by Matt Stoller

This is a guest-post.  One of our underused media assets is Hollywood.  I asked my brother Nick, who co-wrote 'Fun with Dick and Jane', to chime in. I just saw it, and it's a very good smart film with a strongly liberal narrative.

Firstly, let's get the important stuff out of the way.  I'm Matt's brother, and I wrote "Fun with Dick and Jane."  It's very funny and you should all see it.  I guarantee you'll enjoy it.  I've written bad movies -- this isn't one of them.  Go to moviefone now!  Buy tickets! Tell your friends!  OK.  Now that I've plugged my movie, onto political discourse.

While the conservatives may have cornered the market on cable news and AM stations, the Limbaugh conspiracy theory really is true -- liberal Jews run Hollywood.  Conservatives have to search far and wide to find sympathetic talent (ie. why is Ron Silver on the road to becoming an ambassador?  That's not even B-list talent.)

It's depressing, but unsurprising, that in terms of things political, us Liberal Hollywood Jews (LHJs) have such a limited sway over how the country thinks on important issues.  That's where the Limbaugh conspiracy breaks down.  Hollywood may be liberal, but in the end, does anyone care what Warren Beaty thinks?  Of course not.  Nor should they. He's an old, rich, horny fool.  I might think he's a good actor, but I roll my eyes when he protests the Governator.

"Fun with Dick and Jane" (which, again, you should all see) has a relatively overt liberal message.  However, that message has received none, or very little, mention in the press.  Creatively, I discovered something interesting.  At the beginning of the process, I was incredibly excited to fill the film with political message (like in Hal Ashby's Shampoo).  However, every Gore-Lieberman poster (the movie takes places in 2000) and Bush reference takes one out of the movie, distracts from the laughs.  Movies are supposed to be entertaining.  Anything that distracts from entertainment feels preachy and extraneous.

In the end, there is no intersection between Hollywood and the Democratic Party (or none that I have noticed besides that of fundraising).  This is a missed opportunity of gargantuan proportions.  There are hundreds of writers and actors and directors who are angry and who want to do something besides give money.  We are expert message machines offering our (generally overpriced) services for free and the Democratic Party does not use us.  We create villains and good guys, we write America's jokes, we create the narrative of America, the lines that are repeated by boys and girls, men and women, over lunch and the water cooler and we have been left completely un-consulted.

Why didn't Michael Bay direct an awesome action adventure ad where John Kerry singlehandedly blows up the terrorist insurgency with a solemn nod of his granite-chiseled chin?  Why weren't the writers of SNL and the Daily Show brought in to create hilarious, ruthless anti-Bush spots that would have been forwarded all around the internet?  Why wasn't James Brooks hired to create a touching, pull-the-heartstrings Kerry-Edwards-cares-about-the-voter commercial? This schlock works -- remember that 9/11 Bush ad where he's holding the crying girl?  With the Hollywood talent the Democratic party has at its disposal, we could have blown that spot out of the water, made it look like a mediocre episode of Touched by an Angel next to our sinking of the Titanic.   I don't care if you think "I am king of the world" is a cheesy line -- it made people cry.  Nothing Kerry said made people cry.   Except perhaps accidentally, out of boredom or pain.

During the 2004 election, Kerry's people had a brief meeting with the top writing talent in Hollywood and asked for jokes and message ideas.  Unsurprisingly, his campaign used none of it.  When the Democratic Party was thinking of their new slogan (A Better Choice, is that even it?  I can't remember, that's how good it is), why didn't they call us?  The Democratic Party has a lock on the hearts and minds of Hollywood and Hollywood has a deep understanding of how to create message -- so why not start using us?

Media :: Thu Dec 29th, 2005 at 12:49:33 PM EDT :: 95 Comments

by Matt Stoller

The TWU struck, and won.  They have to pay something for their health care, but instead of having to contribute to their pension they receive reimbursements for the overfunding of the pension.  And they get raises above the inflation rate.

More importantly, we all kept the right to organize, and kept the leverage of being able to strike.

