Hands off my Speaker!

I am just about sick and tired of the time, effort, and attention that has been focused on the mode of transportation that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi uses to get from DC to California. CNN reports that House Republicans spent hours on the House floor yesterday saying things like "Democrats are abusing their power." That's crap.

Let's make this REAL simple. The United States Government provides the Speaker of the House secure, military transportation when engaging in official travel. The Sergeant at Arms of the United States House of Representatives requested that the military provide her with a plane that did not require refueling during the cross country trip, per security guidelines.

The House Republicans are not only disingenuous, they are wasting time that could be better spent. Perhaps they want to avoid talking about important issues. Issues, like, say.....a pointless war for which we are sacrificing thousands of lives. Yeah, that is probably more important than which plane the military uses to shuttle the Speaker between Washington and California.

Move on!

Edwards Gets Tough

Many of us lefty types were hoping that John Edwards would get tough, stand up to the right wing, and defend his staff. He did that. And if you believe this, he stood up to the media too!

It's hilarious.

Anti-Semit Bigot Loving to Hate John Edwards

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are consistently called "rock stars" by journalists describing their public appearances on the campaign trail. John Edwards doesn't get those kinds of props from the journalists. But, we're finding that the right wing loves to talk about John Edwards.

Usually the tactics they are using on John Edwards would be reserved for the General Election. However, they've gone hard and early on the former Senator from North Carolina.

A few weeks ago, the Carolina Journal, a monthly publication of the John Locke Foundation printed this article on Senator Edwards' new home in North Carolina. It was an attempted smear to cast Edwards as an elitist out of touch with the average person. However, a closer look at the Locke Foundation shows that they are a conservative organization who aligns themselves with some of the most right wing groups in Washington. This link shows organizations who they suggest their readers to consult for information on "important issues." Among this A-List of conservative groups is the Heritage Foundation, which is a juggernaut of the right wing movement.

After Matt Drudge linked to the article on the Carolina Journal website, they posted a message that their website was temporarily down because of all of the traffic generated by the link. While I think it was more of a function of dedicating ALL of their server space to handle the hits they were getting, I think they also didn't want to make it easy for visitors to discover their conservative bend. I suspect that very few people have returned to the website to learn more about them since the initial link from Drudge.

Most recently, Edwards Bloggers Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan came under attack from conservative, anti-Semite, self-appointed spokesperson of Catholics, Bill Donohue. In fact, he called these fine young women "anti-Catholic, trash talking bigots." Let's see what insights supposed religious leader Donahue can offer us:

"We've already won. Who really cares what Hollywood thinks? All these hacks come out there. Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It's not a secret, OK? And I'm not afraid to say it. ... Hollywood likes anal sex. They like to see the public square without nativity scenes. I like families. I like children. They like abortions. I believe in traditional values and restraint. They believe in libertinism. We have nothing in common. But you know what? The culture war has been ongoing for a long time. Their side has lost." [MSNBC's Scarborough Country, 12/8/04]

He doesn't sound anything like someone with the moral authority to judge anyone, much less two young women who passionately advocate things like women's health. I'm not a Catholic, but if I were, I'd be standing up and screaming that this right wing, bigoted anti-Semite does NOT represent me. I know many Catholics and they're nothing like this jerk. By the way, criticism of Catholic policies is nothing new. There is plenty of internal debate among loyal, dedicated Catholics about the direction of their Church. There always has been. There always will be.

All day yesterday, the Netroots folks sat on pins and needles wondering if such pandering right-wing jerks would be able to sever the relationship between them and John Edwards. Edwards faced tremendous pressure from both the Conservatives and the progressive blogging community. Matt Browner-Hamlin has a post here on HuffPost that is an awesome description of how it all played out.

Many of us feared Edwards would listen to conventional Washington political consultants and throw these bloggers under the proverbial bus. However, it appears that Edwards has personally intervened to determine the action of the campaign. He released a statement today. The following line shows me that he not only understands the support the Netroots has shown him, but that he's got conviction, loyalty, and that he's not going to let the right wing tell him how to run his campaign:

"We're beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can't let it be hijacked. It will take discipline, focus, and courage to build the America we believe in."

