• comment on a post I have just one question over 5 years ago

    Barack Obama picked Joe Biden as someone who could help him govern.  Obama is putting America's interests first.

    John McCain picked Sarah Palin because he hoped she could help him win.  McCain is putting his own interests first.

  • Under Iraq, don't forget the Pat Tillman coverup.

  • Exactly!  He's driving a wedge between the GOP leadership and rank-and-file Republicans (who he is trying to co-opt) by subtly pointing out to the rank-and-file what disasters their leaders really are.  That's why he doesn't refer to "Republicans" generically; he doesn't want the rank-and-file to think he's talking about them.

    This reminds me somewhat of the "some people say" phrasing that President Bush and Fox News like to use when contrasting themselves with liberals.  The main difference is that they follow this phrase with a ridiculous strawman that doesn't come close to describing what most liberals actually believe.  Obama has turned that on its head, by following his "the other side says" phrasing with accurate descriptions of what the leadership has actually said and done.

  • It's not just the presidential election that matters here.  Texas Democrats need only a few victories to take back the Texas House of Representatives.  This is absolutely crucial to reverse the Delay-inspired redistricting in 2010 and to put more U.S. Congressional districts back into play.

    A national investment by Democrats in Texas is a smart move, regardless of the outcome in the presidential race.

  • comment on a post TX-07: Michael Skelly is the Real Deal over 6 years ago

    There's more reason for hope in this district.  Culberson has really angered many in this area by his support for the I-10 expansion (at the expense of local businesses and homeowners) and his opposition to the METRORail expansion.  It's become clear to many that he's in the pocket of certain construction companies and is doing their bidding at the expense of his constituents.  He also doesn't seem to have endeared himself much to anyone else.  I expect to see strong opposition to and only lukewarm support for his reelection.  Granted, it's an uphill district, but it's certainly winnable if the blue wave in Houston is large enough.

  • on a comment on Texas Continues To Trend Obama over 6 years ago

    Not necessarily.  In particular, one finds a good deal of Democratic support among white unionized refinery and chemical plant workers along the Gulf Coast, particularly in the Golden Triangle area.

  • comment on a post Bush Meets Nixon over 7 years ago

    Only one more point before Bush hits the Crazification Factor.

  • It's not just lazy and untrue, it's also a grave insult.  How dare they?  How dare they imply that people who are against this war are anything but concerned for our troops?  We're the ones trying to extricate them from this GOP-instigated clusterf*** that serves no national purpose and actually makes America weaker in the world, not stronger.

    Wiesman and Balz are just another reason that the Washington Post is going straight down the tubes.

  • comment on a post The Joy Of Contesting Every Seat over 7 years ago

    I was intrigued to see that you added the tags "Richard Morrison" and "TX-22" to this post, because I immediately saw the connection between OH-02 and TX-22.  Morrison was not victorious against Tom DeLay in 2004, but his scrappy fight and strong result did what no one else had done before: show that DeLay was vulnerable.  DeLay's power, after all, was built on the aura of invulnerability: you did not mess with The Hammer and live to tell about it.  

    Morrison showed that DeLay could be beaten; not only did that draw Nick Lampson into this year's race, but it reduced DeLay's power in the GOP caucus and brought out the long knives.  I am absolutely convinced that DeLay would be here today if not for Richard Morrison's run, and Morrison's run wouldn't have had this effect if not for the tremendous support he received from MyDD and the blogosphere.

  • on a comment on Stand Up for Yourselves over 7 years ago

    And maybe we can't reinforce the Democratic brand in every district.  But the point is, we should do it wherever and whenever we can.  There's got to be a consistent, coherent pushback against the "Democrat = evil" message that's been spewing uncontested from the GOP and its minions for decades now.

    The pushback has to start somewhere, sometime.  I certainly can't think of a better time than now.  And it's got to start in lots of places, even some places where (heaven forfend!) the candidate might feel he or she is taking a bit of a risk to do so.