UPDATE: Dereau has a great comment:

This Christmas, my previously zombie Republican cousins were giving everyone gifts of the anti Wal-Mart DVD.

Conversation was dominated by disgust at Pinkerton guard strike-breaking tactics being used in work camps from Guatemala to factories in China to Springfield Illinois' Wal-Mart. They were outraged.

Dems need to be seen as the only party associated with organized labor. They're currently not.

When I tried to sell the narrative that Republicans' long term goals include the destruction of Unions and workers' rights, the cousins countered with, "What have you Democrats done recently to stop it all?"

They don't connect fighting NAFTA, CAFTA, etc. with labor issues.

They asked what prominent Dems held the line with the TWU? I had no answer.

Did any?

I don't know. I'm actually curious, Democrats don't deserve unfair criticism. Jonathan? If anyone knows, please stick that in the comments.

Labor :: Thu Dec 29th, 2005 at 11:20:56 AM EDT :: 5 Comments

by Matt Stoller

From The Nation's John Nichols:

Here are this one columnist's picks for the Most Valuable Progressives of 2005:

* MVP -- U.S. Senate:

This is an easy category. While California Democrat Barbara Boxer deserves credit for refusing to go along with the certification of the dubious presidential election results from Ohio, and Arizona Republican John McCain merits praise for forcing the administration to back down from its pro-torture stance, there's no question that Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold was the essential senator of 2005. He was the first member of the chamber to call for a timetable to withdraw troops from Iraq -- a stance that initially was ridiculed but ultimately drew support from many of Feingold's fellow Democrats and even a few Republicans. And he ended the year by forging a bipartisan coalition that beat back the Bush administration's demand for the long-term extension of the Patriot Act, scoring one of the most significant wins for civil liberties that Congress has seen in years.

The anti-torture amendment is pure theater.  And McCain is not a progressive.

General 2008 :: Thu Dec 29th, 2005 at 12:16:15 AM EDT :: 36 Comments

by Matt Stoller

This polling data is not a surprise.

Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 23% disagree.

Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Americans say they are following the NSA story somewhat or very closely.

Just 26% believe President Bush is the first to authorize a program like the one currently in the news. Forty-eight percent (48%) say he is not while 26% are not sure.

First of all, almost everyone agrees the President and the government has the right to listen in on suspected terrorists.  Hell, they can even listen in on ordinary ole' criminal suspects.  That's not the point.  The issue is whether the President can order the government do so without a warrant and expressly against statutes written by Congress.

In other words, can the President break the law whenever he wants to?

It's becoming clearer and clearer we're going to need to do our own polling on this.

UPDATE: Americablog analyzes the politics. These are awful numbers for Bush.

Even I would probably approve of the NSA listening in on phone calls between suspected terrorists and "people living in the US" - notice the survey question didn't even say "Americans," it said "people living in the US," a description that would get EVEN MORE support for spying (i.e., people are more apt to approve NSA spying on foreigners in the US rather than US citizens in the US).

That number should have been in the 90 percentile and up, Americans who support the NSA eavesdropping on conversations with suspected terrorists. Yet it was only in the low 60s. Something's up.

And may I also add that the poll question has nothing to do with the current scandal. It says nothing about whether the administration should be able to break the law in doing such eavesdropping, nor whether the administration should be permitted to do such eavesdropping without having first obtained a court order. Again, each of those added facts would presumably lower the poll number considerably.

Again, that number should have been in the 90s. The fact that only 6 out of 10 Americans are willing to agree to such a broad question, to me, says that Bush is not on solid ground on this issue at all.

Media :: Wed Dec 28th, 2005 at 04:36:54 PM EDT :: 9 Comments

by Matt Stoller

One note, before I begin.  Can you put a little something about yourself in your profile?  A couple of sentences on your political experience, where you've worked, where you live.  It'll be nice for the community to know that so we can better understand where you're coming from.  Also, for anyone considering signing up, please use your real name if you can.  It makes for a much more civil place, and all of us front-pagers do it.  If anyone wants to change their username to their real name, put that in the comments and put your username and then your real name and I will make the change.  Or email me at stoller at gmail.com.

