A community driven blog looking for a few good front-page bloggers. Just register and begin posting Diaries immediately. The best will be promoted to front page status.
Cartograms scaled by population, pre and post the midterm elections. The green represents Bernie Sanders (who caucused with Democrats), and there are five red districts. Cartograms designed by bschak at Daily Kos. As he notes, "Chris Shays looks mighty lonely."
(Personally I think it's the President's disrespectful words towards Webb and his son that are the story in this exchange. - promoted by Matt Browner Hamlin)
Can you picture our Junior Senator ever having an exchange like this with the President?
At a recent White House reception for freshman members of Congress, Virginia's newest senator tried to avoid President Bush. Democrat James Webb declined to stand in a presidential receiving line or to have his picture taken with the man he had often criticized on the stump this fall. But it wasn't long before Bush found him.
"How's your boy?" Bush asked, referring to Webb's son, a Marine serving in Iraq.
"I'd like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President," Webb responded, echoing a campaign theme.
"That's not what I asked you," Bush said. "How's your boy?"
"That's between me and my boy, Mr. President," Webb said coldly, ending the conversation on the State Floor of the East Wing of the White House.
Well, of course this conversation would never occur with Lieberman - he never served and neither does his family. But even on issues he may disagree on, he'd much rather make jokes and pat his back (and get a peck on the cheek). As Colbert might say... no balls.
(And how patronizing is it for Bush to bring up Webb's son - which he knew was at the least a thorny way to start a conversation? And how much of a pompous dick do you have to be to respond with the "That's not what I asked" comment?)
Webb may not be the most progressive guy, the bluest of the blue (though his stance on fair trade and economic fairness is really, really encouraging to me), but he's not afraid to draw a stark contrast between the President and himself. I can personally put aside any concerns about Webb's pro-guns position, or any other social issues, when I see a comment like this:
"I'm not particularly interested in having a picture of me and George W. Bush on my wall," Webb said in an interview yesterday in which he confirmed the exchange between him and Bush. "No offense to the institution of the presidency, and I'm certainly looking forward to working with him and his administration. [But] leaders do some symbolic things to try to convey who they are and what the message is."
I suppose it's only a matter of time until Lieberman accuses Admiral / Senator Webb of being a partisan polarizer who wants to gain political advantage instead of Getting Things Done. Oh, and he's undermining the creditibily of the Commander In Chief and wants Al Qaeda to win.
Chris Bowers of MyDD.com posted these yesterday for other's consideration. They're based on real rather than idealistic notions of how to improve progressive politics within the two-party system as it's presently constituted.
(Realpolitik (German: real ("realistic", "practical" or "actual") and Politik ("politics")) is a term used to describe politics based on strictly practical rather than idealistic notions, and practiced without any "sentimental illusions".)
What do you think?
* 1. The Democratic Party is the primary vessel of the progressive coalition. It is impossible to enact real change without an electoral apparatus within your movement. In a two-party system, it is thus necessary to adopt one of the two parties as the electoral vessel of your coalition.
* 2. Within the coalition, intra-party democracy must always be adhered to. All party nominees must be determined by an elective primary open to all registered members of the party in the relevant district. The winner of the primary must always be supported by all members of the party apparatus, and all rank and file members should vote for the nominee (especially those who voted in the primary).
* 3. Party elections should be fair and open to all members of the party, and no one should ever be forced or muscled off of a ballot for a party office or nomination for public office.
* 4. There are no litmus tests to join the coalition. No one has to read or sign off on any document stating support for a particular policy. If someone wants to join, registering as a Democrat should be the only requirement.
* 5. Under no circumstances should any member of the party apparatus support any member of any opposing coalition, (in other words, any other political party).
* 6. Outside of issues relating to corruption, Democrats must never criticize each other in the same manner that Republicans criticize Democrats.
* 7. No Democrat should ever publicly call any Democrat unelectable, or publicly rank candidates based on perceived electability.
* 8. Don't expect the party to change on it's own. Be prepared and willing to change it yourself.
Study finds the more psychotic the voter, the more likely they were to vote for Bush.
Now where was this study done?
[Christopher Lohse], a social work master's student at Southern Connecticut State University, says he has proven what many progressives have probably suspected for years: a direct link between mental illness and support for President Bush.
…Lohse's study, backed by SCSU Psychology professor Jaak Rakfeldt and statistician Misty Ginacola, found a correlation between the severity of a person's psychosis and their preferences for president: The more psychotic the voter, the more likely they were to vote for Bush.
Senator Christopher Dodd has written a letter to President Bush asking him not to implement the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (aka the torture bill, aka the habeas corpus bill) until after Donald Rumsfeld has been replaced as Secretary of Defense. Dodd is making the incredibly reasonable request that a lame-duck SecDef not make sweeping policy changes that a new congress and a new SecDef might undo within weeks of implementation. The Effective Terrorist Prosecution Act is Dodd's legislation to neuter the MCA and it should receive prompt consideration in January. A fight with Dodd over Rumsfeld's disaster policy would just be sour grapes by the Bush administration.
November 28, 2006
Dear President Bush:
I am writing to urge you to refrain from any action that would essentially implement Public Law 109-366, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, until the new Secretary of Defense has been confirmed and has had the opportunity to undertake his own review of this statute and related draft implementing regulations. I strongly believe that terrorists who seek to destroy America must be punished for any wrongs they commit against this country. But in my view, in order to sustain America's moral authority and win a lasting victory against our enemies, such punishment must be meted out only in accordance with the rule of law.
