by catastrophile, Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:31:24 AM EDT
Hey folks, just wanted to put something out there because, though I haven't been on top of things for the last couple of years, I've been doing my best to keep up with the blogosphere via my trusty RSS aggregator, and I'm extremely disappointed that the Dems appear to have taken their eyes off the ball yet again, and going into the fourth election cycle since the 2000 swindle, it seems that, once again, nobody's talking about vote suppression. At least, nobody on the blogs I'm following.
I know, I know, everybody's sick and tired of hearing about how past elections were stolen. Fine, I'll just pretend that GWB actually won the last two Presidential elections fair and square, and speak hypothetically about what desperate and corrupt state party operatives might resort to rather than submit to the will of the people.
I'm just going to rattle off a few possibilities, and encourage people to start thinking about them now, rather than waiting until November 5th.
by catastrophile, Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 11:41:37 PM EDT
Chris expresses frustration that Swamp Dems just don't get "what a tremendous winning issue Iraq withdrawal is for them." But he's already put his finger right on the problem, in a previous post on the subject of polling:
By only ever portraying the only withdrawal position as "bring all the troops home now," polling firms have ignored the popular, progressive middle ground that is emerging in this country.
I submit that there's a very good reason why that's the position being polled: Because that is the position that will be assigned to anybody who doesn't support the Reep "strategy" of indefinite war.
What's the responsible course in Iraq? Get some fair-handed security forces trained that can keep the peace and preserve the integrity of the government there, then get out of the way so that they can figure out what they're doing.
What does the Bush administration claim it's doing? Exactly that.
Would it be responsible to pull out of Iraq without getting the situation reasonably stabilized first? Hell no.
What will the Reeps accuse anybody who says the word 'withdrawal' of advocating? Exactly that.
It's already started, for Pete's sake; Murtha suggested simply withdrawing ground troops to a respectful distance and backing Iraqi forces with air support. "CUT AND RUN!" the Reeps cried, and they're keeping the chant going from now until November. It doesn't matter how rational, reasonable, and practical an alternative solution is. It doesn't matter if you call it withdrawal, redeployment, Iraqification, or doubleplusgood superhappyvictoryplan, it will be met with the same response. That has already been made abundantly clear. And to Hell with the details. Details put people to sleep.
We've been watching the Reeps operate for long enough to know how their electoral strategy works these days. Three stages:
They distort, you comply
- Misrepresent Reep policy so it sounds completely reasonable;
- Misrepresent Dem policy so it sounds completely unreasonable; and
- Let the people decide which policy sounds better.
, remember? There is no middle ground
as far as they're concerned. There are only two choices: 'Give the President a free hand to win this war' or 'cut and run' -- and once people accept that dichotomy, there's no contest.
With that said, here's the paradox.
by catastrophile, Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 04:00:57 PM EDT
I'm sick of talking about the DLC. Even not having done so for quite a while, I'm still sick of it.
Nonetheless, I'm still on their mailing list, and they're not sick of attacking "their own" party's voter base.
Below the jump, find yet-another-anti-DLC-diary, or skip over it and move on to something worthwhile. No big deal.
by catastrophile, Tue May 30, 2006 at 03:36:55 PM EDT
It's been said that military or imperial occupation destroys not only the life and property of the occupied, but -- much more terribly -- the soul of the occupier.
by catastrophile, Mon May 15, 2006 at 12:44:06 PM EDT
The Reeps may be beleaguered, but they're far from done. Every day it becomes more apparent that Issue '06 is going to be "immigration" -- which, of course, is Reep shorthand for "brown people stealing our jobs and threatening our cultural purity" -- and the administration is setting the bait, hoping the opposition will bite and be dragged into a war of words that will drive the crimes of the last several years out of people's minds.
As the White House readies itself for yet another massive publicity event on this issue, I find my self reminded of a parallel play made by Cali Reeps in the Pete Wilson administration: Proposition 187.
by catastrophile, Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 02:21:01 PM EST
Crossposted here in hopes of drawing some analysis and commentary from the keen strategic and analytical minds. I'm sure this is hardly a brand new thought to many of you, but I'm keen to discuss applications.
I've been thinking for a while about the fundamental differences between modern liberal and conservative thought -- referred to hereafter as "BlueThink" and "RedThink" -- but recent events have precipitated action.