Now for the posts I read this morning.

Juan Cole explains the top ten myths about Iraq.

DavidNYC points to this new blog, 2008 Democratic Convention Watch.  Having worked at the 2004 Democratic National Convention (I helped set up their blog and credentialled the bloggers), I'm happy to see it.

Ian Welsh discusses the Canadian election, blow-by-blow.

The Gallup Poll founder's house is being restored.  Pollsters are officially famous.  Ironically, he grew up in Iowa.

40% of Philadelphians think their city is corrupt.  My gut says that when people say corruption is a bipartisan problem, the mean that corruption on a local level is rampant.

Revere is noting that the threat of Avian Flu is causing Israeli's and Palestinians to work together.

Bob Geiger explains why he took down his sidebar ad for Hillary Clinton.

Finally, Steve Clemons has a brilliant post in which he describes how political correctness in covering war leads to brutality and a twisted view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

What are you reading?

Blogosphere :: Wed Dec 28th, 2005 at 09:40:47 AM EDT :: 21 Comments

by Matt Stoller

Atrios pointed to this article on Move America Forward, a right-wing group running TV commercials.  It's time for the FEC to put a stop to this bullshit.  This is clear pay-to-play electoral work, and it's legalized because the FEC and reformer groups refuse to make it a priority.  

In July, with the administration facing a torrent of negative media coverage of the war in Iraq, Move America Forward sent five conservative radio-talk-show hosts to U.S. military bases in Baghdad for a week of upbeat broadcasts. Ms. Morgan says that, during her time in Iraq, she rode up and down the so-called highway of death leading from Baghdad's airport seven times to prove to her listeners that it wasn't as dangerous as media reports suggested.

In addition to his Iraq political work in the U.S., Mr. Russo has an open-ended political-advertising contract with the Kurdish Regional Government in northern Iraq for whom he produces advertisements that run in the U.S. seeking investment in Kurdistan. Some critics accuse him of having a vested financial interest in prolonging the U.S. presence there.

This is crazy.  John Aravosis points out how crazy.  He asks good questions.  Are foreign agents trying to trick us into continuing the war?

Though I share his worry, I have a slightly different angle on it.  Why shouldn't Move America Forward have to disclose its donors?  I've asked that question about 'Americans for Job Security', which doesn't disclose its donors or consider itself subject to campaign finance law.

This is crazy.  The FEC is rendering itself completely irrelevant in terms of regulating corporate money.  There's only one thing to do - blogger ethics conference, stat!

Money :: Wed Dec 28th, 2005 at 01:14:31 AM EDT :: 7 Comments

by Matt Stoller

Minnesota is a state where grassroots organizing made a huge difference in 2004.  And that infrastructure is still making a difference, electing a new State Senator and state House member in an oddly scheduled special election.

Tonight, Democrats were victorious in two special elections in Minnesota.  The decision by Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty to schedule two special elections during the holidays - a move many view as politically motivated - did not stop voters from coming out to support Tarryl Clark (DFL) for State Senate in the 15th District and Larry Haws (DFL) for the Minnesota House
election in District 15B.

"For the second month in a row, Democrats in Minnesota have stood up to the GOP's underhanded tactics," said Michael Davies, Executive Director of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee.  "While the Governor chose to play games with special elections, voters in Minnesota made it clear who represents their values."

The win by Clark expanded the Democratic majority in the Minnesota Senate to 38 seats while the GOP holds only 29.  Haws' victory in the uncontested
election in Minnesota House District, allowed the Democrats to maintain their hold on 66 seats to the Republicans' 68.

This is not the first time Pawlenty played around with special election dates.  On November 22, two days before Thanksgiving, Terri Bonoff (DFL) overcame Pawlenty's electoral games, winning an election for the State Senate seat in Minnesota's 43rd District.