The score:
John Edwards: 1
Netroots Movement: 1
Conservative Jerks: 0

Please go to Democracy in Action to send an email to the Press supporting these two bloggers. It will send a message that we will not cede public debates to jerks like Bill Donohue. Here is what he had to say about it all:

"I have news for him--the Catholic League--not Edwards--will decide what the debate will be about, and it won't be about the nation."

Don't let this jerk get away with this. It's time for the progressive movement to proudly defend the high ground and put this issue to rest. We will NOT surrender anything to vicious right wingers.

Blogger Controversy?

We all know I'm not new to blogger controversy, but this recent issue over two of John Edwards' bloggers is ridiculous. Let me see if I can correctly frame the issue for ya.

The Edwards campaign recently hired two bloggers, Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan. They are both very talented bloggers, otherwise they wouldn't be attached to a top tier Presidential candidate.

About a week ago, the right wingers started attacking these junior level campaign staffers as if they were baby killers. As bloggers sometimes do when extremely passionate about something, they used profane words throughout some of their posts. Maybe we don't want our kids reading those posts, but what is really profane is the issues they were talking about: Americans dying in an unjustified war, healthcare for millions of uninsured folks, women's reproductive rights, etc.

So, instead of standing up to right wingers who are making a habit of smearing our '08 Presidential candidates, the Edwards campaign may fire these two bloggers. Salon.com has reported that they have been fired, but there are still conflicting reports of what's really going on. I hope the Edwards campaign will let us know very soon how this issue will play out.

My advice would be to retain the bloggers and defend them for the passionate and dedicated people that they are. Further, they should attack the hipocrisy of people like Bill Donohue and Michelle Malkin, who have been peddling this story to the main stream media. I'm not done yet. We should also start letting folks know about the ethically challenged staffers on Republican campaigns. There are plenty.

One another note, the blogosphere is an incubator for ideas. It is a place for ongoing dialogue between bloggers and readers. Just as we wouldn't want to be judged by every word we have spoken, I hope this doesn't hinder present and future bloggers from fully expressing their ideas and opinions. If the Edwards campaign seizes this precedent setting opportunity to defend their bloggers, we'll have much more of an opportunity to continue the good work of the blogosphere.

This is What Congressional Oversight Looks Like

Below are clips from Chairman Henry Waxman's Oversight Hearing on Iraq. It's about time that Congress started doing its job of asking questions. For six years, Republicans gave this Admnistration carte blanche to conduct itself in any manner it so pleased. Now, things are different. Democrats are asking questions and expecting answers. Republicans are even joining forces with the Dems to get Cabinet agencies to comply with information requests. The wheels of Congressional Oversight are a bit squeaky, but thanks to Waxman, they are slowly beginning to hum along once again.

In this video, Paul Bremer, the once "Administrator" of U.S. occupied Iraq, talks about the lessons that Congress should learn about the time that we occupied Iraq as we move forward with rebuilding the country. He even suggests that Congressional legislation may be necessary. But, apparently, this is the first chance he's had to pass along any of his wisdom......(this video is very short)



While Administrator of the Coalition Provisional authority, Paul Bremer, was responsible for the oversight of giving hundreds of billions of dollars of contracts. We've all heard horror stories about who received those contracts. Thankfully, somebody thought ahead and required a certified accounting company to audit all of these contracts that were being awarded. But.....that company wasn't all it was cracked up to be.......(this video is around five minutes)



Here is a paragraph from the Washington Post article that this last video clip is about.

The CPA was designed to be a grand experiment in nation-building, a body of experts who would be Iraq's guide for transforming itself into a model for democracy in the Middle East. Unlike previous reconstruction efforts, it was to be manned by civilians -- advisers on politics, law, medicine, transportation, agronomy and other key areas. They were supposed to be experts, but many of the younger hires who filled the CPA's hallways were longer on enthusiasm than on expertise.

"Grand experiment in nation-building." So much for "grand experiments." But at least now we know part of the reason that our presence in Iraq has been a failure......(this video is around five minutes too)

The Shameful Senate

Today, the Republicans in the U.S. Senate prevented the American people from hearing a real debate about the President's policy of escalating the war in Iraq. Senator John Warner of Virginia voted to deny debate on his own resolution. That is not only intellectually dishonest, it's despicable.

Speaking of despicable, Joe Lieberman voted to deny a debate on the issue. Did he forget that he lost his party's nomination because of his views on this subject? Is he so politically tone deaf that he doesn't realize that nearly 80% of the nation feels that escalation is a bad idea?

