Stand For Something, Or Fall

11:46 pm EST March 16th, 2012 | Liberals | 40 Comments

First, go read Milt Shook’s piece on progressives, the Democratic Party, and how to win.

Okay. So, I totally disagree.

First, some background. As a progressive I concede I have things better than a lot based on who represents me in congress. First there’s Rep. Donna Edwards, then Sen. Ben Cardin and Sen. Barbara Mikulski. All good, progressive Democrats. Of the three, the one I tend to have the most issues with is Sen. Cardin due to his support for some absurd pro-newspaper tax and the SOPA nonsense. Nothing that makes him utterly compromised, just bones of contention. So, I have it good at the federal level. My representatives all believe in science, common sense economics, and civil rights.

Before the 2006 election, I was very much in Milt Shook’s camp. As far as I was concerned, anybody with a (D) after their name was good enough. I no longer believe that is the case.

Two reasons why: First, the rapid dissolution of the Democratic House majority. It lasted for all of four years. Compare to 40 years of Democratic control, then 12 years of Republican control in the previous 52 years. It was a rapid decline.

Secondly, even when Democrats had the majority in the House and the brief “supermajority” in the Senate, President Obama’s agenda was regularly usurped not by the opposition but by his own party. The size of the stimulus, the content of health care reform, etc. were subject to whims not only of the opposition party, but often from the blue dog faction of the Democratic party.

Wouldn’t life have been easier and the legislation more advanced if Obama had a progressive majority to work with?

That’s what I favor. Rather than voting for a Democrat and being scared off by the boogeyman of a conservative Republican, Democrats — and especially progressives within the Democratic party — should be working towards offering up strong progressives rather than slightly more humane Republican conservatives.

Will these candidates always win? No. Are there districts that are too conservative to crack? Quite possibly.

But I have this crazy idea that Democrats should stand up for certain, basic, Democratic Party ideals.

For me they include (but are not limited to): Preserving and defending social security, defending a woman’s rights to choose, being pro-civil rights, economic policies that balance growth with opportunity, and a national security policy that keeps the country safe and our morality intact.

Your mileage may differ.

What I don’t believe in is supporting candidates simply because they are Democrats.

I personally didn’t believe Ned Lamont was the best candidate, but in the 2006 Connecticut primary I found his position on the Iraq War far more in line with progressive principles than Joe Lieberman’s warmongering.

Right now in Nebraska the field has been cleared for Bob Kerrey, despite his previous advocacy for some form of cuts to social security, which I think should be a no-go.

Regardless of the issues, I think we progressives have to stand up for something more than “whatever the Democratic party offers me.”

That involves running progressive candidates at all levels, critiquing politicians for their anti-progress positions, and in general making up noise so that the party begins to understand that progressives have a say.

In 1964 after they lost in a landslide, conservative Republicans didn’t fade away. They didn’t start recruiting more Rockefeller Republicans in order to moderate. Instead, they got more conservative — to the point that today’s conservatives would consider late ’60s Republicans on par with Chairman Mao.

This also allows Republicans better allies once elected, a luxury leaders like President Obama haven’t been afforded. The right knows that whether it’s South Carolina (Haley) or New Jersey (Christie), its party faithful wants conservatives. Right now, Democrats know that whatever they give, progressives will lap it up out of fear of the conservative boogeyman.

That shouldn’t be good enough anymore. We should demand better.

Remedial First Amendment For Conservatives (And Bill Maher)

9:18 am EST March 11th, 2012 | Conservative | 204 Comments

Here, in full, is the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Our constitution explicitly says that you can say whatever you want to say without government interference. What it does not guarantee is any sort of platform to make that speech. The first amendment does not guarantee a right to a radio show, a tv show, a newspaper column, a website, or a stage show. It says that you can say things and the government has no right to squelch that speech.

Why do people not understand this? Conservatives, upset at the growing advertiser boycott of Rush Limbaugh’s hate speech, insist his first amendment rights are being infringed upon. No, they aren’t. Limbaugh is as free as a bird to be as hateful and misogynistic as he wants to be. That said, if people object to his speech and communicate those sentiments to his advertisers and they in turn choose to disassociate themselves from him — nobody’s rights are being infringed.

The market that conservatives claim to love so much, is in fact working.

Washington Redskins Give Up Future Of The Washington Redskins

10:18 pm EST March 10th, 2012 | Sports | 10 Comments

“I hope he poops rainbows.”