There's a fight right now in the party between organizer-based political operatives and media-based political operatives.  While organizing has a lot to recommend it, mass media politics is a lot more profitable, a lot less work, and much more 'controllable' by a few central individuals.  Organizer-based politics is more work, less profitable for the organizer, yet ultimately, it allows you to drive turnout for special elections and triumph over electoral gamesmanship.  Organizer-based politics also tends to be much more progressive than mass media politics, since it relies on people rather than flows of large dollar checks.

Minnesota's history of people-based organizing, from the populist movement and carried through Paul Wellstone, shapes the politics here.  In 2004, despite the massive bleeding on a Federal level, progressive Democrats won in Minnesota.  Not just Democrats, but progressive ones.  There is of course Camp Wellstone as an organizing center for them.

Five graduates of Camp Wellstone, which does just this kind of recruitment and training, won local races in Minnesota this year. "We have to have better candidates all up and down the ticket," Blodgett says. "We're going to have to take back our country one state at a time." He notes that in his state, Democrats gained ground in the state legislature. "In Minnesota, we can be heartened because we pushed the Republican tide back," he said. "If you think about local and state politics, it's not so bad. Washington and Congress is kind of out of our hands now."

DavidNYC has more on the victories.  Big picture, though, this is a win for organizer politics, and a loss for mass media politics.  Oh, and the DLCC kicks ass.  That's something you don't hear very much, but as far as I can tell, they are focused and effective.

Democrats :: Wed Dec 28th, 2005 at 12:58:29 AM EDT :: 5 Comments

by Matt Stoller

The same day Thomas Sowell calls for Congressmen to be paid $1 million/year, Jon Corzine says he won't accept a salary for being New Jersey's Governor.  That's one way to begin closing what is turning out to be a massive budget deficit.

Steve Benen, filling in for Kevin Drum, doesn't like the Congressional pay raise idea.  I don't know about whether Congressmen should be paid more, but staffers should definitely be paid more.  You simply cannot hire good diverse talent for the 20K/year typical starting salary on the Hill, and the problem gets worse as competent people reach their 30s and 40s and want homes and whatnot.  Our laws are sometimes written by trust fund kids in their 20s, or kids who also have to moonlight as waiters and waitresses.  I'm leaving out lobbyists and think tanks, which is basically a way of outsourcing lawmaking to get around the talent problem (which Newt Gingrich created when he axed a lot of Congressional overhead staff).

The whole system is nuts, but intentionally so.

Misc :: Tue Dec 27th, 2005 at 06:04:28 PM EDT :: 15 Comments

by Matt Stoller

The Patriot Act was actually two separate battles for the Democrats.  One was to filibuster its current form, and the other was to extend it for some short period of time while the kinks could be worked out.

It's worth pointing out that Democrats won both battles.  The Republicans didn't want the filibuster, and they didn't want the temporary extension.  They lost on both counts, with the New York Senators playing a key role.

Senate Democrats forced a temporary extension instead of the permanent extension Republicans had sought. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid gave Schumer credit for the win.

So don't fall for the bullshit that the President got his Patriot Act through the Senate.  He didn't.  The Democrats won this one, just another in a long string of Democratic victories. Be proud of this one. Our victories actually result in better legislation for the country and make us all safer.

Senate 2006 :: Tue Dec 27th, 2005 at 05:40:21 PM EDT :: 6 Comments

by Matt Stoller

DavidNYC has a nice analysis of the Montana race, pointing to this article in the Montana Billings Gazette on Burns' declining poll numbers.  He's not a well-liked Senator, having the highest disapproval rating in the nation according to SurveyUSA.  Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post sees Burns as vulnerable, largely because of the culture of corruption being tied directly to Burns through his financial relationship with Jack Abramoff.  Burns has been caught in a pay-to-play scandal, and is now lying about it.

The Montana Democratic Party is taking advantage of this situation aggressively, with this ad.  The aggressive party-building work they are doing in Montana is paying off; Burns is in play.

If the election were held today, Montana voters favored Burns over Morrison by a 46 to 40 percent margin, with 14 percent undecided, the poll showed. In a Gazette State Poll conducted in May, Burns enjoyed a 49 to 34 percent lead over Morrison, with 17 percent undecided....

