at the time the memos were written. He claimed that he was merely a “staff lawyer” reflecting the positions of his client, the Reagan Administration.

“Anyone who has read the memos can see that Roberts was expressing his own personal views on these important policy matters. In memo after memo, the text is clear. It is simply not plausible for the nominee to claim that he did not share the views that he expressed.

“For example, there is a memo in which he refers to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as “un-American.” If Judge Roberts had testified that this was a twenty year old bad joke, I would have given the memo no weight. But instead, he provided a tortured reading of the memo that simply does not stand up under scrutiny.

“In another memo Judge Roberts spoke about a Hispanic group that President Reagan would soon address, and he suggested that the audience would be pleased to know that the Administration favored legal status for the “illegal amigos” of the audience members. The use of the Spanish word “amigos” in this memo is patronizing and offensive to a contemporary reader.

“I do not condemn Judge Roberts for using the word “amigos” twenty years ago in a non-public memo, but I was stunned when at his confirmation hearing he could not bring himself to express regret for using the term, or recognize that it might cause offense.

“My concerns about these Reagan-era memos were heightened by the fact that the White House rejected a reasonable request by Committee Democrats for documents written by Judge Roberts when he served in the first Bush Administration. After all, if memos written twenty years ago are to be dismissed as not reflecting the nominee’s mature thinking, it would be highly relevant to see memos he had written as an older man in an even more important policymaking job.

“The White House claim of attorney-client privilege to shield these documents is utterly unpersuasive. Senator Leahy asked Attorney General Gonzales for the courtesy of a meeting to discuss the matter and was turned down. This was simply a matter of stonewalling.

“The failure of the White House to produce relevant documents is reason enough for any Senator to oppose this nomination. The Administration cannot treat the Senate with such disrespect without some consequences.

“In the absence of these documents, it was especially important for the nominee to fully and forthrightly answer questions from Committee members at his hearing. He failed to do so adequately. I acknowledge the right – indeed, the duty – of a judicial nominee to decline to answer questions regarding specific cases that will come before the court to which the witness has been nominated. But Judge Roberts declined to answer many questions more remote than that, including questions seeking his views of long-settled precedents.

“Finally, I was very swayed by the testimony of civil rights and women’s rights leaders against confirmation. When a civil rights icon like John Lewis says that John Roberts was on the wrong side of history, Senators must take notice.

“I like Judge Roberts. I respect much of the work he has done in his career, such as his advocacy for environmentalists in the Lake Tahoe takings case several years ago. In the fullness of time, he may well prove to be a fine Supreme Court Justice. But I have reluctantly concluded that this nominee has not satisfied the high burden that would justify my voting for his confirmation based on the current record.

“Based on all of these factors, the balance shifts against Judge Roberts. The question is close, and the arguments against him do not warrant extraordinary procedural tactics to block the nomination. Nonetheless, I intend to cast my vote against this nominee when the Senate debates the matter next week.”

Posted at 02:45 PM in 2006 Elections - Senate, 2008 President - Democrats, Activism, Democrats, Site News, Supreme Court | Comments (1) | Technorati

Thursday, September 01, 2005

DLC Fuckup Endangers Evan Bayh's Presidential Bid

Posted by Bob Brigham

Former DLC Chair Evan Bayh is the man who spent four years acting cowardly by refusing to fire Al From even though From repeatedly harmed the Democratic Party by triangulating against mainstream Democrats. Under Bayh's DLC, they even enjoyed it. Now Senator Bayh wants to be President, yet for some unknown reason, he thinks the best way to make a name for himself is to make an ass of himself. From USA Today:

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court nominee John Roberts will be introduced to the Senate Judiciary Committee next week by a centrist Democrat and a veteran Republican, an important symbolic boost for his confirmation prospects.

Sen. Evan Bayh, a Democrat who represents Roberts' home state of Indiana, and Sen. John Warner, a Virginia Republican, have agreed to appear with him when confirmation hearings begin Tuesday. [...]

But the presence of Bayh, a potential 2008 presidential contender, will underscore differences in the Democratic Party over the Roberts nomination. Liberals such as Sens. Charles Schumer of New York and Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts have sharply criticized some of Roberts' positions.

Here's the thing, if Roberts is confirmed, he'll have two full years before the presidential race really heats up. Every bad decision John Roberts makes is going to be blamed on Evan Bayh. During that time, the blogosphere will double or triple in participation, so people will know about it. During that same period, the DLC will continue to lose relevance. Bayh's classic-DLC maneuver of providing bi-partisan cover for Bush does not inspire confidence in Bayh's decision making ability.

