The Seventh Sense

The Phrase Of The Day Is "Hippie Punching"

Yeah, despite my enjoyment of the GOP/Tea Party rift, I should keep in mind that there's some infighting on the left, too:

Top Obama adviser David Axelrod got an earful of the liberal blogosphere's anger at the White House moments ago, when a blogger on a conference call directly called out Axelrod over White House criticism of the left, accusing the administration of "hippie punching."

"We're the girl you'll take under the bleachers but you won't be seen with in the light of day," the blogger, Susan Madrak of Crooks and Liars, pointedly told Axelrod on the call, which was organzied for liberal bloggers and progressive media.

The call seemed to perfectly capture the tense dynamic that exists between the White House and the online and organized left: Though White House advisers in the past have dumped on the left, anonymously and even on the record, Axelrod repeatedly pleaded with the bloggers on the call for help in pumping up the flagging enthusiasm of rank and file Dems.

"You play a great role in informing people about the stakes of elections," Axelrod told the bloggers. "One of the reasons I was eager to expend time was to enlist you."

But hovering over the call was the obvious disconnect between this plea for help and statements like those of Robert Gibbs, who recently pilloried the "professional left" for being overly critical of the White House.

That tension burst out into the open when Madrak directly asked Axelrod: "Have you ever heard of hippie punching?" That prompted a long silence from Axelrod.

"You want us to help you, the first thing I would suggest is enough of the hippie punching," Madrak added. "We're the girl you'll take under the bleachers but you won't be seen with in the light of day."

Axelrod didn't engage on "hippie punching," but he said he agreed with the blogger. "To the extent that we shouldn't get involved in intramural skirmishing, I couldn't agree more," Axelrod said. "We just can't afford that. There are big things at stake here."

Madrak replied that Axelrod was missing the point -- that the criticism of the left made it tougher for bloggers like herself to motivate the base. "Don't make our jobs harder," she said.

"Right back at'cha. Right back at'cha," Axelrod replied, a bit testily, an apparent reference to blogospheric criticism of the administration.

Who is right?  Unfortunately, they both are.

More Fire In The Belly Like This Please

The House was debating a bill last night that would provide up to $7.4 billion in health care aid to rescue and recovery workers who have faced health problems since their work in the wake of the September 11 attacks. The bill ultimately failed to get the needed two-thirds majority, 255-159.  This was largely due to Republicans, who support a $676 billion extension of tax cuts for the wealthy, but can't seem to cough up 1% of that to take care of workers who got sick at Ground Zero.

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) was not happy about it. Not one bit.

You must watch:

Third Party Comes To North Carolina

It always warms my heart when I read and hear about Tea Partiers rebelling against the Repubican Party and forming their own third party.  Nothing would ensure the future of the Democratic Party more than having conservatives divide their loyalty between the Grand Old Party and the Raging New Party.

Which is what makes me concerned about this:

North Carolina Democrats' votes against health care push labor to form party

RALEIGH, N.C. -- A political rebellion is brewing inside an old funeral home near the state Capitol here. Frustrated liberals and labor organizers are taking aim at the Democratic Party, rushing to gather enough signatures to start a third party that they believe could help oust three Democratic congressmen.

Less than two years ago, this same funeral home was a command post for the grass-roots army that propelled Barack Obama to victory in this conservative swing state. Here is where supporters distributed signs and stickers, sorted lists of registered voters and rallied with a Johnny Cash cover band.

Now, some of Obama's supporters are mounting a defiant strike against the president's party.

So the unions are giving voice to progressive activists across this state who say they feel betrayed by Reps. Larry Kissell, Heath Shuler and Mike McIntyre, Democrats who sided with Republicans against the health-care bill.  And I can relate to their anger.

But a third party is not the answer for one simple reason:

The nascent third party, North Carolina First, could endanger the Democratic congressional majority by siphoning votes from incumbent Democrats in November's midterm election, potentially enabling Republican challengers to pick up the seats.

The better solution is simply to elect better Democrats.

Political Dictionary

"Obstructionism," only refers to Democratic minorities opposing Republican proposals.

"Tyranny" is found when an elected Democratic majority passes legislation that Republicans don't like.

"Reconciliation" describes a Senate process that Republicans are allowed to use to overcome Democratic "obstructionism."

"Terrorism" refers to acts of political violence committed by people who aren't white guys.

"Bipartisanship" is found when Democrats agree to pass Republican legislation.

"Big government" describes a dangerous phenomenon to be avoided, except in cases relating to reproductive rights or gays.

"Treason" refers to Democrats criticizing a Republican administration during a war.

"Patriotism" refers to Republicans criticizing a Democratic administration during a war.

"Fiscal responsibility" is a national priority related to keeping our deficit in check, which only applies when Republicans are in the minority.

"Parliamentarian" is a seemingly independent official on the Hill who Senate Republicans are allowed to fire when the GOP disapproves of his/her rulings.

"Government-run health care" doesn't refer to popular government-run health care programs like Medicare.

"The heartland" is the most wonderful place in America, even if no conservative pundit would be caught dead living there.

"Serving your country" is honorable if you're a Republican, but a subject of derision when Democrats do it.

[H/t Steve Benen and Kos]

The Golden Issue: Campaign Finance

If the Democrats were smart, they will take this issue and own it.  The issue: the recent Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, where the Supremes ruled 5-4 that corporations have the same rights as individuals when it comes to political speech and can therefore use their profits to support or oppose individual candidates. The decision appears to open the door to unlimited spending by corporations, trade groups and unions in the weeks leading up to an election, which has been explicitly banned for decades.

Obama has spoken out against it.  But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) among other Republican lawmakers have praised the ruling as a victory for free speech.  They have stated that they intend to oppose any legislation designed to gut the impact of the court's decision.

Why is this issue a good one for Democrats?  Because a huge number of people -- of all political stripes -- oppose the Supreme Court decision:

Our latest ABC News/Washington Post poll finds that 80 percent of Americans likewise oppose the ruling, including 65 percent who “strongly” oppose it, an unusually high intensity of sentiment.

Seventy-two percent, moreover, support the idea of a legislative workaround to try to reinstate the limits the court lifted.

The bipartisan nature of these views is striking in these largely partisan times. The court’s ruling is opposed, respectively, by 76, 81 and 85 percent of Republicans, independents and Democrats; and by 73, 85 and 86 percent of conservatives, moderates and liberals. Majorities in all these groups, ranging from 58 to 73 percent, not only oppose the ruling but feel strongly about it.