Burns leads the other top Democrat, state Senate President Jon Tester, by a 49 to 35 percent margin, with 16 percent undecided, in the December poll. The May poll showed Burns over Tester by a 50 to 26 percent margin, with 24 percent undecided.

First of all, forget about the Morrison/Tester race for a minute.  From just these numbers, you can't conclude much about either candidate except that Morrison has run for statewide office before, so he has higher name ID.  I won't play the 'electability' game here, because both are electable.

The numbers do say a lot about Burns, and show that he's vulnerable.  Montana is deep red, but Burns nearly lost in 2000 (to Schweitzer).  So far, Burns is keeping his base together, since he hasn't really dropped if you factor in MOE (which is four).  A little bit is peeling off; the big news is that undecided voters aren't liking Burns at all.  

Right now, Burns is the issue because there is no opponent.  So it's clear that people are making up their minds to vote against Burns.  This fits with the conventional wisdom that Cillizza puts out - Burns and Abramoff are clearly tied together, and one prominent paper asked Burns to resign.

Burns' response?  Whining.

"The only poll that truly matters is taken the first Tuesday of next November,'' said Burns' campaign spokesman John Brueggeman. "Conrad has been subjected to negative attacks since August and unfortunately we'll see nothing but more of the same in the year to come."

Yeah, that kind of happens when you value lobbyists over constituents. I hear Burns is going to drop out.

Senate 2006 :: Tue Dec 27th, 2005 at 05:37:35 PM EDT :: 10 Comments

by Bob Brigham

I was going to blog the article, but Bob already did. - Matt

Mark "Mystery Pollster" Blumenthal has a holiday present for poll geeks in the latest Public Opinion Quarterly. As a blogger and pollster, Blumenthal convinced POQ to provide the article free of charge on the web (html and PDF -- as an aside, I'm glad to see somebody understand that whenever possible a PDF should only be placed in addition to the HTML version).

The headline sums it up: Towards an Open-Source Methodology, What We Can Learn from the Blogosphere.

Click "Extended Entry" for the rest...

Diaries :: Bob Brigham's diary :: Tue Dec 27th, 2005 at 08:42:57 AM EDT :: Extended Entry (1272 words in entry) :: 3 Comments

by Matt Stoller

Can anyone find the methodological problem with this online poll from Fox News?

(via Newshounds)

Misc :: Tue Dec 27th, 2005 at 08:00:52 AM EDT :: 14 Comments

by Matt Stoller

I read this article in the Arizona Daily Star, and I literally thought it was a joke.

"Let the student decide." With those well-chosen words John McCain summed up his view on the teaching of "intelligent design" along with evolution in public schools.

Even -- or perhaps especially -- with controversial topics, Arizona's ubiquitous senior U.S. senator has an uncanny knack for saying things his audience wants to hear. In this case, Mr. Straight Talk was imparting words of wisdom in an interview with MTV News.

A lot of malleable, future voters watch MTV. It's where they get tidbits of the real world between episodes of "Cribs" and "Pimp My Ride." It's hard to imagine any of them disagreeing with the Man Who Would Be President.

McCain probably wouldn't champion the same letting-students-decide approach for, say, homework or blowing off algebra. No matter. He came across as an entirely reasonable and rational father figure on MTV.

"There's great uncertainty out there," said the senator who knows best. "We have to provide a lot more certainty for young Americans. That's my job."

In case you've forgotten, John McCain, who backs spying on Americans without a court order, also backs the teaching of creationism in schools.

And they say it's libruls that lets them kids run amock, teaching 'em the stupid version of history in which we lost some warz and always getting kids to talk about their feelings 'n self-esteem 'n stuff.  I guess not.  So next time some mean ole' conservative sez that kidz needs discipline, you can fire back at 'em 'i dunno about that i say like john mccain that we gotta let the kids decide.'

UPDATE: Roy Temple has more.

