If I can make a bit of a personal plea, Linda Stender is running to defeat the horrendous DeLay flunky Mike Ferguson in New Jersey's seventh district. She's that increasingly rare breed of progressive Democratic candidate these days who's got the backing of the netroots, the local grassroots, and the DC establishment to boot. The district is far from solid red and Stender's got a great track record there, currently serving in the state Assembly.
There are certain benchmarks candidates have to meet to be considered "viable" to pull in serious money however, and the fine folks at Blue Jersey are trying to push Stender over the top. Right now, she's less than $9,000 away from her goal, so if you have a few bucks for the race, I'd say it's definitely worth your while to support her campaign.
Whoa... who said anything about surrendering to Republicans and "getting along?" All I'm saying is that the idea that the ideas of red and blue Americans living in neatly clustered chunks of the map is stupid. For example, the red Americans of Montana seem to love their state's Democratic Party. And personally speaking, I live in a red town in a red county in a red congressional district in a blue state. So what does that say about how all of the people around me think? Nothing. Are they somehow morally superior to the people who live twenty minutes to the east? Of course not.
There's no mistaking that there is an agenda of anger and division driving the Republican party. And false constructs of "good" red Americans and "bad" blue Americans only serves to feed that.
On this topic, I don't care about any partisan comparisons. Clinton didn't do enough, and now Bush is not doing enough. This change to the CAFE standards isn't as significant as it ought to be, no matter who's running the government.
Yeah, and that's exactly what worries me. The polls ALWAYS tell us the people are with us on the issues. But for too long, we've failed to capitalize on that. I think we should put forward an image of the Democrats as the party of the majority. It's pretty simple, really. The Republicans have done a better job in recent history of presenting themselves as the optimistic party of the majority, even if it's total BS. Sadly, I think that kind of marketing strategy resonates with people, and you wind up with people who should be voting for Democrats on the issues going along with the GOP, not because the product is better, but because they prefer the brand.
No problem, and totally understood. There are too many liberals who also take the Derbyshire view of national identity without even thinking about it. It's something we need more people pointing out and discussing.
While James-orchestrated opposition may be a bit of a stumbling block to a Booker win, I'm still pretty confident that Booker's now the front runner. James has said he's not running for re-election because he's opposed to dual office holding (he's also a state Senator). How does James square that with the fact that the man who is now Booker's main rival -- Ronald Rice, Sr -- is also a state Senator? James is an incredibly savvy pol, so the only thing I can think is that he's essentially decided not to get too involved.
It's got potential to develop into a crazy situation. We'll see how it all shakes out.
(Bonus question: After six-plus years as both Mayor and Senator, how did James suddenly decide he's opposed to holding two elected positions at the same time?)
I know you're probably no longer reading this, but I've got to point out that my main question -- how you define "Abramoff's keiretsu" -- remains unanswered. That's a pretty big deal in context of the larger debate and I will continue to insist you were implying something that is patently false -- that Democrats were in Abramoff's pocket.
And on the more personal point, you're unfairly tarring people with an overly broad brush here and, speaking as one of the tarred, I don't appreciate it.
1. I don't know anyone from Capitol Hill Blue and I don't know anything about the issue you're talking about, but I do know that even you can only go so far as to be reasonably suspicious about what you read. That's not proof of anything, even though such proof that, you're right, may indeed exist.
2. The "gore-for-porn" scandal. You didn't like the way Aravosis covered it, so you claim it's falacy? That's ridiculous.
3. This one's my favorite. "A couple months ago, I was effectively banned from Daily Kos for repeating the verified fact that one-third of the contributions from Abramhoff's corrupt keiretsu went to Democrats."
This is just flat out dishonest. I like your clever use of the word "keiretsu." Obviously, most people don't know what it means, so they'd think it meant allies, cronies, footsoldiers, whatever. Whatever it meant, they were "Abramoff's." In this context, I don't even know how you define "Abramoff's keiretsu." Are you talking about his clients? If so, you're misusing the word. Are you talking about lobbyists Abramoff worked with, as would be a more accurate use of the word? How do you think that implicates Democrats in the Abramoff scandal, exactly? I'm perfectly willing to let you use this comment thread as a forum to post the evidence of that, but honestly, if there was, it would have been front page news at every paper in the nation.
The problem is not that people are threatened by your facts so much as your facts aren't facts. That's just annoying. How do you think people like me are supposed to react when you go off saying that I'm just as ethically challenged as Domenech? You get that that's really insulting, right?
Has anyone done any research into fundraising efforts Bush is doing on behalf of Republicans v. similiar efforts Clinton engaged in for Democrats? I think that would be an interesting aspect to this discussion.