Even among people who agree at least somewhat with the Tea Party movement, which advocates less government regulation, 73 percent oppose the high court’s rejection of this particular law. Among the subset who agree strongly with the Tea Party’s positions on the issues – 14 percent of all adults – fewer but still most, 56 percent, oppose the high court in this case.

So here you have an issue where Democratic lawmakers are clearly on the side of the vast majority of Americans (including Tea Partiers!), and Republican lawmakers are staunchly opposed.  This is a great opportunity for Democrats to expose themselves as the real populists, and to expose Republicans as beholden to their corporate overlords.

By the way, for those who are wondering why I disagree with the court's ruling, I'll state it briefly.  I'm for free speech.  I believe in it, and the Constitution guarantees it.  But the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was not written for corporations and unions.  Pfizer, Inc is not an entity endowed by God with certain inalienable rights -- I am, you are, but not Pfizer, or Exxon, or Bank of America, etc.

The Supreme Court lost sight of who the Bill of Rights was meant to protect.  Can the CEO of Pfizer contribute his own money to a candidate's campaign?  Certainly, as an American citizen protected by the First Amendment, he has that right.  But can he (and the rest of the Pfizer board) take corporate money (which, technically, belongs to the shareholders) and "speak" in such a manner?  No, in my view.  That's actually engaging in "compelled speech", the antithesis of free speech.

Most people instinctively recognize this.  And that's why Democrats need to put this issue front and center.

UPDATE:  Then again, this line of attack against the GOP is getting a lot of traction:

 

Does The Public Support Obama Or The GOP?

Nate Silver has an excellent post wherein he breaks down 25 major issues being pushed by Obama and the Democrats, and sizes them up against public opinion polling.

The bottom line?

Of these 25 issues, Obama's position appears to be on the right side of public opinion on 14: the bank tax, repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, campaign finance, the credit card bill, D.C. voting rights, fair pay, financial regulation, gays in the military, hate crimes, the jobs bill, mortgage relief, PAYGO, SCHIP, and Sotomayor. It would appear to be on the wrong side of public opinion on five issues: the GM/Chrysler bailout, Guantanamo Bay, health care, the extension of the TARP program, and terrorist trials. On the other six issues, the polling is probably too ambiguous to render a clear verdict.

Republicans, on the other hand, have been overwhelmingly opposed to almost all of these measures with the exception of Ben Bernanke and Afghanistan troops, both of which poll ambiguously, and the credit card bill, which polled well.

Obviously, this analysis is superficial in certain ways. All issues are by no means created equal, and health care in particular, which is unpopular, has weighed heavily upon the public's perception of the Democrats. In addition, there is probably another layer of 'meta-argument' that goes beyond specific issues, and at which the GOP has tended to excel.

Nevertheless, it runs in contrast to the objective evidence when one asserts, as Hanson does, that "On every issue ... the Obama position polls 5-15 points below 50 percent." Rather, the votes taken by the Republican Congress have far more often been out of step with those of the median voter.

Silver's caveats are well-advised, but the larger point here is that Obama and the Democrats are, for the most part, doing what the people want.  One wonders then why they have a hard time actually getting things done.

DNC Strikes Back Against The GOP's Mob Tactics

Actually, I thought this ad could have been more forceful....

... but it is nice to see some pushback.

Blue America

An analysis of Gallup Poll Daily tracking data from the first six months of 2009 was released to day, on the subject of political party affiliation.

The accompanying map shows each state's relative party strength  in the first half of 2009, which primarily covers the time since Barack Obama took office as president. States in which one of the parties enjoys a 10 or more percentage point advantage in leaned identification are considered solid supporters of that party. States with between a five- and nine-point advantage are considered leaning toward that party, and states with less than a five-point advantage for one of the parties are considered competitive.

Not much red there, huh?

Here's the state-by-state breakdown:

A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To Nashville

Today, the Tennesee General Assembly met today to choose their House speaker.  The body consists of 99 representatives.  The breakdown after recent elections: 50 Republicans, 49 Democrats.

The Speaker is an important position; he chooses, among other things, who heads what committees, etc.

The Republicans had their nominee in line.  They were going to choose Jason Mumpower (pictured, right), a wingnut from Bristol County.  

Mumpower was eager for the job, and he had an agenda: bans on gay adoption and fostering, new concealed weapons laws, new constitutional limits on abortion, new anti-immigrant legislation, and mandating the teaching of “intelligent design” in public schools, among them.

Everyone knew Mumpower would become Speaker.  The press knew it, the public knew it.  It was a fait accompli.

So at today's assembly, the new members were sworn in.  And the first order of business came up: choosing the next Speaker.

Then the comedy of errors started.

Mumpower called for an immediate vote on selection of the Speaker (i.e., him).  The Democrats wanted a 30-minute recess.  So, the assembly voted on whether to have the recess.  All Republicans voted against the recess, except for freshman Republican State Rep. Terry Lynn Weaver of Lancaster.  Terry Lynn, making her first vote ever in the assembly, purportedly hit the wrong button and cast her vote with the Democrats.

So the Democrats won, and a 30-minute recess was called for.

That was all they needed.

When they all came back, the Democrats had a plan.  After Mumpower was nominated for Speaker, the Democrats nominated a moderate Republican for Speaker -- a man by the name of Kent Williams. 

And all the Democrats voted for Kent Williams, and (of course), Kent Williams voted for Kent Williams, making him Speaker by a vote of 50-49.

According to one report, "the official Republican nominee, Jason Mumpower, was left speechless, clutching the family bible that he had brought in preparation for taking the Speaker’s oath of office."

And that's how moderate Republican Kent Williams -- not the fundamentalist wingnut -- became Speaker of the Tennessee Assembly today.  As Williams went to the podium to accept his selection as the new Speaker, he was greeted with a chorus of boos from Republicans.

Nice manuevering from some state Dems.

More here.

Caroline Or Change?