Posted at 11:01 AM in 2008 President - Democrats, Democrats, Supreme Court | Comments (6) | Technorati

Monday, August 29, 2005

Giving it 110% or 110 MPH

Posted by Bob Brigham

AP:

WAXAHACHIE, Texas (AP) _ A driver for the Rev. Al Sharpton led Ellis County Sheriff's deputies on a nine-mile chase at speeds up to 110 mph before state troopers stopped the car, authorities said.

The driver was rushing Sharpton to the airport after Sharpton had met with anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan on Sunday at her camp outside President Bush's ranch in Crawford. The car carrying Sharpton and two other passengers was clocked doing 110 mph in a 65 mph zone on Interstate 35 in Ellis County in North Texas, said Lt. Danny Williams. [...]

Deputies arrested Jarrett Barton Maupin, 43, of Phoenix. Maupin told the officers he was hurrying to get Sharpton to the airport, Williams said. Deputies impounded the rented 2005 Lincoln.

Depending upon the wheels, the speed limiter could have actually kicked in.

Posted at 05:18 PM in 2008 President - Democrats | Technorati

Thursday, August 18, 2005

Dems 2008: Governor Brian Schweitzer

Posted by Bob Brigham

As Bowers noted, I showed Governor Schweitzer the MyDD straw poll on Tuesday. He said people who voted for him were "smoking pinecones."

Yet in the first 1,000 votes, Schweitzer did better than Biden, Bayh, and Vilsack -- combined.

This talk had better come to an abrupt end before we run out of pinecones.

Posted at 04:54 PM in 2008 Election - President, 2008 President - Democrats, Montana | Comments (3) | Technorati

Dems 2008: Feingold Heads West

Posted by Bob Brigham

The Progressive Patriots Fund just sent me an advisory:

Milwaukee- US Senator Russ Feingold's Progressive Patriots Fund announced details of a major foreign policy speech he will deliver in Los Angeles on August 23 outlining the administration's failure to develop a comprehensive national security strategy in the fight against terrorism and proposing a target date for withdrawal of US troops from Iraq of December 31, 2006.

Feingold will address the Town Hall Los Angeles Association on Tuesday, August 23. Town Hall Los Angeles is a nonprofit, nonpartisan membership organization dedicated to promoting civic participation by offering members direct access to and insight from the most influential business and political leaders. Feingold will also speak at the University of California-Los Angeles School of Law on Monday, August 22.

In June, Feingold became the first senator to propose legislation calling on the President to issue a realistic set of goals for success in Iraq, along with a reasonable timeframe under which to achieve those goals and the subsequent withdrawal of US troops. Because of the conflicting signals from the administration about the scope and duration of the military mission in Iraq, Senator Feingold said he now feels obligated to propose a target completion date.

“It’s time for Congress to have a serious debate about the situation in Iraq and how it fits into the campaign against terrorism. For too long our brave service men and women have risked their lives without the benefit of a clear plan for success in Iraq,” Feingold said.

Feingold recently formed the Progressive Patriots Fund to promote a progressive reform agenda and support candidates across the country. The organization has launched an effort for citizen co-sponsors of Feingold’s proposal for a target time for the drawdown of US military presence in Iraq.

What: Major National Security Speech by Senator Russ Feingold
Where: Town Hall Los Angeles, Millennium Biltmore Hotel, 506 S Grand Ave
When: Tuesday, August 23
11:30 am – 1:30 pm

Feingold will also speak at the University of California - Los Angeles School of Law on Monday, August 22. This event is also open to the public:

What: Speech by Senator Russ Feingold Sponsored by the Public Interest
Law and Policy Program and the American Constitution Society
Where: UCLA Law School
When: Monday, August 22
4:30 pm – 5:30 pm

Posted at 12:46 PM in 2008 President - Democrats | Technorati

Democrats: Time to Fight

Posted by Bob Brigham

Chris Bowers has a great map of the new SUSA 50 state numbers. Bowers seems to think it is time to fight:

There isn't a single corner of this nation where Democrats are not more in line with Independents than Republicans. That's a fact. That's fifty-state potential. That's a tidal wave.

But we can't win if we don't have a candidate on the ballot. The DC crowd needs to realize this year could be tidal, but only if Democrats are ready to fight with leadership. Sirota says:

Finally, one of the top 2008 Democratic presidential contenders has the guts to take a major stand on the Iraq War. According to the Associated Press, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) is announcing his support for the United States to set a firm timetable for withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. Though that is a position that polls show a majority of Americans support, high profile Democrats have been unwilling to come out and make that stand. In fact, just a few weeks ago, the Democratic campaign committee in Washington is actually trying to pretend the Iraq War doesn't exist. [...]