  • To the contrary, this was a smart move by Reid and Schumer.  There's no point in alienating the 100,000+ Connecticut Democrats who voted for Joe Lieberman.  There's also no point in getting Lieberman's back up.  Allow him to save face; he won't drop his independent bid otherwise.

  • comment on a post Democratic Establishment Unifies Behind Lamont over 8 years ago

    I'm quite happy with the statements of Emanuel and Reid/Schumer.  Not just because they are clear in their support of Lamont, but because both statements show that, finally, finally, the upper echelons of the Democratic Party get it.

    It's not just about the war in Iraq.

    It's about state-sanctioned torture.  It's about wiretapping without oversight.  It's about a President who says he can disregard any law he doesn't feel like enforcing.

    It's about an Administration that demeans this country in the eyes of the world, that loses us friends, and that creates us more enemies.

    It's about Osama bin Laden, our failure to prevent 9/11, and our failure to catch him now.

    It's about the graft, and the incompetence, and the lack of planning or sense of urgency about the disasters--natural and man-made--we face.

    It's about manufacturing intelligence to support cockamamie theories of empire while ignoring the facts about the world that inform good policy.  It's about phony terror alerts, paid-off pundits, and journalists who think their job is to transcribe the words of officials.

    It's about Terri Schiavo, and stem cells, and the right to be left the hell alone.  It's about Social Security, and the bankruptcy bill, and the Medicare prescription drug debacle.  It's about the loss of American jobs, and the collapse of the housing bubble, and the ever-increasing tax cuts for the wealthy while the rest of us pay higher prices at the pump.

    It's about politicians whose only constituents are the donors who give them money and the interest groups that endorse them.

    But most of all, it's about enabling the worst excesses of the far-right-wing with a wink and a nod in the name of "bipartisanship."  It's about Democrats who parrot dishonest right-wing talking points, who can always be counted on to bash other Democrats and talk nice about Republicans.

    We fight this only by showing the courage to stand up and stand together, to say that we are proud to be Democrats and that we will not let the thieves, whores, and zealots call us unpatriotic and treasonous while they loot our treasury, divide our citizenry, and desecrate the memory of those who fought and died so we might be free.

    That's what it's about.

  • comment on a post Let The Anti-Netroots Deluge Begin over 8 years ago

    I have a pretty simple rule:

    If you use a Republican mouthpiece to bash Democrats using Republican talking points, you're not a Democrat.  You're a Republican.

    Let me repeat that:

    If you use a Republican mouthpiece to bash Democrats using Republican talking points, you're not a Democrat.  You're a Republican.

    Let's see how this plays out.  Fox News is a Republican mouthpiece.  So is the 700 Club.  And the National Review.  And the op-ed pages of the Wall Street Journal.  So if you bash Democrats using Republican talking points in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, you're a Republican.  

    Lanny Davis is therefore a Republican.  Martin Peretz is therefore a Republican.

    It's really not that hard to understand, is it?  

  • comment on a post Richard Goodstein Gone Wild over 8 years ago

    Some enterprising reporter needs to ask Goodstein who's paying for him to be there, and which of his clients have legislation before any committee on which Lieberman serves.

  • Notice the difference, though, between what Republican operatives say and don't say.  (I agree with Mimikatz the distinction between operatives and politicians here is important.)  Republican operatives don't say, "We need to do specific-policy X because that will help convince the electorate we're strong on general-issue-category Y."  They say, "Specific-policy X is good for our electoral chances because we're strong on general-issue-category Y."

    The first implies that the party is not good at Y, but the party can "fake" Y by doing X.  The second says the electorate will agree with policy X because it trusts the party on category Y.

    The first works for an electorate that examines particular policy proposals and judges a party based on the sum of those policies.  But we don't have that electorate in this country.  Whether people support particular policies is, in essence, not that important.  Most people aren't paying close enough attention to the details of policies anyway -- that's why they hire representatives to consider the details.  What they do care about is the overall thrust of those policies.


Advertise Blogads