Several A-list liberal bloggers are quite unhappy with the prospect of Caroline Kennedy taking over Clinton's Senate seat:

• Firedoglake's Hamsher: "It seems Caroline Kennedy has decided she'd rather have a US Senate seat than a pony for Christmas. [...] It appears Ms. Kennedy thinks that US Senate seats are something to lobbied for amongst political elites when one decides one wants them, and that the public should be happy to simply fall in line. The fact that one has a family political machine currently in the process of steamrolling David Paterson and a famous last name should be enough for the little people. I thought at least she'd get out before the cameras and start making her case to the public before she announced her intentions, because simply lobbying your well-connected buddies just oozes an outrageous sense of entitlement and insufferable pomposity."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Frankly, I consider [Kennedy] to be undeserving of the seat, given that she has never won an election and that basically her only qualification would be her family name. Further, at a time when Democrats are suffering from a major corruption scandal over Senate appointments, appointing a dynasty candidate would only add fuel to that fire. Republicans will run in 2010 on an argument that one-party rule leads to waste and corruption, so nepotism like this would be a bad idea."
• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "Rich and famous people already have a huge leg up when it comes to winning political office, but at least they still have to run and win. Appointing them instead so they can avoid the whole messy business of engaging in a campaign is just a little too Habsburgian for my taste. Needless to say, I've got nothing against Kennedy. But appointing her to the Senate just isn't the right thing to do."
• Daily Kos' Moulitsas: "When you're rich and come from a political family, and are heir to American royalty, you can apparently dispense with dealing with pesky voters by simply ringing up the governor. [...] Kennedy might very well be a favorite of Democratic primary voters in a contested race (and current polls suggest that), but that would require her to run, and elections can expose candidate weaknesses not readily apparent before the harsh glare of the spotlight is trained on them. In 2002, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend lost her bid for the governorship of heavily Democratic Maryland despite entering the race with a 27-point lead in the polls. In 2004, Sen. Jean Carnahan lost the special election to the seat she was appointed to in 2002 after her husband was tragically killed in an airplane accident. But running for office is an icky process. It's hard work. Much harder, of course, than merely picking up the phone and calling the governor."

I respectfully dissent.  I think she would be an excellent choice.

Sure, she's a Kennedy, but I don't think that makes her less qualified than otherwise.  She's certainly been around politics her whole life; there's no learning curve there.  And it's not like she's going to be a Kennedy in the womanizing and getting-drunk sense.

Furthremore, she's a Columbia Law graduate and co-author of two books: In Our Defense: The Bill of Rights in Action and The Right to Privacy.  Having a senator cognizant of the Constitution is a good thing.  She will also be a champion for education and funding for the arts.  She's served on several prominent boards, including Obama's transition team.  And her "celebrity" status might bring some light to key progressive bills and legislation that might not otherwise be there.

Yes, it's true that she could have decided to be a politician decades ago.  And yes, she chose other paths, never having run for elected office.  But again, how does that make her a less able senator than someone who has been a career politician?  It's worth noting the seat she is seeking was held by both her Uncle Bobby and Hillary, neither of whom ran for political office before becoming a senator either.

RELATED:  In an article at Politico, discussing the "nepotism" of the Democratic Party (e.g., Caroline taking Hillary's seat; Jesse Jackson Jr. taking Obama's seat; Beau Biden taking Biden's seat), we find this quote:

“Democrats seem to lack a common man who can just win a good, old-fashioned election,” said Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-N.Y.), the former chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. “They’ve got seat-warmers, seat-sellers and the making of pillows for the seats of royalty. No wonder the public wonders what’s going on in Washington.”

Excuse me?  Who is currently the president, and what was his father's prior occupation???

Blago Arrest

I guess everyone knows about the arrest this morning of Illinois governor Rod R. Blagojevich and his Chief of Staff, John Harris -- on corruption charges.

What surprises me was how blatant his corruption was.  I mean, the governor of Illinois gets to choose who fills Obama's now-empty Senate seat, so he literally auctioned it off.

Or as the governor himself said (according to wiretaps): "I've got this thing and it's [expletive] golden, and, uh, uh, I'm just not giving it up for [expletive] nothing. I'm not gonna do it."

And noting that he was under political fire for suspected corruption, he thought maybe the Senate seat would serve as an escape hatch for himself: "And, and I can always use it. I can parachute me there."

Don't think that's gonna happen, now, governor.

The Best Thing About The Bush Presidency

It's created a whole generation of progressives.

According to a new poll for the New York Times, CBS News, and MTV the 17-29 year olds lean Democratic.

Sixty-two percent of the 17-29 year olds support a single-payor health care system, while 47% of the general electorate does.

Seventy-seven percent of them plan to register to vote for next year, and by a 45%-25% margin they plan to vote in a Democratic primary or caucus rather than Republican. As for their actual vote for president, by a 54%-32% margin this age group plans to vote for the Democratic candidate.

Overall, 38% have a favorable view of the Republican Party, but 55% of them do not. Their feelings about the Democratic Party are inverse: 58% favorable, 36% unfavorable. 52% of them say the Democratic Party comes closest to sharing their moral values, while only 36% of them say the Republican Party does.

And the only presidential candidate among this group who has a better than 2-1 margin between favorable and unfavorable views is Barack Obama: 41% of 17-29 year olds view Obama favorably while only 19% view him unfavorably.

The Left And God

Discussions generated from fall out surrounding Amanda Marcotte's departure from the John Edwards campaign are still taking up pixels in lefty blogger circles. Atrios has led the league in thoughts on the subject, and the New Donkey summarizes his thoughts and responds:

His basic argument, with which I basically agree, is that once "people of faith" inject their religious views into public discourse, the content of those views is fair game for commentary, dissent and even mockery, though mockery may be politically inadvisable if you are, say, involved in a presidential campaign.

I would offer one important qualifier to his general take: mocking the religious underpinnings of some political position is one thing; denying their sincerity is another.

Atrios responds: "I do agree that questioning the sincerity of peoples' faith does anger them. ... I've had this conversation with anti-choice progressives, who think it's important for me to understand that their anti-choice views come from a sincere religious belief. The thing is, I just don't care. The fact that your political beliefs are motivated by your religion doesn't make them special to me."

Also responding to Atrios thoughts on the subject Kos writes: "If a candidate sincerely gets his or her values from religion, then that's fine. The Bible is a wonderfully liberal text. ... But religious values are no more superior than the values I learned from my [grandma] ... They are no more superior than the values Tester learned on the farm from his farmer father and grandfather. Or the values that Webb learned while proudly wearing his uniform."