Democrats would be wise to follow Feingold's lead, instead of either parroting right-wing lies themselves like Sen. Evan Bayh (D), or cowering in a corner on Iraq because they believe any support for withdrawal will mean they will look weak on national security. That just isn't the case. Polls show Americans believe the Iraq War has made this country less safe. That means trying to end the war and get out of the situation as Feingold is calling for is a credible pro-national security position in the eyes of the public.

Big bold move by Feingold. Speaking of big bold moves, Moveon really stepped up last night.

On Wednesday, August 17, tens of thousands of supporters gathered at 1,625 vigils to acknowledge the sacrifices made by Cindy Sheehan, her son, Casey and the more than 1,800 brave American men and women who have given their lives in Iraq—and their moms and families.

I don't know what the DCCC was doing last night, but I was at my neighborhood's Moveon vigil. Some Democrats get it, not suprising where you find them. From Montana's Bozeman Daily Chronicle:

Dozens of people gathered in front of the Gallatin County Courthouse Wednesday to silently protest the war in Iraq during a candlelight vigil co-sponsored by the Gallatin County Democrats. [...]

Local Democrats sponsored the vigil along with Moveon.org, a liberal organization that opposed Bush's re-election. But the party invited anyone to participate, regardless their political affiliation. [...]

The vigil was mostly a silent affair with protesters holding lighted candles during a moment of silence that stretched several minutes. The names of soldiers who died in Iraq were projected onto a white screen set up below the giant yellow ribbon that has become a permanent display at the courthouse.

Tracy Velázquez, vice-chair of the Montana Democratic Party, provided protesters stickers with the names of fallen troops. When asked, she said she wasn't worried the vigil would be used by the party's opponents to portray it as against the soldiers.

Some Democrats aren't scared. Progress is coming from the ground up, people are tired of relying upon DC. Distributed models allow scale that is just beginning. The Gallatin Democrats' website is updated every morning. We need to fight, in every precinct in every district in every state. Tidal.

Posted at 11:40 AM in 2006 Elections, 2008 President - Democrats, Activism, Democrats, Montana | Comments (5) | Technorati

Wednesday, July 27, 2005

Dems 2008: DLC Scandal Dogs HRC in WaPo

Posted by Bob Brigham

Right now, there is amazing organizing going on in OH-02, preparation for Tuesday's Special Election. But the Democratic Leadership Council has been suspiciously absent. They met just 2 hours away and people asked and asked for DLC'ers to come and help -- but they were to busy with their cocktail coronations.

This is an important lesson for politicians. The DLC is fundamentally unable to deliver in a post McCain-Feingold world -- they are too lazy to walk and too few create a scalable fundraising system. Yet look what you can do by staying true and raising money $50 a head online. And choosing the DLC over the netroots comes with a price, like this Washington Post story:

The most pointed critique of Clinton came in one of the most influential blogs on the left, Daily Kos out of Berkeley, Calif., which called Clinton's speech "truly disappointing" and said she should not provide cover for an organization that often has instigated conflict within the party.

"If she wanted to give a speech to a centrist organization truly interested in bringing the various factions of the party together, she could've worked with NDN," the blog said in a reference to the New Democrat Network, with which Daily Kos's Markos Moulitsas is associated. "Instead, she plans on working with the DLC to come up with some common party message yadda yadda yadda. Well, that effort is dead on arrival. The DLC is not a credible vehicle for such an effort. Period."

Anyone who supports the DLC is fair game, even Hillary. And Hillary fucked up big time with Democrats:

Roger Hickey, co-director of the liberal Campaign for America's Future, said Clinton had badly miscalculated the current politics inside the Democratic Party and argued that she could pay a price for her DLC association if she runs for president in 2008.

"There has been an activist resurgence in the Democratic Party in recent years, and Hillary risks ensuring that there's a candidate to her left appealing to those activists who don't much like the DLC," he said.

Not only is Hillary losing netroots and grassroots support by aligning herself with Al From and the DLC, but she is failing to change the dynamics.

If there were a text-book, Hillary Clinton would be breaking every rule.

Oh wait, there is a text-book. By cognitive scientist George Lakoff, and yes, Hillary is doing everything wrong. Total FUBAR.

Don't think of Al From:

Fallacy: Progressives can gain more voters by moving to the Right.

There is a myth that voters are lined up in a left-to-right line, and that to gain the support of swing voters, you must move to the center. When progressives move to the right, they lose in two ways, setting up a self-defeating double-whammy:

1. Moving to the right alienates your progressive base.

2. It actually helps conservatives because it activates their model in swing voters.

Notice that conservatives do not gain more voters by moving to the Left. What they do is stick to their strict ideology to activate their model in swing voters by being clear and consistent in policies and messages framed in terms of conservative values.

Moral: Voters are not on a left-to-right line. Stick with your ideals, frame what you believe effectively, and say what you believe. Say it well, strongly, and with moral conviction.