That was my first thought when I read the news that the Washington Redskins had given up their 2012, 2013 and 2014 first round draft picks for a 22 year old man who last season played for a college football team that went 10-3.

Everyone I’ve spoken to about this who watches college football assures me that Robert Griffin III is great. Maybe he is. Maybe.

But unless he is the clone of Joe Montana I fail to see how any player is worth three first round picks.

Spurned by Peyton Manning (thank God) it appears Dan Snyder has decided for the 20,000th time to give up the future of the Redskins in favor of building something that lasts. As a lifelong fan, I’m tired of it. Since the Redskins last won the Super Bowl in 1992, every team in our division except the Redskins has played in the Super Bowl.

This includes the flipping Arizona Cardinals, who aren’t even in the NFC East anymore.

The closest the Redskins have gotten has been the second round of the playoffs. Every year they put substandard product on the field and it is embarassing. There are people in their twenties who have never seen the Redskins play in the Super Bowl.

Between my birth and my fifteenth birthday the Redskins won 3 Super Bowls.

I bleed burgundy and gold, and I hope to goodness I’m totally wrong. If I am, I’ll be the first to wear an RGIII jersey and kiss his feet and argue for him to be immortalized in Canton.

Snyder better open his checkbook and get Griffin an elite wide receiver, because another year of Santana Moss isn’t going to cut it. And an offensive line to protect their new franchise QB couldn’t hurt.

But three first round picks (plus more) for an untested college quarterback from the Big 12? Ugh.

Topic: Redskins

Illegally Leaking Classified Data Isn’t “Aggressive Journalism”

10:40 am EST February 23rd, 2012 | Media | 117 Comments

ABC’s Jake Tapper makes what I think is a bad comparison here as he takes the Obama administration to task for praising “aggressive journalism” while at the same time pursuing prosecutions against those who have leaked classified data. Tapper tells White House spokesman Jay Carney that “You want aggressive journalism abroad; you just don’t want it in the United States.” But an apple is not an orange.

Leaking classified information is illegal, and you should be prosecuted for doing so. I thought the Bush administration was right to prosecute leakers like this (by the way, they were doing the leaking themselves – Bush, Scooter Libby). Even if you believe that there is a moral right to releasing the classified data, it is a crime.

Now, I’ll certainly agree that the government classifies far too much information. The way to the heart of this problem is a policy of selective classification, whereas the government currently errs in favor of far too much secrecy.

VIDEO: Who Doesn’t Need A Gun That Can Take Out A Helicopter?

5:10 pm EST February 13th, 2012 | News | 42 Comments

Yes, you can buy a gun powerful enough to take out a helicopter. Without a background check. This is insane.

Hundreds of thousands of guns are for sale, on hundreds of websites. We responded and set up meetings at popular shopping malls. We bought everything from a police-grade pistol to a semiautomatic assault rifle. We did it over and over again, even hinting that our buyer is a criminal.

Within 12 hours, we bought eight dangerous guns – even a 50-caliber weapon so powerful it could take down a helicopter.

Remember, at gun stores, background checks are required, but online – nothing. Believe it or not, in most states it’s completely legal.

The Tea Party Loves Socialism, Fakes Otherwise

11:25 am EST February 12th, 2012 | Conservative | 43 Comments

Conservatism is a fraud.

This interesting article from the NY Times backs up what many on the left have said for some time. The right is jam-packed with hypocrites when it comes to the social safety net. They aren’t, in fact, rugged individualists out of some Ayn Rand novel, but in fact just like everyone else — benefitting from the safety net they demonize as socialism.

Ki Gulbranson owns a logo apparel shop, deals in jewelry on the side and referees youth soccer games. He makes about $39,000 a year and wants you to know that he does not need any help from the federal government.

He says that too many Americans lean on taxpayers rather than living within their means. He supports politicians who promise to cut government spending. In 2010, he printed T-shirts for the Tea Party campaign of a neighbor, Chip Cravaack, who ousted this region’s long-serving Democratic congressman.

Yet this year, as in each of the past three years, Mr. Gulbranson, 57, is counting on a payment of several thousand dollars from the federal government, a subsidy for working families called the earned-income tax credit. He has signed up his three school-age children to eat free breakfast and lunch at federal expense. And Medicare paid for his mother, 88, to have hip surgery twice.