Republicans Norm Coleman of Minnesota and Susan Collins of Maine voted with the Democrats on the measure. That's because they are among the most vulnerable Republican incumbents in the 2008 electoin cycle. Senator Collins admitted that the Senate Republican Caucus had a contentious meeting with Vice President Cheney. So, it appears that, because of pressure from the White House (with a current approval rating that ranks right up there with cancer!) many of the Senators who oppose the war in Iraq voted to deny any discussion on the matter. Where were people like Olympia Snowe, Chuck Hagel, and Gordon Smith?

Today's vote was absolutely WOEFUL. It makes me ashamed of the Senate. I worked for that institution for six and a half years. It was always the place of reason and debate. Today, debate was silenced. It's tragic. It's what Republicans are all about.

The people who care about our troops and their families will continue to press for a debate about the policy that brought us into an unjustified war. We will also advocate for the best and quickest way to get our fellow Americans out of that unjustified war.

Please support organizations like MoveOn.org who are working night and day to bring us to an end to the failed policy and leadership that is the Iraq War. Our American soldiers and their families deserve better.

"In times like these, we don't need to redefine the Democratic Party, we need to reclaim the Democratic Party"

Straight to you from my friends at PoliticsTV is the video of John Edwards homerun speech yesterday at the DNC Winter Meeting. The title of this post joins the title of my post about his speech at Riverside Church in NYC on MLK Day as favorite lines that really define the essence of the 2008 Presidential campaign. The other line was "It's time for Americans to be patriotic about something other than war." Edwards keeps getting better. He's far better than he was in 2004 and I'm looking forward to following his progress.

Enjoy the video, but I must say, it doesn't do justice to the reaction from the crowd. The cheers were so loud at times, that you couldn't hear what he was saying. When he comes to campaign near you, GO. You won't regret it.

'08 Hopefuls Stump Under Same Roof for First Time

The General Session at today's Democratic National Committee meeting dealt with a little party business. However, the main attraction, which packed the ballroom at the Washington Hilton, was the convergence of the men and woman seeking the Democratic Party's nomination for President.

Every speech given was well received by those gathered. Each speech had its own merits. During my little bit of downtime before another event, I wanted to give you the "highlight" of the Obama, Edwards, and Clinton speeches. And when I say "highlight", what I mean is: what I thought about it.....

Barack Obama was greeted like a rock star. He gave a thoughtful, straight forward speech. He returned to campaign themes that he has used before: "it's not about hype", "our politics are too small", and about "the need for a genuine debate about concrete ideas." His speech contained many inspirational notions, but it seemed to contradict reality. Were it not for hype, he would never be considered a Presidential contender, after two years in the U.S. Senate. While his lofty notions and ideas appeal to the rank and file, they lack the concrete specifics he calls for at the same time. I understand that you can't talk detailed policy in a stump speech, but the main criticism coming from activists is that they're not sure what Obama wants to do for America besides raise the level of political discourse. I hope in the near future, Obama will begin to deliver his ideas on how to get us out of Iraq, how to keep jobs in America, how to provide Universal Healthcare, and on many more important issues.

John Edwards entered to the tune of a country song that I recognized, but don't know the name of. The recognizable lyric was "This is my country"....or something like that. He started out slowly, talking about people in different situations. I wasn't quite sure where he was headed with it, then he brought it all together in a rousing, momentum building rally cry to "Stand with" each of the people whose stories he had just told and to "Stand with America." From that moment on, Edwards was on fire. He spoke to the historical values of the Democratic Party to take care of children, carry the mantle on education, and help eradicate poverty. He talked about working people worrying about losing their pensions and having no safety net after thirty years of work. The unions were mentioned several times and cheered loudly in response. His words about the War in Iraq were by far the strongest in opposition, which was very well received. Edwards' message was populist, inspiring, and incredibly popular. And....he won the standing ovation competition.