Did you get that, the DLC model is what cognitive scientists call a fallacy.

Clinton is getting really bad advice from Al From and her handlers. One week ago she was a Senator and the beloved former First Lady. Now she is just another member of the Democratic Losers Club trying desperately not to offend anyone on the right.

Clinton's DLC membership is sinking her potential. It is sad to watch.

Steve Gilliard has more on the Hillary's political insticts failing her.

Posted at 10:57 AM in 2008 Election - President, 2008 President - Democrats, 2008 President - Democrats, Democrats, Netroots | Comments (1) | Technorati

Dems 2008: DLC Scandal Dogs HRC in WaPo

Posted by Bob Brigham

Right now, there is amazing organizing going on in OH-02, preparation for Tuesday's Special Election. But the Democratic Leadership Council has been suspiciously absent. They met just 2 hours away and people asked and asked for DLC'ers to come and help -- but they were to busy with their cocktail coronations.

This is an important lesson for politicians. The DLC is fundamentally unable to deliver in a post McCain-Feingold world -- they are too lazy to walk and too few create a scalable fundraising system. Yet look what you can do by staying true and raising money $50 a head online. And choosing the DLC over the netroots comes with a price, like this Washington Post story:

The most pointed critique of Clinton came in one of the most influential blogs on the left, Daily Kos out of Berkeley, Calif., which called Clinton's speech "truly disappointing" and said she should not provide cover for an organization that often has instigated conflict within the party.

"If she wanted to give a speech to a centrist organization truly interested in bringing the various factions of the party together, she could've worked with NDN," the blog said in a reference to the New Democrat Network, with which Daily Kos's Markos Moulitsas is associated. "Instead, she plans on working with the DLC to come up with some common party message yadda yadda yadda. Well, that effort is dead on arrival. The DLC is not a credible vehicle for such an effort. Period."

Anyone who supports the DLC is fair game, even Hillary. And Hillary fucked up big time with Democrats:

Roger Hickey, co-director of the liberal Campaign for America's Future, said Clinton had badly miscalculated the current politics inside the Democratic Party and argued that she could pay a price for her DLC association if she runs for president in 2008.

"There has been an activist resurgence in the Democratic Party in recent years, and Hillary risks ensuring that there's a candidate to her left appealing to those activists who don't much like the DLC," he said.

Not only is Hillary losing netroots and grassroots support by aligning herself with Al From and the DLC, but she is failing to change the dynamics.

If there were a text-book, Hillary Clinton would be breaking every rule.

Oh wait, there is a text-book. By cognitive scientist George Lakoff, and yes, Hillary is doing everything wrong. Total FUBAR.

Don't think of Al From:

Fallacy: Progressives can gain more voters by moving to the Right.

There is a myth that voters are lined up in a left-to-right line, and that to gain the support of swing voters, you must move to the center. When progressives move to the right, they lose in two ways, setting up a self-defeating double-whammy:

1. Moving to the right alienates your progressive base.

2. It actually helps conservatives because it activates their model in swing voters.

Notice that conservatives do not gain more voters by moving to the Left. What they do is stick to their strict ideology to activate their model in swing voters by being clear and consistent in policies and messages framed in terms of conservative values.

Moral: Voters are not on a left-to-right line. Stick with your ideals, frame what you believe effectively, and say what you believe. Say it well, strongly, and with moral conviction.

Did you get that, the DLC model is what cognitive scientists call a fallacy.

Clinton is getting really bad advice from Al From and her handlers. One week ago she was a Senator and the beloved former First Lady. Now she is just another member of the Democratic Losers Club trying desperately not to offend anyone on the right.

Clinton's DLC membership is sinking her potential. It is sad to watch.

Steve Gilliard has more on the Hillary's political insticts failing her.

Posted at 10:57 AM in 2008 Election - President, 2008 President - Democrats, 2008 President - Democrats, Democrats, Netroots | Comments (1) | Technorati

Tuesday, July 26, 2005

Dems 2008: Netroots Love or DLC Baggage

Posted by Bob Brigham

If you've been within earshot of the liberal blogosphere, you've probably heard of the collective eye-rolling that followed the fact that Evan Bayh, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Mark Warner and Tom Vilsack all groveled before Al From at this week's DLC meeting.

Regular Swing State Project readers know of the Brigham Corollary to the 11th Commandment: If you're in the DLC you're fair game.

In the last 24 hours we've seen a huge shift in positioning for 2008 -- Hillary is no longer off limits. When she chooses the DLC over the grassroots, people will call her on it:

The DLC has always been at the forefront of intra-party mud-slinging. They're just finally being called on it, and suddenly it's time for peace? If she wanted to give a speech to a centrist organization truly interested in bringing the various factions of the party together, she could've worked with NDN.