Kos' post moved Rev. Jim Wallis to respond: "So Kos, let's made a deal. How about if progressive religious folks, like me, make real sure that we never say, or even suggest, that values have to come from faith - and progressive secular folks, like you, never suggest that progressive values can't come from faith (and perhaps concede that, in fact, they often do)." Kos thinks this is exactly what he already proposed. Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat comments: "With "friends" like Jim Wallis, Dems need no enemies."

Back at Eschaton, Atrios had moved on to addressing concerns from Jesse Lava that Atrios rhetoric, including calling religous language gibberish, often sounds dismissive to "devout Christians' ears." Atrios responds: "How is that a barb? I'm not religious, I have only a passing familiarity with Christian theology, its associated customs, and the language used by its adherents when discussing it. Finnish is also gibberish to me ... I'm not obligated to understand your traditions, and don't claim to. It's that simple."

Conservatism vs. Liberalism -- And The Future

This is so good, I'm reprinting (almost) the whole thing.  From the Anonymous Liberal:

Over at The Corner today, Jonah Goldberg wrote the following:

Now, I don't say any of this because I'm particularly bullish on conservatism's immediate future. It's got problems. But they're not as fundamental as the problems liberalism faces. Conservatism has a problem putting its ideas into action. Liberalism has a problem figuring out what it's ideas are. Taking the liberal mish-mash and simply declaring it a "new politics" doesn't make it so.

It's entirely understandable and predictable that in the wake of this election liberals would go into wishful thinking mode and declare that they've escaped history. But that doesn't make it any less absurd.

Now I'll readily admit that this election, however lopsided, does not spell the end of "conservatism." The conservative movement, in some form or other, will always be a potent force in American politics. We have a bipolar system and the debate is always shifting; the parties are constantly realigning around new issues.

That said, I have to take issue with Jonah's suggestion that "conservatism has a problem putting its ideas into action" while "liberalism has a problem figuring out what its ideas are."

Let's consider his first statement. I think he's certainly right that conservatives have had a tough time implementing their ideas. But why is that? After all, the Republicans have controlled all the branches of government for the last six years.

Well, I think the explanation is actually pretty simple. Many of the most prominent conservative policy ideas are either 1) very unpopular, 2) totally unrealistic and unworkable, or 3) both. That's why we haven't privatized social security or created individualized health savings accounts. These are just bad ideas; they are policies crafted to fit a pre-conceived ideology, not to solve real world problems.

The most fundamental problem with the conservative approach to governing is that it encourages its adherents to approach all problems with ideological blinders on. The range of potential solutions to any given problem is always very limited because so much is taken off the table before the discussion even begins. This approach leads conservatives to endorse policy ideas that are at best sub-optimal and at worst disastrously ill-advised.

Which brings me to Jonah's suggestion that "liberalism has a problem figuring out what its ideas are." It's not surprising that a conservative like Jonah would think this. But as I've written a number of times before (and as the Bertrand Russell quote in the masthead illustrates) liberalism is better understood as a way of approaching problems, not as a rigid set of substantive principles. In other words, what Jonah points to as a bug is actually a feature of liberalism; indeed, I'd argue it's the defining feature.

For instance, liberals are not interested in big government for big government's sake. If a problem can better be addressed through a market-based approach, they're all for it. It is certainly true that there are a number of policies which most liberals support. But the reason they support these policies is because they believe they have been demonstrated, through argument or experience, to be superior to the alternatives. And most liberals aren't afraid to re-examine their policy preferences should experience and empirical data suggest that something else would work better.

The problem with conservatism is that it discourages this sort of periodic re-examination of policy preferences and the premises underlying them. The Democratic candidates who won on Tuesday are not a homogeneous bunch and they will almost certainly come to the table with different ideas and different policy preferences. But I think what they largely have in common is a determination to reach sensible solutions to pressing problems. At least I hope so, because that's what liberalism is supposed to be about. It's about having an open-minded and outcome-oriented approach to governance.

Yes, yes, yes, a thousand times yes.

Who Supports The Troops? Republicans Or Democrats?

The answer is Democrats.

The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America -- a non-partisan veterans' group -- took a look at 324 legislative votes in the last five years which affected American troops and veterans. Legislative proposals included veterans' benefits, healthcare, and medical research dedicated towards injured soldiers. Based on these votes, IAVA calculated which senators and congressmen had a history of supporting the troops, and which didn't, and graded them on a curve.

Here are the results:

Yup, you're reading that right.  All Senate Democrats ranked higher than every Senate Republican.  Via Bob Geiger.

Short Bites

Barring some miracle, blogging will be light to non-existent for the next few days.

But that won't stop be from pointing to things I find amusing, like

(1)  the fact that robots think humans taste like bacon

(2)  What hath John Hodgman wrought?  He wrote a book in which he listed 700 hobo names.  Now, illustrators are providing drawings for each hobo.

(3)  Obama finally admits he is thinking about an '08 prez bid.  Time magazine has his face on the cover, saying "Why Barack Obama Could Be The Next President."  Yeah.  I was saying that as far back as July 2004.

UPDATE:  Even neo-con Jonah Goldberg at the Corner admits to feeling a little love for Obama:

Well, since now is the time to divulge our feelings about the man, I'll join the fray. I think Obama is a  compelling and attractive political figure. He's got charisma. He's legitimately bright. I thought his 2004 Convention speech was outstanding.

Still ...there are some out there who think that Obama is -- and they mean this literally -- the Antichrist.  Meanwhile, "Obama" is the word of the day, and The American Street has a wrap-up of various thoughts from around the punditry, but Matt Stoller writes (in my view) the best piece: "Why Barack Obama Should Run For President"

(4)  The Dr. Laura Action figure doll.  Seriously.  I'll bet if you pull the string, she'll say something like "Matthew Shepard had it coming".

(5)  Death toll of U.S. soldiers in Iraq this month now at 89.  This makes it the bloodiest in 2006 (with a week still to go).  At the current rate of  3.87 soliders per day, it will be the worst month since 2/2005.

(6)  No, not "Snakes On A Plane".  It's shrimps on a treadmill.

What It Means To Be Liberal

Law Professor Geoffrey Stone takes a stab at writing ten central tenets of "liberalism", since many people (even liberals) have a hard time identifying what liberalism is about.  I'd say he did a pretty good job:

Part of the problem is that liberals have failed to define themselves and to state clearly what they believe. As a liberal, I find that appalling.