General 2008 :: Tue Dec 27th, 2005 at 12:30:24 AM EDT :: 8 Comments

by Scott Shields

That's basically the question Robert Steinback asked this morning in his column for the The Miami Herald. It's a question I know quite a few of us have asked over the past four years. In fact, I know more than a few who have answered that question with a mournful or angry "yes." It's a question I expect many more people to begin to ask themselves in the new year as attention shifts from holiday shopping and visiting relatives to more serious concerns of war, peace, and democracy. (via BoingBoing)

A few nights ago, I got into a bit of a spat with my Republican father about the current domestic spying scandal. His view is that warrantless domestic wiretapping was justified in the days after 9/11, as he feels it likely prevented further attacks and helped identify al Qaeda operatives in the United States. When pressed for examples, he could give none. When pressed on the issue of the skirting of the FISA courts, he could offer no support. Without any evidence, he still held onto the opinion that the President's actions were justified in the days after 9/11. What he never argued however, was that such domestic spying should have continued any further than the initial crisis period immediately following the attacks. Even for him, that's going too far.

This is what I expect to see more of from minimally-political America. The hardcore Bush supporters will never be swayed. They don't see the rank cowardice inherent in their hiding behind Daddy Bush's Constitution shredding. They don't hear the ghosts of Patrick Henry and Benjamin Franklin decrying their willingness to trade liberty for security. But I actually believe they're in the minority.

The more the Republican Party falls in line behind President Bush's illegal actions, the more they show the American electorate that they are not capable of responsibly leading this nation through trying times. We constantly hear from the Republicans that we're at war because terrorists hate our freedom. But if part of the conduct of that war on our side is to curtail that freedom, what's the point? Either way, America loses. Though things have seemed pretty dark for liberty and democracy over the past few years, that's not a lesson that will be completely lost on Americans moving into the next election cycle.

Ideology :: Tue Dec 27th, 2005 at 12:06:48 AM EDT :: 16 Comments

by Jonathan Singer

While the keys to the Senate were in the hands of Southern voters in 2004, with Republicans cementing control of the chamber by picking up five seats in the region that fall, it increasingly looks like the West could play a similar role in the 2006 midterms. Already, many GOP strategists believe that Maria Cantwell in Washington state is the Democrat most easily unseated next year, and similarly, Democratic strategists are looking to Arizona, Montana and Nevada to help their party retake the Senate in 2006.

New polling seems to buttress Democratic optimism about the West. First, Charles S. Johnson writes up the results of the latest Mason-Dixon poll out of Montana for the Billings Gazette.

Note that three-term incumbent Burns cannot crack 50 percent against either leading Democrat in the race despite the fact that relatively little is known about his relationship with indicted GOP superlobbyist Jack Abramoff. As more leaks out about Burns' ties to Abramoff -- which is highly possible given the reported investigation into the alleged "corruption scheme involving at least a dozen lawmakers and their former staff members" -- Burns' numbers aren't likely to jump up.

Burns is not the only Republican Senator in the West facing a difficult reelection bid. Today, Rasmussen Reports released numbers out of Arizona showing second-term GOP Senator Jon Kyl stuck at 50 percent against his well-funded Democratic challenger, Jim Pederson.

While a 20-point lead at this stage in the game is somewhat enviable, Kyl's inability to rise above 50 percent in a head-to-head matchup against Pederson -- coupled with his subpar approval rating (his approval spread has been halved from fourteen to seven points in just three months) -- means that this race is still wide open.

Though these races provide the Democrats with a great opportunity to retake the Senate in 2006, each of these Democratic candidates -- including multi-millionaire Jim Pederson -- stand at cash-on-hand disadvantages against the Republican incumbents.

The winter fundraising period ends on New Years Eve, meaning that every donation turned in before midnight Saturday will boost candidates' FEC filings (which, to an extent, are a gauge of a candidate's viability). So if you're even considering giving some of your Christmas money or Hanukkah gelt to a Democratic candidate -- in the West or anywhere across the country -- try to get it in before the end of the year.

Senate 2006 :: Mon Dec 26th, 2005 at 08:39:51 PM EDT :: 9 Comments