Instead, she plans on working with the DLC to come up with some common party message yadda yadda yadda. Well, that effort is dead on arrival. The DLC is not a credible vehicle for such an effort. Period. [...]

It's truly disappointing that this is the crap Hillary has signed on to. More of the failed corporatist bullshit that has cost our party so dearly the last decade and a half.

Kos lays out the choice for 2008 Democratic candidates:

Democrats have a choice to make -- stand with the DLC, or stand with the grassroots and netroots of the party. It's interesting that Democrats with a strong sense of self -- those who truly know what they stand for and are unafraid to say so -- are those least interested in the DLC's snake oil. Obama twice had to demand the DLC take him off their list. California's Phil Angelides -- the next governor of the Golden State given Ahnold's spectacular collapse -- also demanded to be taken off their list. Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan, who's anti-war floor speech made the internet rounds last year, also demanded to be taken off their list. Western Democrats in Montana -- blood red territory -- have shown no interest in cozying up with the DLC.

It's those Democrats who are afraid of who or what they stand for that seem most drawn to the DLC. It's a shame that Hillary has thrown in with that lot, but it's clear that she's looking for the perfect positioning. She's not confident she can win on who she is and what she stands for, so she's what, looking for cover to the charges that she's "too liberal"? Is she looking to the DLC to help define that "vital center"?

Steve Gilliard on the Democratic Leadership Council:

Mark my words. She will never make it out of the primaries if she runs.

Hillary Clinton's instincts suck. They are horrible.

Her enemies will ALWAYS paint her as a liberal, regardless of her real stands. Her name is a byword for liberalism and corruption among the right. They will fight her to their last breath. The DLC wants to use the same failed playbook it has always used, run down the middle of the road and lose to the GOP.

At the same time, all this does is alienate liberal supporters who are perplexed by her insane and pointless manuvering. Video games, abortion, all these issues do not help her. They just make her look weak and vaciliating.

John Kerry ran to the left and lost by 110K votes. He didn't hide from being a liberal and he came close enough to winning that Bush was sweating out election day. So what lesson does Clinton take from that: run to the middle. Despite every poll, every focus group that wants a strong, active Democratic party, the Democratic Loser Council wants to stay in the middle. [...]

If Hillary Clinton wants to lose with the DLC, that's her business. But lose she will.
(emphasis mine)

David Sirota on the Democratic Leadership Council:

More food for thought about the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) and the future of the Democratic Party...Can you imagine if an organization existed that purported to speak for Republicans, yet whose entire premise undermining the conservative base of the Republican Party? Do you think GOP presidential candidates would be flocking to address that organization's meetings? The answer, of course, is no, they wouldn't - and you can bet the GOP leadership would crush that organization before it ever got off the ground. But on the Democratic side, the story is far different.

Democratic presidential contenders go suck up to the DLC, an organization whose for the last two decades has done everything it can to undermine the Democratic Party - even going to great lengths to attack Democratic presidential candidates it doesn't like. Then, hilariously, these same Democratic politicians who genuflect to the DLC claim to be shocked - shocked! - that the public has no idea what the Democratic Party stands for anymore.

Digby on the Democratic Leadership Council:

Being lectured all the time by effete DC Democrats on "patriotism" because I don't back their reflexively hawkish foreign policy is not only insulting it's dumb. It plays into stereotypes that only serve the Republicans by turning this into a dick measuring contest when we should be turning the conversation into who can get the job done.

Ezra Klein on the Democratic Leadership Council:

...it's that their rhetorical devices for getting there tend to include 1) a lot of sniffing and despairing at all those hopelessly irresponsible liberals followed by a 2) high-minded promise to stroll into whatever trap the Republicans have set for them or 3) set one themselves if the right's been remiss.

DavidNYC on the Democratic Leadership Council:

I'm keeping an open mind about 2008 - I definitely do not have a favorite candidate, or even a group of favorites. I recognize that different candidates will try to position themselves differently, and I am not demanding fealty to the netroots. (I know as well as anyone that the blogosphere is not the be all, end all of politics.) But if and when Hillary Clinton tries to reach out to us, it's going to be hard for me to forget that she's aligned herself with Al From and the DLC.

News Blog on the Democratic Leadership Council:

Why the DLC sucks monkey balls.

Larry Johnson, professional spook, lifelong Republican, was just smeared in the Weekly Standard.

Paul Hackett, lawyer, Marine Reservist, Iraq War vet, was just smeared today, accused of lying about his military record.

So what are we supposed to do, imitate that little coward Peter Beinart and be PNAC's bitch?

I think not.