In that light, I thought it might be interesting to try to articulate 10 propositions that seem to me to define "liberal" today. Undoubtedly, not all liberals embrace all of these propositions, and many conservatives embrace at least some of them.

Moreover, because 10 is a small number, the list is not exhaustive. And because these propositions will in some instances conflict, the "liberal" position on a specific issue may not always be predictable. My goal, however, is not to end discussion, but to invite debate.

1. Liberals believe individuals should doubt their own truths and consider fairly and open-mindedly the truths of others. This is at the very heart of liberalism. Liberals understand, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once observed, that "time has upset many fighting faiths." Liberals are skeptical of censorship and celebrate free and open debate.

2. Liberals believe individuals should be tolerant and respectful of difference. It is liberals who have supported and continue to support the civil rights movement, affirmative action, the Equal Rights Amendment and the rights of gays and lesbians. (Note that a conflict between propositions 1 and 2 leads to divisions among liberals on issues like pornography and hate speech.)

3. Liberals believe individuals have a right and a responsibility to participate in public debate. It is liberals who have championed and continue to champion expansion of the franchise; the elimination of obstacles to voting; "one person, one vote;" limits on partisan gerrymandering; campaign-finance reform; and a more vibrant freedom of speech. They believe, with Justice Louis Brandeis, that "the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people."

4. Liberals believe "we the people" are the governors and not the subjects of government, and that government must treat each person with that in mind. It is liberals who have defended and continue to defend the freedom of the press to investigate and challenge the government, the protection of individual privacy from overbearing government monitoring, and the right of individuals to reproductive freedom. (Note that libertarians, often thought of as "conservatives," share this value with liberals.)

5. Liberals believe government must respect and affirmatively safeguard the liberty, equality and dignity of each individual. It is liberals who have championed and continue to champion the rights of racial, religious and ethnic minorities, political dissidents, persons accused of crime and the outcasts of society. It is liberals who have insisted on the right to counsel, a broad application of the right to due process of law and the principle of equal protection for all people.

6. Liberals believe government has a fundamental responsibility to help those who are less fortunate. It is liberals who have supported and continue to support government programs to improve health care, education, social security, job training and welfare for the neediest members of society. It is liberals who maintain that a national community is like a family and that government exists in part to "promote the general welfare."

7. Liberals believe government should never act on the basis of sectarian faith. It is liberals who have opposed and continue to oppose school prayer and the teaching of creationism in public schools and who support government funding for stem-cell research, the rights of gays and lesbians and the freedom of choice for women.

8. Liberals believe courts have a special responsibility to protect individual liberties. It is principally liberal judges and justices who have preserved and continue to preserve freedom of expression, individual privacy, freedom of religion and due process of law. (Conservative judges and justices more often wield judicial authority to protect property rights and the interests of corporations, commercial advertisers and the wealthy.)

9. Liberals believe government must protect the safety and security of the people, for without such protection liberalism is impossible. This, of course, is less a tenet of liberalism than a reply to those who attack liberalism. The accusation that liberals are unwilling to protect the nation from internal and external dangers is false. Because liberals respect competing values, such as procedural fairness and individual dignity, they weigh more carefully particular exercises of government power (such as the use of secret evidence, hearsay and torture), but they are no less willing to use government authority in other forms (such as expanded police forces and international diplomacy) to protect the nation and its citizens.

10. Liberals believe government must protect the safety and security of the people, without unnecessarily sacrificing constitutional values. It is liberals who have demanded and continue to demand legal protections to avoid the conviction of innocent people in the criminal justice system, reasonable restraints on government surveillance of American citizens, and fair procedures to ensure that alleged enemy combatants are in fact enemy combatants. Liberals adhere to the view expressed by Brandeis some 80 years ago: "Those who won our independence ... did not exalt order at the cost of liberty."

Consider this an invitation. Are these propositions meaningful? Are they helpful? Are they simply wrong? As a liberal, how would you change them or modify the list? As a conservative, how would you draft a similar list for conservatives?

As for me, the only one I have a problem with is #8, but my gripe is more of semantics.  I don't think the courts have a special responsibility to protect individual liberties -- I think the courts have a special responsibility to follow the Constitution.  And the Constitution protects individual liberties.  Small difference, but an important one.

Barack Obama

Good interview of the next good President (probably not in 2008, but sometime in the next decade) can be found here.

Quote Of The Day

"I am sick of Karl Rove's bullshit." - Bill Clinton in the latest New Yorker.

Sadly, the New Yorker doesn't have the interview in its online version, but apparently that's what the Big Dog actually said.

Other Clinton quotes from the article:

Clinton on the Kerry campaign: "Like a deer caught in the headlights."

Clinton on watching the World Cup Final in Berlin: "I'm totally psyched for this."

Clinton on the vote to go into Iraq: "I'm sick and tired of being told that if you voted for authorization you voted for the war. It was a mistake, and I would have made it, too....The administration did not shoot straight on the nuclear issue or on Saddam's supposed ties to Al Qaeda prior to 9/11.

Clinton on the Bush administration: "It just makes me mad...I just wish I were there trying to articulate an alternative vision."

An Average Day In The Life Of Joe Republican

A pretty decent explanation of why I'm a bleeding heart liberal pinko commie:

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.

All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer’s medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it, too.

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe’s bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation costs because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe’s employer pays these standards because Joe’s employer doesn’t want his employees to call the union.

If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he’ll get a worker compensation or an unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn’t think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe’s deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe’s money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the country would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets that his in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state-funded university.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the taxpayer- funded roads.

He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers’ Home Administration because bankers didn’t want to make rural loans.

The house didn’t have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn’t belong and demanded rural electrification.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberals made sure Dad could take care of himself so Joe wouldn’t have to.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn’t mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: “We don’t need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I’m a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of himself, just like I have.”

Ann Richards R.I.P.

The former governor of Texas passed away yesterday.  I'll always remember her as the lady who quipped:

“Poor George, he can't help it. He was born with a silver foot in his mouth.”

Yikes! Hillary May Want To Rethink Her '08 Election Bid

“Criminal"

"Megalomaniac"

"Fraud"

"Devil incarnate"

"Power freak.”

"Satanic"

“Political whore”

These are words used by New Hampshirites to describe Hillary Clinton.  New Hampshire Democrats.

Full story here.

