Yup, Krauthammer is a nut case. MJ Rosenberg wrote this yesterday over at TPM Cafe:
About three years ago, I saw Krauthammer flip out in synagogue on Yom Kippur. The rabbi had offered some timid endorsement of peace -- peace essentially on Israel's terms -- but peace anyway. Krauthammer went nuts. He actually started bellowing at the rabbi, from his wheel chair in the aisle. People tried to "shush" him. It was, after all, the holiest day of the year. But Krauthammer kept howling until the rabbi apologized. The man is as arrogant as he is thuggish. Who screams at the rabbi at services? For advocating peace?
What depresses me most about the constant playing and replaying of the anti-Semitism card isn't the fact that I'm currently a target of it -- Billmon is just an bunch of electrons, a shadow of the blogosphere, and it doesn't matter what the pro-Israel partisans say about him -- but the blanket of dishonesty and fear it throws over any discussion of Israel and Israel's special relationship with the United States.
I mean, here we have an incredibly powerful lobby -- as effective in its own sphere of interest as the NRA is with firearms, if not more so -- and yet when a critic of Israel (or even worse, a goy critic of Israel) dares to mentions that power and influence it's treated as the moral equivalent of a Julius Streicher editorial. The other day one of my e-mail stalkers accused me of writing stuff that could have appeared in the Völkischer Beobachter.
Now why would I want to do that when Fox News already has that market locked up?
On the other hand, when a Jewish writer for the New Yorker quoted AIPAC's top lobbyist saying this:
"You see this napkin? In twenty-four hours, we could have the signatures of seventy senators on this napkin."
I do see it as yet another example of the increasingly impermeable bubble that America now lives in -- a kind of virtual reality in which the government, both political parties and the major media tacitly agree to ignore threatening facts or uncomfortable contradictions if recognizing them would upset the "mainstream" consensus. And America's alliance with Israel is a cherished part of that consensus. (emphasis mine)
That RJC ad really is ironic because it sets up the Democratic party as anti-Israel (makes sense since they're Republican) but expects people to forget that the Democrats were falling all over each other a few weeks ago to show they could love Israel more than the Republicans.
1. Organized labor, which overlooked their own internal breach to support a service-union heavy state like Nevada.
2. Harry Reid, the minority leader. Not only did he heavily lobby on behalf of his state, he's gone out of way to publicly and privately embrace DNC chairman Howard Dean.
The other reason that I think made Nevada the better choice is that it's been the fastest growing state for the past 10-20 years. It's Latino population is a bit smaller than Arizona's but not much (like 20% to 25%).
"What I'm trying to do is build a Democratic team," Dean said. "And if you're going to build a party, everybody has to be in."
Howard is exactly right here. The Tribune story is not the first to report about the recent dust-up between Howard & Emanuel. Roll Call first ran it and it was picked up by Raw Story. Here's what the Trib doesn't mention:
Emanuel, who reportedly stormed out of a May meeting with Dean, penned a letter, dated June 22, to the party chairman demanding $100,000 per targeted district from the DNC to defray the cost of the DCCC's proposed field operation, several individuals who have read the letter said.
In making his monetary request, Emanuel cited the example of 1994, when, he said, the Republican National Committee earmarked $20 million for then-Speaker Newt Gingrich's successful drive for a House takeover. By contrast, Emanuel suggested that Dean had offered a woefully inadequate $20,000 per district.
But while his allies argue that Emanuel, through his record-setting fundraising for the DCCC, deserves wide latitude in shaping '06 strategy, Dean loyalists took the letter as hostile in nature, coming as it did after months of coy suggestions by Emanuel that Dean and the DNC were shirking their financial obligations to the DCCC's election year effort.
We support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families. In our country, marriage has been defined at the state level for 200 years, and we believe it should continue to be defined there. We repudiate President Bush's divisive effort to politicize the Constitution by pursuing a "Federal Marriage Amendment." Our goal is to bring Americans together, not drive them apart.
How many states again have amended (or are in the process of doing so) to define marriage as between a man and a woman? Here's a list from the Human Rights Campaign.
Howard may not have been 100% on the money but he didn't sound too far off.
We do not fund our own. I mean, Moveon and DFA haven't even come in for Ned Lamont in Connecticut.
I can't speak about MoveOn but the party line from DFA is that a candidate has to be recommended before they'll even consider adding the candidate to their DFA list.
Having said that, don't hold your breath. The only Virginia candidate DFA supported last year was Leslie Byrne. I asked about DFA supporting Tim Kaine and was told that DFA was going to endorse him in September. Never happened. I suspect Kaine wasn't "progressive" enough for DFA to endorse.
If someone in Connecticut wants DFA to endorse Ned Lamont, nominate him and have someone from the campaign apply on his behalf as well.