Moron. All of them. It’s all about “mine, mine, mine” when in fact all of us are paying for their collective assistance. Conservatives claimed it was a “straw man” when President Obama talked about tea party protestors yelling that the government should get out of their social security, but it is a very real thing. Just like those Republican members of congress who described the stimulus as tyranny, but were right in front of the cameras when stimulus projects opened in their district.

I hate that these people are so hypocritical, that they’ve got an army of morons who — if they just stopped to THINK for a second, could make this country even better.

Conservatives Dead Set On Repeating 2004

6:25 pm EST February 11th, 2012 | Conservative | 6 Comments

It is downright eerie the way conservatives right now sound like liberals in 2004. From the NY Times report from CPAC:

The Republican nominee, it seemed, mattered less in their efforts to mobilize than their intense dislike of President Obama. In dozens of interviews at the conference, which was scheduled to end Saturday afternoon, people expressed preferences for Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum or, less often, Newt Gingrich or the absent Ron Paul. But every one of them said the same thing, often in the same words: “Anybody but Obama.”

I hope they keep down this road, because it is a loser strategy. In 2004, I was convinced that all the Democratic party needed was a warm body in order to beat Bush. And in John Kerry, that’s what we got and not much better.

The thing is, Mitt Romney is worse for the right than Kerry was for Bush. Kerry was at least consistently center-left throughout his congressional career. His major deviation was his vote in favor of the Iraq War, and even then he was in the majority of wrong-minded Senate Democrats.

Romney, on the other hand, has no record of consistency as a conservative. He’s been pro-choice, anti-Reagan, anti-assault weapon, and on and on and on.

The swing vote in America can smell it when the base is unenthusiastic about their nominee, and that sort of sentiment has legs. If the GOP base has to prop up a candidate whose core convictions change like a “lubricated weathervane” (as Jon Huntsman described it) — people will see that.

In 2004 we on the left assumed the mass of America hated Bush with the same intensity we did. Unfortunately that wasn’t the case in the fall of 2004. It took Bush’s second term to completely turn the country against him (besides about 20% of the dead-enders at least). That was too late, the damage had already been done because we didn’t go with our hearts in 2004 for a nominee.

The vitriol is enough to get you to about maybe 40%. But it isn’t enough to win an election. So I hope the GOP keeps on down this road, but I’m not exactly looking out for their best interests.

Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?

12:42 pm EST February 8th, 2012 | National Security, Terrorism | 29 Comments

There is a little bit of garment-rending in progress about a new Washington Post poll that shows liberals strongly supporting the government’s program of using drones to take out terrorist targets. I don’t quite understand the confusion.

When it comes to taking out terrorists not on U.S. soil we have three options:

1. Let them go free
2. Use drones, incurring collateral damage
3. Put troops on the ground, putting soldiers at risk along with incurring collateral damage

The option of using international cooperation to round up these guys — the preferable option — is simply not viable in Pakistan, where much of this activity is taking place. As the Bin Laden operation showed us, terrorists are able to operate within a stone’s throw of Pakistan’s government without them lifting a finger to stop it. Their government is an impediment.

So, faced with those three options, we’ve opted for the drones. They are not perfect by a long stretch, but after over a decade of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is the least bloody option that kills terrorists.

I’m not surprised that even among liberals, this is a strategy that meets with approval.

The numbers go down slightly if the target is a U.S. citizen, but again most of us view an American working with Al Qaeda on foreign soil as just another agent of that organization.

(It’s worth pointing out that the usually deceptive Glenn Greenwald writes about drone strikes saying, “Obama has used drones to kill Muslim children and innocent adults by the hundreds.” I don’t deny that innocent people have been killed by drone strikes, but Greenwald writes it like these people are intentional targets. They aren’t. Those of us who support the drone strikes shouldn’t pretend as if they are clean weapons, but those opposed should be honest as well.)

I totally understand the dangers in giving the president the sole power to designate terrorist targets. I’m not comfortable with that much power residing in the executive office. I would trust Barack Obama with that power, but not George Bush, so I don’t trust any president with it.

But I think the view of many who have these positions opposed to drone strikes and the like take a dispassionate view of this conflict that most don’t have. While we shouldn’t let emotion cloud things, we also can’t discount the unique toll of Al Qaeda-based terrorism on America’s psyche.

People want to get these guys, and it appears as if these drones are one of the best ways to get the job done, regardless of who the president is.

P.S. For what it’s worth, I still support closing the prisons in Guantanamo Bay and have found the sniveling opposition from Republican and Democratic lawmakers to closure to be disgusting. My guess is the death of Bin Laden and kill/capture of other Al Qaeda have made people less anxious about the war on terror and that’s why Gitmo closure isn’t the sticking point it once was. Still, we should close it.

Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran

12:48 pm EST February 5th, 2012 | Foreign Policy | 39 Comments

Did you enjoy the Iraq War? Well, the Weekly Standard wants to do it again, with a new article arguing that sure, Obama got Bin Laden killed and has arrested or killed 20 of the most wanted Al Qaeda terrorists, but never mind because Iran is part of the Axis of Evil. No, seriously.

Let us look at Iran. Although the administration and our European allies appear to be getting much more serious about rigorous sanctions against the Islamic Republic because of its quest for nuclear weapons, the White House has shied away from the possibility that Tehran will respond with terrorism, not negotiations. Perhaps the most stubborn wish in U.S. foreign policy has been the three-decade-old bipartisan determination to engage with and moderate the Islamic Republic. Ever since Ali Khamenei put on Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s mantle as guardian of the revolution, Western observers have wanted to describe him as “pragmatic” and “moderate,” even though his outpouring of virulently anti-American speeches, let alone the crackdowns and killings he’s unleashed at home since 1999, might engender skepticism. Iran’s much vilified and lampooned president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is probably less hardcore—even on the villainy of world Jewry—than Khamenei is.

The Obama administration is dealing with Iran as the rogue state it is, working with the international community to try and get them in line. The Standard is arguing here for a return to the Bush era where the U.S. government used the magical terrorism wand to short circuit any and all discussion in order to do stupid things like invading sovereign nations based on cooked-up intelligence. It doesn’t work, gets Americans killed, and makes the world less safe.

Conservative foreign policy has discredited itself thanks to its adoption of this kind of useless strategy, and we’d be stupid to adopt it or even acknowledge it as a viable option.

Equal Polarization, My Ass

11:38 am EST January 27th, 2012 | Politics | 213 Comments

One of my new favorite phrases is “not tethered to facts.” That comes from ABC reporter Jake Tapper doing a write-up of a new ad campaign from the conservative Americans For Prosperity targeting President Obama. It’s a nice way of saying “you lying ass.”

The phrase “not tethered to facts” came to mind when reading this Rick Moran piece lamenting the supposed equal polarization of the two major political parties in America. Bonus points to Moran for writing this post at PJ Media (aka Pajamas Media aka Open Source Media), which is a cesspool of conservative nonsense.

The idea that both parties/movements in America are equally extreme is a well-worn media meme and one that the right often rides. It also happens to be quite untrue. In reality, we have a right dominated by the hard right and a left created out of a coalition of the hard left, center-left, and centrists (who often echo the center-right). Look at the standard-bearers for both parties. Republicans picked George W. Bush, an evangelical conservative who appeared to honestly believe all the trickle down and privatization nonsense he was peddling. Democrats picked Barack Obama, who pushed a pay freeze of federal salaries while passing an economic stimulus bill that contained a considerable amount of tax cuts.

You don’t even have to go to the presidential level. In congress, Republicans have a Kentucky conservative leading them in the Senate along with John Boehner in the House, who thunderously opposed health care and subjected the traditional raising of the debt ceiling to an exercise in tea party hostage-taking. Go back further and you’ve got Sen. Bill Frist diagnosing Terry Schiavo over video tape and Tom DeLay jamming right-leaning legislation through the House.

On the Democratic side, while Pelosi is a “San Francisco liberal,” her top lieutenant has been Steny Hoyer — a moderate Democrat. When Democrats ran the House, contrary to conservative rhetoric they didn’t pass socialism. Since they’ve taken back the House, Boehner and Co. have passed far more legislation governing women’s bodies than there was equally socially liberal legislation passed under Pelosi’s leadership.

Senate Democrats are led by Harry Reid, a moderate on most issues who appointed conservative-leaning Democrats like Kent Conrad and Max Baucus to lead important committees. This led, in the case of health care reform, to a lot of the progressive-leaning legislation being ripped out in the final bill.

The two parties and movements are not equally extreme. The right is rhetorically led by Rush Limbaugh, a minority bashing advocate of the harshest brand of conservative economic and security policy. Even the top liberal voices in the media — people like Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Jon Stewart, etc. — practice at best FDR-style liberalism which isn’t nearly as radical as what Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck and company say on a day-to-day basis.

The thesis is simply untrue. We have a center-left movement/party on one side and a right-wing party/movement on the other.