It is my belief that the provisions of the Military Commissions Act run counter to these very aims, and may actually undermine the judicial system established by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Moreover, having thoroughly examined the provisions of this controversial law and consulted various military legal authorities, I remain convinced that its hasty implementation might leave U.S. servicemen and women unprotected by the safeguards of the Geneva Conventions and vulnerable to abuse overseas.
With the nomination of a new Secretary of Defense, I believe that you took a commendable step toward establishing a new direction in U.S. national security policy, and, what I hope is a renewed commitment to universally accepted principles of human rights. To prosecute America's war on terrorism, it is my view that our new Secretary of Defense will have to thoroughly vet the provisions of the Military Commissions Act. In so doing, he should consult Congress as well as members of the Judge Advocate General's Corps to establish an effective system for bringing terrorists to justice that ensures compliance with our international obligations while promoting the rule of law.
I appreciate your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD
United States Senator
A similar letter to Rumsfeld is below the fold. The press release is here. Dodd explains some of his justifications for wanting to act rightly on the MCA in this video from a couple weeks ago.
Seems like Speaker of the House James Amann was on WTIC trying his best to spin his experience with the bloggers.
It is simply amazing how Amann spins the whole "I'll crush them" episode to give the impression that he was ambushed by bloggers when anyone who has seem the video knows that this ws not the case.
Let's take this one step at a time...
First off, after LOSING THE PRIMARY to Ned Lamont (making him the Democratic nominee for Senate), Joe Lieberman was NO LONGER running as a Democrat but rather as a candidate running under a new political party called Connecticut for Lieberman.
Unlike the entire leadership of the Connecticut Democratic Party, it seems like Amann obviously didn't understand the importance of party unity if the Democrats had any chance in capturing all the state Congressional seats.
I wonder if you would have tried that crap if Richard Blumenthal ran against Joe Lieberman and beat him in the primary...I think not. This was about an outsider like Lamont beating a member of the "club" and you couldn't stand it. Instead of doing the right thing and stepping down as Speaker before throwing you "support" behind you man, you chose to spit in the face of the entire Party and don't think anyone will forget (or forgive) you for that.
Second, Ned Lamont's candidacy against Joe Lieberman wasn't exclusively because of Lieberman's Iraq war stance. Unlike other Democrats in Congress who supported the war, Democrats in Connecticut who supported Lamont in the primary disliked Lieberman because he has continuously undermined the Democratic Party. People like Amann like to defend his choice to support Lieberman using the "one issue" excuse which is clearly not the case (just like the rationale behind getting rid of Amann in 2008 will not solely be because of his unwavering support for Lieberman).
(Bumped. Check out the update below. - promoted by Matt Browner Hamlin)
Update:See below for a response from Matt Singer of the Progressive States Network
I first learned about Progressive States Network when they were still PLAN (Progressive Legislative Action Network) and more often than not I'll still refer to the organization that I get weekly emails from as PLAN. I'll try my best not to slip up in this post. Progressive States is an organization that is taking the fight for better government and progressive empowerment in the halls of government to the state level. The federal government is not the only place where we can make sure that workers' rights, fair taxation, protecting families, and ensuring health care for all are protected.
The conservative and Christianist movements have used state houses to advance their regressive agenda for over three decades. Progressive States Network aims to make progress in these same halls through grassroots organizing and using legislation to advance our shared causes. They recently unveiled their 2007 legislative agenda, which includes:
Progressive States lays out detailed analyses of both what policy changes could be made in each of these areas to improve the lives of Americans nationwide and makes clear the ways these issues are politically viable for Democrats. While there are clear benefits for progressive candidates to campaign on these issues, the purpose is to pass legislation that works now.
WEST HAVEN - Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman Monday tamped down expectations that the Iraq Study Group will provide a template to halt the deteriorating situation in Iraq, as he remains skeptical of what is expected to be its key recommendation - direct talks with Iran and Syria.
The senator made his comments to the press after touring the Errera Veterans Administration Community Care Center, which provides housing, job, mental health and substance abuse counseling for veterans.
The study group, headed by former GOP Secretary of State James Baker and former U.S. Rep. Lee H. Hamilton, a Democrat, met Monday and are meeting again today, to hash out a new strategy to end the spiraling violence in Iraq, which left 3,709 civilians dead in October, the highest toll since the war began.
Lieberman said the group "can play a very constructive role," but it is only one piece of information, as the Pentagon and the White House have commissioned separate reports.
Baker, for several weeks now, has emphasized the wisdom of America talking to its foes as it tries to stabilize Iraq. "It's not appeasement to talk to your enemies," he said on the ABC news program, "This Week."
But Lieberman doesn't follow that logic.
"I am very skeptical of the value of having direct discussions with Iran and Syria about how to do better in Iraq," Lieberman said. "The notion that the road to peace or stability in Iraq is through Damascus or Tehran is puzzling to me."
What is the harm in TALKING???? Talking is NOT appeasement. Why does Lieberman oppose any sort of diplomatic approach to solve our problems preferring, instead a path of indiscriminate violence and brutality? I really get the impresssion Joe Lieberman fears the threat of peace.
My Left Nutmeg