First, Lisa@2Babes posts the image of a despicable card received by a soldier at Walter Reed Hospital -- triggering a chorus of conservative posters to assume and insist that some anti-war liberal must be behind the act.
Second, Daniel@RavingConservative posts a laundry list of contrasting bullet points which detail his view of the liberal/conservative division. The pattern becomes painfully clear, very quickly. (UPDATE: Daniel has also, sadly, jumped on the Miguel's Card Bandwagon.)
And here we have a fundamental disconnect between two major schools of thought -- schools of thought which, although they do not break down exactly along party lines, can be reasonably identified as predominantly Reep- and Dem-oriented.
To be perfectly clear, one will find signs of BlueThink in Reeps, and of RedThink in Dems. This is also not inherently a liberal-conservative dichotomy. There are many BlueThinking conservatives, and a comparable number of RedThinking liberals. The Red/Blue taxonomy adopted here reflects the fact that the two major parties themselves can reasonably be seen as adhering to their respective schools of thought in their platforms and narratives -- their public communications, which are completely unrelated to policy. In other words, the Reeps cater rhetorically to RedThink, and the Dems cater rhetorically to BlueThink.
by catastrophile, Fri Oct 21, 2005 at 10:56:01 AM EDT
The day after Representative George Miller
introduced a bill to reverse the Gulf Coast Wage Cut, on which he intends to force a floor vote by early November, newspapers across the country ran unsigned editorials which all contained an identical passage
praising the President's suspension of the Davis-Bacon law:
One of the smartest things President Bush did to reduce recovery costs in the aftermath of hurricanes Katrina and Rita was to suspend Davis-Bacon Act rules in the hardest hit states. But Congress is frantically trying to overrule the president, which would add billions of dollars to the already staggering recovery costs.
The suspension of Davis-Bacon allows contractors receiving federal funds to pay the migrant workers they're shipping in
less than the going rate for the work they're doing:
The Louisiana Department of Labor says it has received requests from contractors to certify 500 illegal migrants. Agency officials estimate that the actual number of illegal migrants already working for contractors is far higher, because many employers are not bothering with the paperwork.
So it appears the administration is using coordinated media propaganda
to defend a policy which will allow the recipients of big government spending
to hire illegal immigrants
and screw American labor
Is there any segment of the population this story won't piss off?
These f@ckers need to get hammered over this.
Tap hits to Josh@TPM and Atrios@Eschaton.
by catastrophile, Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 12:43:04 PM EDT
nails the puppy to the door:
So what to do?
Certainly one thing to do is sit back and relish the brewing fight between the principled wingnuts and the confirmed Bush toadies. At the same time, it must be occurring to at least some Dems that, at least in ideological terms, they could likely do far worse than Miers. In any case, set that all aside and focus on the fact that Miers has been involved -- often deeply involved -- in pretty much everything that the White House has been trying to keep secret for going on five years. That should make for interesting questioning.
Indeed: Not only was Miers on the Ashcroft-Gonzales career track, but she's been occupying a position which virtually required that she be a part of the various administration conspiracies and coverups that have gone down. In fact, it seems likely that her appointment could be a way to ensure her silence about the things she's seen and done for the administration.
So: What should the Dems ask about?
by catastrophile, Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 01:28:04 PM EDT
What do John Roberts and Harriet Miers have in common?
Limited judicial experience, a history of staying out of the limelight, utter competence . . . and extremely close ties to the Reep political establishment
. Both individuals are the very definition of activist judges -- they were selected because they can be depended on to promote the party's agenda.
I would hope people would be figuring out by now that, though this administration pays rhetoric to conservative principles, the agenda is not ideological but partisan.
No such luck. Everybody's either shocked
by this pick, or in denial about what it means.
by catastrophile, Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 12:05:40 AM EDT
Wherein David Corn and David Swanson engage in an intellectual
deathmatch quarrel kerfluffle -- uh, disagreement? -- for your activatory edification.
Your humble referee presumes to take no position in this matter, and, should any apparent bias emerge, shall endeavor to resign it to the deepest, darkest available pit. The diarist's intent is merely to foster awareness and discussion of these two divergent views on dissent.
And no, I haven't been drinking.