Sirota on the Democratic Leadership Council:

But that doesn't fit the DLC's goals, which are to undermine the Democratic Party. Instead of working to debunk these right-wing stereotypes, these insulated Beltway snobs seem to only feel relevant if they reinforce the right-wing stereotypes parroted by Fox News and the Republican Party. It just shows that for Democrats who want to win - and not just preserve their status on the Washington cocktail party circuit - the DLC is really part of the problem, not the solution.

Let's be clear - the DLC has done masterfully in selling its snake oil by always claiming that Democrats need a coherent "positive" agenda. No one argues with that. The problem is that the DLC offers neither a coherent agenda, or anything positive.

Indeed. Candidates have a choice, people or corporations -- grassroots or DLC. It is an either/or question.

If a candidate is still on the DLC List of Shame -- they will NOT get my support. Primary. General. None. Even HRC.

UPDATE: (Bob) Sirota has more on the DLC at the Huffington Post.

Two words:

Open

Fuckin'

Season

Posted at 04:27 PM in 2008 President - Democrats | Comments (2) | Technorati

Friday, July 22, 2005

DLC and the Political 11th Commandment

Posted by Bob Brigham

Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment was, "Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican." Reagan understood that it was counter-productive to triangulate against members of one's own Party.

This cap is lifted when a Democrat triangulates against fellow Democrats. Associating with the DLC, lifts the cap. The DLC is only relevant to the extent they attack Democrats, water-down message, and break solidarity. Smart politicians are fleeing the DLC but those who remain are fair game.

Kos says:

Three presidential contenders are trekking to the DLC's annual conference in Ohio, giving the organization a boost of legitimacy at a time when it faces increasing irrelevance in the political scene.

Evan Bayh, Hillary Clinton, and Tom Vilsack are all dutifully trecking to Ohio to worship at the altar of the "vital center" -- that elusive moving target that has conspired to rob Democrats of all conviction. Every time you hear a Democrat talk about how Democrats don't stand for anything? That's the DLC, as they urge Democrats to chase after a "center" that gets constantly redefined rightward by an ideologically principled Republican party.

As we strive to find our core convictions, and define who we are and what we stand for as a party, the DLC is one of the roadblocks -- a divisive, fundamentalist organization willing to sell any and all progressive ideals to the altar of big business. And anything that threatens their dominance has met with their ire -- be it Howard Dean, the netroots, or regular people suddenly interested in transforming and reforming the Democratic Party.

Democrats have a choice to make -- stand with the DLC, or stand with the grassroots and netroots of the party.
(emphasis mine)

Remember what wrote last month...

The DLC is in debt for the hatchet job against (now DNC Chairman) Howard Dean and in 2007 the bill will come due. Under the turnabout is fair play rule this is certainly valid and the score will not only be settled, but settled with interest. Bayh, Vilsack, Clinton...it doesn't really matter who, for the result is the same when one lies down with dogs.

As Kos continues:

It's interesting that Democrats with a strong sense of self -- those who truly know what they stand for and are unafraid to say so -- are those least interested in the DLC's snake oil. Obama twice had to demand the DLC take him off their list. California's Phil Angelides -- the next governor of the Golden State given Ahnold's spectacular collapse -- also demanded to be taken off their list. Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan, who's anti-war floor speech made the internet rounds last year, also demanded to be taken off their list. Western Democrats in Montana -- blood red territory -- have shown no interest in cozying up with the DLC.

The choice seems clear.

Posted at 01:48 PM in 2008 Election - President, 2008 President - Democrats, Democrats, Netroots | Comments (3) | Technorati

Monday, July 11, 2005

Dems 2008: Brian Schweitzer

Posted by Bob Brigham

From the (subscription only) Roll Call:

It’s forest fire season in the Mountain West.

But if disaster were to strike in drought-stricken Montana, many of the people who would be expected to fight the fires are half a world away.

Fully half of Montana’s National Guard — and most of its helicopters — are deployed in Iraq. And Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D) is fired up about it.

Schweitzer wants to start a dialogue about the way the military has changed its ratio of active-duty to Reserve and Guard forces — a policy in place long before the war in Iraq but one whose full impact is only now being felt.

“One of the things they didn’t consider in this policy,” said Schweitzer, “is that there are governors who are commanders-in-chief of the Guard and they have important missions for them at home.”

It is this willingness to criticize Republican policymakers in plainspoken ways that has some Democratic activists touting Schweitzer as a dark-horse candidate for president in 2008.

“I’m still waiting to see if the Democrats will get behind a pro-choice, red-state governor, who says what he means and means what he says,” wrote Bob Brigham, co-creator of the Swing State Project, a Web log affiliated with a political action committee for Democratic bloggers. “Bonus points for a western candidate, double bonus points for speaking Arabic. Triple bonus points for a dog named Jag.”