Barack Is Da Bomb

Barack Obama, the junior Senator from Illinois, who I predicted one year ago would become President someday, is the most beloved Senator in the country.

The Power Of The Blogosphere

I hate -- really hate -- the self-congratulatory aspect of the political blogosphere, where bloggers hoist themselves on their own petard thinking that, collectively, they can change the course of politics and, by extension, America.

But Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, the proprietor of the most popular liberal blog Daily Kos, seems to really be making a difference, and has set himself up as a key player in shaping the state of the Democratic party.  As this article suggests, it may not be a good thing.

What's that saying about power and corruption?

The Strange Crash Of Gary Dodds

You need to read this story to believe it.

Although, nobody's sure what to believe.

It involves NH congressional candidate Gary Dodds, a Democrat, who disappeared for 27 hours in April.  His car was found in a crash with a guardrail, and Dodds himself was found a mile away a day later.  His "story" of what happened, where he was going, etc. doesn't hold together, and the police are openly suspicious.

Corrupt Democrats

Ever since the Abramoff scandal rained crap on many GOPers, the Republican establishment and their colleagues in the press have been looking for the equivalent level of corruption in Democrats.  They think they've found it.

The headline reads "Reid Accepted Free Boxing Tickets While a Related Bill Was Pending":

Senate Democratic Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) accepted free ringside tickets from the Nevada Athletic Commission to three professional boxing matches while that state agency was trying to influence him on federal regulation of boxing.

Reid took the free seats for Las Vegas fights between 2003 and 2005 as he was pressing legislation to increase government oversight of the sport, including the creation of a federal boxing commission that Nevada's agency feared might usurp its authority.

Except it's not that bad.  TPM Muckraker explains that "there is an exception for gifts from governmental agencies (like the Nevada Athletic Commission) in the Senate ethics rules. So there is nothing untoward about Reid having accepted the free tickets."

Moreover, Reid voted against the legislation for which the Commission was seeking his support.

Now, to be sure, this has the appearance of impropriety, and perhaps Reid should have been smarter.  (There's no doubt he would not do this in a post-Abramoff world).  But it's hardly comparable.

If Al Gore Was President

I don't watch Saturday Night Live anymore, but I regret not seeing Al Gore open the show this past weekend.  He spoke as President Al Gore, looking back on his six years in office.

Crooks and Liars has video. A snippet:

As I speak, the gigantic national budget surplus is down to a perilously low $11 trillion dollars.

And don't get any ideas. That money is staying in the very successful lockbox. We're not touching it.

Of course, we could give economic aid to China, or lend money to the Saudis... again.

But right now we're already so loved by everyone in the world that American tourists can't even go over to Europe anymore... without getting hugged.

***

There have been some setbacks. Unfortunately, the confirmation process for Supreme Court Justice Michael Moore was bitter and devisive. However, I could not be more proud of how the House and Senate pulled together to confirm the nomination of Chief Justice George Clooney.

As Sure As The Sun Sets In The West...

...you will never ever find me riding as a passenger in a car (or a plane) driven by a Kennedy.

AFTERTHOUGHT: Okay, maybe Caroline.

RELATED:  The wingnuts are having a field day about how a member of a highly-influential political family may have been driving while intoxicated, and how he was getting preferential treatment because of his family name.

Yeah, whatever:

Quote Of The Day

"You know, I think that I... you'll have to ask him or his office."

-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), quoted by the New York Daily News, when asked why her husband has no visible wedding ring in his portrait recently unveiled for the National Portrait Gallery.

New Orleans, Disney -- Same Difference

It seems to me -- and I'm just spitballin' here -- that if you are going to run for the Mayor of New Orleans, your website should have a picture of you standing in the actual New Orleans, and not the "New Orleans Square" exhibit re-created at Disneyland.

Actual photo from the website of NOLA mayorial candidate Kimberly Butler (yes, she hasn't removed it yet!):

RELATED:  Disney responds

Carter Blogs

Jimmy Carter responds to questions over at Daily Kos.

The Catholic Vote

Glenn Greenwald notes that part of Rove's tactics for winning the 2004 election against Kerry was to take the Catholic vote.  Rove did this in part by impugning Kerry's catholicism, i.e., Kerry wasn't a "good" Catholic.  Part of the reprehensible tactics included parading Catholic Republicans in front of the microphones to suggest that Kerry shouldn't receive communion because of his stance on abortion.

And it seemed to work.  Bush (a Methodist) won 52% of the Catholic vote to Kerry's 47%.

But, as Glenn suggests, there is no earthly reason why such a tactic should work...

...because scores of Republican policies, including their most prominent ones, are plainly contrary to Catholic doctrine and have been vigorously condemned both by John Paul II and by the current Pope. Those policies could not be any more anti-Catholic.

Think about it:  The war in Iraq and the pre-emptive war doctrine?  Vehemently opposed by the Vatican.

The death penalty?  The Catholic church opposes that.

If, as Glenn prediects, the "Catholic strategy" is going to be deployed by Republicans in the 2006 elections, Democrats should be prepared to fight, because it is a fight we can win:

The reality is that Catholicism translates politically into support for liberal views at least as much as it does for conservative views. Large majorities of Catholics support abortion rights generally, stem cell research, and oppose further tax cuts. There are also dormant and lurking religious tensions between evangelicals and Catholics which Bush opponents allow to remain hidden and unexamined, while Republicans exploit every cultural and religious division they can find. There is no virtue in continuing to win policy debates while losing elections due to a ceding of these submerged and ugly battlefields.

Republicans have all sorts of vulnerabilities on these issues. So many of their leading pundits and political figures have personal lives filled with private moral atrocities or activities which so plainly violate the religious and cultural principles they claim to embody. Their flagship policies are squarely prohibited by core Catholic principles and have been condemned as immoral and unjust by the Vatican. How can that same party parade around as the true party of Catholicism?

Exactly.   Maybe the sex scandals within the Catholic Church have cowed many Catholics into silence, or shamed them  into pulling the lever for the "Daddy" party.  But it's time the raised their voice, and held to principle and returned to the Democratic Party.

Barack Obama Wins A Grammy

Seriously.

Fighting Dems

The Fighting Dems series is meant to highlight men and women who have worn the uniform and have chosen to run on the Democratic ticket. Turns out -- contrary to what you might think -- there's a heck of a lot more on our side than theirs. Check it out here -- they are currently featuring Iraq War vets running for political office throughout the country.