Hillary Clinton also entered the room like a rock star. She delivered a traditional stump style speech that was well received by those in the cavernous room. She covered all the right points: Bush's failed leadership, the need for healthcare, the economy, jobs, and Iraq. There was one thing I just couldn't get out of my head, though: the vote she cast to go to war in 2002. I'm very confused about my opinion on this. On one side of the room, Code Pink, an anti-war organization, staged a small protest. They each had a letter on their shirts that altogether read "NO WAR" and with their left hands, held up in peace signs. I know that Hillary has said many things about the vote that she cast to go to war. Today, she even said "If I was President in 2002, we would not have gone to war in Iraq." So, she's danced all around saying her vote was wrong and apologizing for it. I just don't understand why she won't do that. For me and many other party activists, that will remain an issue in the back of our minds. It may end up being an issue that will make room for someone else to gain support. That being said, she also gave a great speech and she's still the front-runner among the establishment.

I'd say each of these three will be well-received around the country. But, each of their speeches were different. As they take their campaigns from State to State and City to City, people will decide which ideas and style they want to represent them in November 2008. Given that each of their approaches is different enough, we may see a narrowing of the field sooner than we all think.

DNC Meeting: Young Democrats lose quest, but it's okay. Really!

The big activity at this afternoon's DNC Winter meeting occurred late in the day during the Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting. The Young Democrats, led by YD President Chris Gallaway of Virginia, sought a change in Party Rules to require State Parties to have goals and timetables for increasing youth representation in the delegate selection process.

According to Phil McNamara, DNC Director of Party Affairs and Delegate Selection, in the late 70's "youth" was included in a group for which the Party sought Affirmative Action policies to increase their representation in Party Affairs. By 1980, the word "youth" had been deleted.

The Young Democrats' Gallaway correctly contends that the Charter of the Democratic Party includes "youth" in the list of constituencies for which the Party "shall adopt and implement an affirmative action program which provides for representation as nearly as practicable of the aforementioned groups, as indicated by their presence in the Democratic electorate."

Currently the DNC Rules require equal representation between men and women. It also requires State Parties to have goals of representation by African-Americans, Asian/Pacific-Islanders, Hispanics, and Native Americans. Gallaway and his band of young party activists sought to have the Rules changed to reflect the Charter by having "youth" added to this list. They, in fact, believe there should have been no other choice because their position is that the Rules are in violation of the Charter

There seemed to be ample support for the YD's position. However their motion didn't pass. Why? Apparently they missed a date certain that amendments must be filed. They did however get a compromise passed which was offered by DNC Staff and DNC's General Counsel. The insertion of one sentence directly states that State delegate selection plans may "establish goals and timetables for the under-represented groups identified in Rule 7.....Such as the special importance of the inclusion of youth as reflected in the Party's Charter." In other words, they make it optional for States to include additional groups, including youth, to their goals for representation. Confusing enough?

So, they didn't get what they wanted, but it's okay. Here's why: when young people run for Delegate, they win! I've done it twice and there is incredible support among the party activists to provide young people with the experience of attending a national convention.

The problem is that not enough young people are knowledgable about the complex process to become a National Delegate. It begins at local precinct reorganization and ends at the election of Delegates at the State Convention, which is usually several months later. I am convinced that if the Young Democrats make a concerted effort to educate their members about the process by which they can be a Delegate to the National Convention, they will significantly increase their representation with outstanding young Democratic activists.

I hope they are not too disappointed to get to work on exactly that. They can surely reach 20% percent representation and perhaps surpass it. They will find sympathetic Democrats all around the country that will elect them as long as they work for it.

Is Tony Dungy a Right Winger?

For those of you who don't recognize the name, Tony Dungy is the Coach of the Indiana Colts. And if you don't follow sports, they're headed to Miami for the Super Bowl.

So a fellow blogger, Bill Brown, has posted here about Coach Dungy being honored at a Banquet of the Indiana Family Institute. Reverend James Dobson from Focus on the Family supports IFI as an affiliated Family Policy Council. You remember Dobson, don't you? He's the right winger who thinks that John McCain is a liberal. This guy is probably does coffee with Darth Vader himself.

Why would Tony Dungy want to be honored by such an organization? These organizations exist to "protect the home" and "protect the family". This is what a PR professional came up with to avoid saying that they hate gays and lesbians. In other words, they only want to protect SOME families. There are millions of same sex families in our country. It perplexes me why there is even an argument about whether or not they deserve the same rights, privileges, and protections as other families. Does Tony Dungy support discriminating against them? How about the ownership of the Indiana Colts? We should ask.