Schweitzer’s supporters think the governor, a rancher and farmer who picked a Republican state Senator to run with him as lieutenant governor last year, has a knack for critiquing GOP policies in a way that sounds more populist than partisan.

Daily Kos’ Markos Moulitsas Zuniga is also backing Schweitzer, whom he called “a genuine version of Bush’s fake ranch.”

Because Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) is seen as the overwhelming early favorite for the Democratic nomination, and because so many better-known politicians are gearing up for 2008, the idea of Schweitzer running for president may seem preposterous. Brigham doesn’t think so.

“What do the insiders know?” he asked. (emphasis mine)

I'm glad reporters are realizing you can quote posts just like you quote on the phone...

But, Swing State Project is not affiliated with any polical action committee, this is just another online magazine. And I'm not a co-creator, I'm just a dude. But I'm a dude who wishes Montana had all of the tools necessary to fight this year's fires.

Democratic strategist Chris Lehane doesn’t think anyone can be elected president in 2008 who is not seen as strong on national security. But the former spokesman to then-Vice President Al Gore does not think Schweitzer is at risk of looking weak.

“The way he communicates, the way he looks, the way he talks — he obviously is a hunter,” Lehane said. “His whole character and personality profile make it clear that he is no softie.”

And on domestic issues:

Schweitzer also has taken issue with the Bush administration’s domestic priorities.

When the nation’s governors gathered at the White House in February, Schweitzer likened the president’s pitch, which emphasized Social Security over Medicaid, to a livestock auction that fails to tempt buyers. The headline in the next day’s Los Angeles Times read: “Montana Governor Isn’t Cowed by Bush.”

The governor’s populist touch also on display last year when he brought hunters and fishermen into his camp by exploiting GOP vulnerabilities on field and stream access. On the same day that President Bush was trouncing Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) by 20 points in Montana, Schweitzer managed a 4-point win.

Schweitzer counts prescription drug subsidies for seniors, purchasing pools to make health insurance more affordable for small businesses and a college scholarship program among his first-year achievements.

Money quote:

Another potential problem for Schweitzer would be time on the ground in the states that host the early contests. Warner will be out of office starting in 2006. Former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), another Democrat hoping to upend the Clinton train, is already out of office.

But in a party with a history of nominating heretofore obscure governors, nobody is writing Schweitzer off just yet.

“It’s a huge leap to go from being the governor of Montana to a presidential campaign in a couple of years,” Lehane said. “On the other hand, the guy seems to be a huge talent. He could be the Jimmy Carter of 2008.”

UPDATE: (Bob): Sirota has more at the Huffington Post.

Posted at 11:22 PM in 2008 President - Democrats, Montana, Site News | Technorati

Wednesday, July 06, 2005

2008: Western Democratic Primary

Posted by Bob Brigham

Our friends at Western Democrat have spent a good deal of blog-inches talking about a potential 2008 Western Democratic Primary. In the late 90's, there was a similiar push geared towards the 2000 election (since it would be an open seat), but it flopped. Eight years later, we are in a similiar situation, yet further away from the goal. That needs to change, people need to get the job done. Now that Dan Kemmis is writing about this in the western papers, hopefully it will get some traction. From David Sirota:

Few argue that the Democratic Party needs a shakeup - and former Montana House Speaker Dan Kemmis says there's no better idea than staging a Western Democratic presidential primary in 2008. It's time for some of the states in this region to play a pivotal role in shaping the party, and being a critical part of the presidential primary is just the trick.

Kari Chrisholm reminds us of the score:

Since 1960, the convention has been in California twice (SF 1984, LA 2000) but otherwise never west of Chicago.

Kemmis in the Denver Post:

The Democratic National Committee has created a commission to see if changes in the primary calendar can help Democrats choose presidential candidates with greater nationwide appeal. At a meeting in Chicago in May, the commission heard three proposals to accomplish that, all involving the regional clustering of primaries.

The most compelling of these proposals came from a group called Democrats for the West. They backed a plan that had been endorsed last year by the bipartisan Western Governors' Association, calling for a simultaneous primary or caucus in the eight Mountain West states of Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming.

Kemmis has quite a case:

Partisan motivations will naturally be at work in all of this. Western Democrats believe a Western primary could help generate some electoral votes in the region. As Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo., wrote to the Democratic National Committee's commission, "In presidential elections, we are often viewed by party leaders, national political pundits and other national 'experts' as a 'Republican Red Sea' impossible to cross, like a great desert more to be endured than embraced."