Harry Reid: Kicking Ass

Whaa?!?  The hot breaking buzz is on Senator Harry Reid, and his surprise invocation of a rare closed door session of the Senate to discuss Iraq and the faulty intelligence during the run-up.  Frist is pissed, talking about the lack of senatorial courtesy (something which Republicans feel they have not been obligated to give, since they have a majority).

CNN has the story.

Via Pandagon, Reid's booty-busting speech just prior to the session is posted below the fold.

Well, Shit, John -- No Duh.

John Kerry admits that his pro-war vote was a mistake, adding:

I understand that as much as we might wish it, we can't rewind the tape of history. There is, as Robert Kennedy once said, `enough blame to go around,' and I accept my share of the responsibility. But the mistakes of the past, no matter who made them, are no justification for marching ahead into a future of miscalculations and misjudgments and the loss of American lives with no end in sight. We each have a responsibility, to our country and our conscience, to be honest about where we should go from here. It is time for those of us who believe in a better course to say so plainly and unequivocally.

Kerry now favors partial withdrawal.

Oh, Yeah. Democrats.

The Hill is reporting that the Democratic Party is working on a slogan for the 2006 midterm elections.  They reportedly have it narrowed down to two: "Together, We Can Do Better" or "Together, America Can Do Better".

I kind of like the "do better" strategy, although I think it will cause many to think, "Well, a duck could do better".

But given the two choices, the first one is preferable.  "We" is ambiguous enough to mean "we" as in "America" OR "we" as in "Democrats".  Let the listener decide.

Wonkette imagines some of the rejected slogans:

The Hill reports that "The message project considered 'dozens' of potential slogans," before settling on the "do better" strategy. Rejected slogans included, we hear, "You Could Do Worse," "It's Not Like There's a Third Party," and "Sorry About that Kerry Thing."

Democratic Ideas - No. 10 (Last in a Series)

Putting Prevention First.  Democrats are committed to reducing unintended pregnancies by increasing access to family planning services and improving contraceptive coverage.  We will increase funding for family planning and empower states to enable more women to take responsibility for their health.  We will also improve contraceptive coverage by assuring equity in prescription drug insurance.

Previous:

Democratic Idea No. 1: Standing With Our Troops

Democratic Idea No. 2: Targeting The Terrorists More Effectively

Democratic Idea No. 3: Fulfilling Our Duty to America’s Veterans

Democratic Idea No. 4: Expanding Economic Opportunity

Democratic Idea No. 5: Quality Education For All

Democratic Idea No. 6: Making Health Care More Affordable

Democratic Idea No. 7: Democracy Begins At Home

Democratic Idea No. 8: Meeting Our Responsibility To Medicare Beneficiaries

Democratic Idea No. 9: Fiscal Responsibility For A Sound Future

Democratic Ideas - No. 9

Fiscal Responsibility for a Sound Future.  Democrats know that fiscal mismanagement today only leads to greater problems for our children.  It is our responsibility to address the fiscal irresponsibility of the current Administration by imposing discipline today and Democrats are united to strengthen budgeting rules that require the government to live within its means. 

Previous:

Democratic Idea No. 1: Standing With Our Troops

Democratic Idea No. 2: Targeting The Terrorists More Effectively

Democratic Idea No. 3: Fulfilling Our Duty to America’s Veterans

Democratic Idea No. 4: Expanding Economic Opportunity

Democratic Idea No. 5: Quality Education For All

Democratic Idea No. 6: Making Health Care More Affordable

Democratic Idea No. 7: Democracy Begins At Home

Democratic Idea No. 8: Meeting Our Responsibility To Medicare Beneficiaries

Democratic Ideas - No. 8

Meeting Our Responsibility to Medicare Beneficiaries.  Democrats will take the special interests out of the Medicare law by repealing the provision that prevents Medicare from negotiating better prices for seniors and eliminating the slush fund for HMOs. We will also improve the prescription drug benefit by phasing out the current doughnut hole where seniors pay a premium but get no benefit.  We will buy down the Part B premium so premium increases are not too steep.  We will address incentives that encourage employers to drop retiree benefits and we will ensure that no seniors are forced into HMOs while helping seniors in their transition to the new benefit.

Previous:

Democratic Idea No. 1: Standing With Our Troops

Democratic Idea No. 2: Targeting The Terrorists More Effectively

Democratic Idea No. 3: Fulfilling Our Duty to America’s Veterans

Democratic Idea No. 4: Expanding Economic Opportunity

Democratic Idea No. 5: Quality Education For All

Democratic Idea No. 6: Making Health Care More Affordable

Democratic Idea No. 7: Democracy Begins At Home

Walter Has A Good Idea

In a letter to the NY Times:

To the Editor:

Re "Democrats See Dream of '06 Victory Taking Form" (front page, Oct. 13):

The key to a Democratic success in next year's Congressional election is clearly in the party leadership's coming up with a campaign that does not concentrate on the Bush administration's failures but offers alternative programs to fix what it believes is wrong with the Republican agenda.

A suggestion by which the Democratic Party could command the greatest public attention for its positive agenda: It could within weeks call an extraordinary midterm convention to draw up its platform.

The convention would not need to be expensive. The delegates could be those who attended the 2004 convention. Their meeting would be open to the public and of course the press.

In sharp contrast to the secrecy of the Bush administration, it would let the public, if only remotely, share in the construction of the Democratic platform.

Although local issues might cause some candidates in next year's Congressional election to veer from the platform on comparatively minor issues, the basic principles of the party would be clearly apparent.

The voting population would for the first time in many years have an unobstructed view of those principles that differentiate the Democratic Party from those of the Republican Party.

Walter Cronkite
New York, Oct. 13, 2005

It's a very good idea, especially since the public perception (rightly or wrongly) is that the Democrats have no plan.

Democratic Ideas - No. 7

Democracy Begins at Home. Equal opportunity in this country is based upon equal representation and fair voting.  Democrats are determined to reforming the voting system in this country to create Federal standards for our elections.  The bill adds verification, accountability and accuracy to the system.  It increases access to the polls with Election Day registration, shorter lines and early voting.  The bill also aims to modernize our election equipment and increase impartiality and provides the resources to our states to implement the bill.

Previous:

Democratic Idea No. 1: Standing With Our Troops

Democratic Idea No. 2: Targeting The Terrorists More Effectively

Democratic Idea No. 3: Fulfilling Our Duty to America’s Veterans

Democratic Idea No. 4: Expanding Economic Opportunity

Democratic Idea No. 5: Quality Education For All

Democratic Idea No. 6: Making Health Care More Affordable

Democratic Ideas - No. 6

Making Health Care More Affordable.  Spiraling health care costs are putting the opportunity of America at risk, making it harder for families to buy health insurance and placing a difficult burden on small businesses and manufacturers.  Democrats will address these concerns by making prescription drugs more affordable through the legalization of prescription drug reimportation and more safe by ensuring drugs are monitored after they are approved for use.  Democrats will ensure that all children and pregnant women will have health care and protect Medicaid.  We will reduce the growing cost of health care to small businesses by offering tax credits while also modernizing health care to cut costs for patients and businesses.

Previous:

Democratic Idea No. 1: Standing With Our Troops

Democratic Idea No. 2: Targeting The Terrorists More Effectively

Democratic Idea No. 3: Fulfilling Our Duty to America’s Veterans

Democratic Idea No. 4: Expanding Economic Opportunity

Democratic Idea No. 5: Quality Education For All

Democratic Ideas - No. 5

Quality Education for All Democrats are committed to providing a quality education to all Americans because we recognize that education has always been the cornerstone of equal opportunity.  Democrats will keep our promise to our children by increasing support for pre-school education, fully funding No Child Left Behind and improving its implementation.  We are committed to providing safe and reliable transportation for our rural school children and meeting the Federal commitment to children with disabilities.  Democrats will also address the shortfall of math, science and special education teachers by creating tuition incentives for college students to major in those fields.  We will help expand educational opportunities for college by providing relief from skyrocketing college tuition, increasing the size and access to Pell Grants and supporting proven programs that encourage more young people to attend and succeed in college.\

Previous:

Democratic Idea No. 1: Standing With Our Troops

Democratic Idea No. 2: Targeting The Terrorists More Effectively

Democratic Idea No. 3: Fulfilling Our Duty to America’s Veterans

Democratic Idea No. 4: Expanding Economic Opportunity

Democratic Ideas - No. 4

Expanding Economic Opportunity.  Democrats understand that the most effective means of increasing opportunity for our families is a high quality, good paying job.  Democrats will fight to restore overtime protection to 6 million workers and increase the minimum wage for 7.4 million workers.  We must do more to create good jobs today and in the future and the Democratic bill does so by eliminating tax incentives for companies that take jobs overseas, creating new jobs through an expansion of infrastructure programs to repair America’s backbone, and encouratrongging innovation in the American economy.  We are also determined to pursue a trade policy that protects American workers and addresses our record trade deficit.  Democrats will work to strengthen enforcement of our trade agreements while assisting those workers who have been unduly burdened by unfair trading practices of other nations.

Previous:

Democratic Idea No. 1: Standing With Our Troops

Democratic Idea No. 2: Targeting The Terrorists More Effectively

Democratic Idea No. 3: Fulfilling Our Duty to America’s Veterans

Democratic Ideas - No. 3

Fulfilling Our Duty to America’s Veterans.  A key component of keeping America secure is protecting the rights of our veterans. Since the time of Lincoln, Americans have made and kept a sacred commitment to those who served this nation in the defense of freedom.  As a new generation of veterans return from Iraq and Afghanistan, Democrats are united to fulfill that promise.  We will ensure that all veterans get the health care they deserve while also expanding the availability and accessibility of mental health care.  We will ensure that no veteran is forced to choose between a retirement and disability check.  We will also make the same commitment to the soldiers of today that was made to past veterans with a 21st Century GI Bill.

Previous:

Democratic Idea No. 1: Standing With Our Troops

Democratic Idea No. 2: Targeting The Terrorists More Effectively

Democratic Ideas - No. 2

Targeting the Terrorists More Effectively.  Keeping America secure means stepping up the fight against the radical Islamic fundamentalism. Democrats will work to increase our Special Operations forces by 2,000 to attack the terrorists where they are and to protect our freedoms here at home.  We will further enhance our efforts against enemies by targeting the institutions that spawn new terrorists.  Democrats are also united to ensure that the world’s most dangerous weapons stay out of the hands of terrorists.  We will expand the pace and scope of programs to eliminate and safeguard nuclear materials, enhance efforts to keep these and other deadly materials out of the hands of terrorists, and assist state and local governments in equipping and training those responsible for dealing with the effects of terrorist attacks involving weapons of mass destruction.

Previous:

Democratic Idea No. 1: Standing With Our Troops

Democratic Ideas - No. 1

The meme emerging from the right nowadays is "Well, yeah.  Okay.  Bush kinda sucks, but the Democrats don't have any ideas, so why are they any better?"

I am tired of hearing this, so . . . for the next several days, I will present Democratic ideas.  Agree with them or disagree with them, but don't say they don't exist.  Today's installment follows.

Standing With Our Troops. Democrats believe that putting America’s security first means standing up for our troops and their families.  Democrats will work to increase our military end strength by up to 40,000 by 2007.  We will create a Guard and Reserve Bill of Rights to protect and promote the interests of our dedicated citizen soldiers.  Democrats will also fight for the families of those who serve our country.  This includes providing income security and immediate access to affordable health care.

Short Bites

Jimmy Carter has a son?

What Matt says

Ever said "There oughta be a law...."?  Here's your chance...

Um, why?

With this avian flu thing hanging over us, is it really a good idea to intentionally reconstruct a 1918 flu virus that killed 50 million people?

Republicans Screw The Pooch

This news as huge ramifications for the upcoming elections.  From Political Wire:

As the 2006 midterm election season approaches, Political Wire has seen a copy of a new Winston Group (R) poll that shows Americans turning away from the Republican party. (There's no link yet on the firm's website.)

Those surveyed had less confidence in Republicans to handle a wide range of issues, including education, Social Security, health care, jobs and energy prices. Democrats beat Republicans by at least 9 percentage points in each category. In addition, Democrats were also viewed as better able to handle war in Iraq and the economy.

In fact, the only bad news for Democrats is that they are viewed as overly partisan. In particular, Democrats were seen as more likely to instigate partisan attacks over two recent issues in the news -- the federal government's hurricane response and the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court.