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., set the record straight, reminding the commission that "Democrats can win in Western states as evidenced by the recent ballot victories in Montana, Colorado and Nevada." Jerry Brady, an announced Democratic candidate for governor of Idaho, told the commission, "Our request for an early, regionwide primary and caucus season is ... based on the conviction that the time is right to capitalize on rapid gains already made."

Indeed, the timing is perfect. Sirota reminds us of the challenge and the benefits:

Sure, this will threaten the consulting class in Washington that has made a career out of running the same tired campaigns in the same primary states. And sure, it might make the usual suspects who are mentioned as candidates in 2008 nervous - but that's the point. It's time for some new blood, and for some other states to make their mark on the Democratic Party.

Posted at 10:18 AM in 2008 President - Democrats | Technorati

Wednesday, June 29, 2005

Dems 2008: Biden Starts a PAC

Posted by Bob Brigham

Senator Joe Biden has started a new PAC and website ~ www.UniteOurStates.com. The theme seems to be that Biden can unite, which he recently proved after he attacked Howard Dean. The problem is that Biden united people against him, which probably isn't what the credit card industry's lapdog had in mind.

Posted at 12:51 PM in 2008 President - Democrats | Comments (1) | Technorati

Tuesday, June 28, 2005

Dems 2008: Hillary and the DLC

Posted by Bob Brigham

Swing State Project founder DavidNYC saves his best stuff for Daily Kos:

To me, it doesn't really matter what Clinton's role in the DLC is. What matters is the message that this move sends. No matter how many times Ed Kilgore tries to tell us that our disgust with the DLC is misplaced, most of us won't soon forget the frequency and vigor with which Al From baselessly bashed Howard Dean, his supporters, and by extension, much of the progressive activist base.

I'm keeping an open mind about 2008 - I definitely do not have a favorite candidate, or even a group of favorites. I recognize that different candidates will try to position themselves differently, and I am not demanding fealty to the netroots. (I know as well as anyone that the blogosphere is not the be all, end all of politics.) But if and when Hillary Clinton tries to reach out to us, it's going to be hard for me to forget that she's aligned herself with Al From and the DLC.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, a candidate for President doesn't want to play porter with Al From's baggage. Paybacks are a bitch and I for one have very little tolerance for the DLC triangulation technique of attacking fellow Democrats to try to appear moderate.

As Stirling says:

I Believe that the Democratic Party will not win elections until Democrats go after Republicans with the same joy they go after fellow Democrats.

That is the problem with the DLC -- they are only relevant to the extent they triangulate against other Democrats. When the Democratic Party needs them (i.e. nuclear option), they are nowhere to be found.

The DLC is in debt for the hatchet job against (now DNC Chairman) Howard Dean and in 2007 the bill will come due. Under the turnabout is fair play rule this is certainly valid and the score will not only be settled, but settled with interest. Bayh, Vilsack, Clinton...it doesn't really matter who, for the result is the same when one lies down with dogs.

Posted at 12:18 PM in 2008 President - Democrats | Technorati

Monday, June 27, 2005

Warner Flips, then Flops...Breaking Hand

Posted by Bob Brigham

From The Guardian:

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) - Gov. Mark R. Warner broke his bill-signing hand Monday in a spill from his bicycle.

Warner, 50, was treated at a hospital after suffering two broken bones in his right hand, said press secretary Kevin Hall. [...]

Warner lost control as he was approaching a railroad track and holding a water bottle in one hand, leaving him unable to apply pressure evenly to brakes for the front and rear wheels, Hall said. Warner apparently squeezed the front brakes too hard, flipping the bike.

I'm trying not to laugh, really, I am.

Hat Tip to David Boyle.

Posted at 05:04 PM in 2008 President - Democrats | Technorati

Dems 2008: Evan Bayh Blog

Posted by Bob Brigham

Senator Even Bayh now has a blog. It will be interesting to see if such efforts are successful in countering the notion that he's a DLC tool. Blogs are powerful, but not magical, so I'm not holding my breath...

Posted at 02:56 PM in 2008 President - Democrats | Comments (1) | Technorati

Thursday, June 02, 2005

Dems-2008: John Edwards Netroots Outreach

Posted by Bob Brigham

Over at the The American Prospect, Garance Franke-Ruta lands an important scoop:

John Edwards isn't just taking to blogging like a fish to water over at TPMCafe, he's also doing some pretty serious outreach to those who occupy the new media space more generally. Last night the former vice-presidential candidate had a bunch of the political bloggers over for dinner at his D.C. house, I'm told, to meet with him, his internet team, and his wife. Attendees included: Taegan Goddard, Matt Stoller, Stirling Newberry, Ezra Klein, and Oliver Willis, among others.

Focusing on the blogosphere is a pretty smart way for Edwards to keep his name in print and before the eyes of the mainstream media over the next few years. And with Howard Dean declining an '08 run, th