Favorite Bowers Moments

I first started reading MyDD because of Chris Bowers.  In the run up to the 2004 election, I was obsessing about polls, and through google, I was introduced to someone who was obsessing more than me.  Here is the first article I read by Chris, and I spent a lot of time digesting it.  While the election turned out a little different, it was nice to have a place to come to get some of this out of my system.  Funny, I had bookmarked this article without bothering to bookmark the MyDD homepage, so for months, I would access the site through this artcle.  

I am a little anxious about Chris's departure.  While some bloggers are known for dynamic online personalities, Chris always impressed me with his more subtle nature.  He rarely seemed to vent in his articles, but rather always took time for careful writing and substantial analysis.  I appreciate this much more than the personality driven blogs.

Jerome has made a welcome comeback, and I have been impressed over the past months at both the quality and quantity of Jonathan's writing.  We'll see if any of the new bloggers establish themselves on the site, but I cant help but think of how MyDD will be deminished by the departure of Bowers.  

Here are some of my favorite Bowers moments on MyDD.

Breaking the Brownback Iconography and Intern Abuse scandal.

Guilting (subtely threatening) the producers of United 93 into buying advertising on the site.  

All the ones about why Gore isn't being put in the straw poll.

The one where he puts Gore in the straw poll.

Fat Cats like Chris Bowers and George Soros.

The one where he mentions me.

The one where he quotes a professional dismissing him for the advocating 50 state strategy.  

Poetry Fridays.

Project Runway.

Chris, Live Long and Prosper.

There's more...

Rasmussen Poll and its implications

What a great post this was to read. Thanks for it, Chris.  

After I pulled a bit of a coup this morning by scooping Political Wire, I had my KOS diary cited therein.  I was happy about my diary, but as I read and responded to the comments, I realized I did not make my points clearly.  

This blogging can actually be hard.  I guess that's why they pay Bowers the big bucks.  I mean.. uh.. I guess that's why they pay Bowers.  

The basic premise of my diary was that a poll that shows Lamont above 40% and Lieberman in the 40's at the expense of the GOP candidate, who was polling in the single digits, could only be good news for Lamont.  I made the assumption that Kossacks had been schooled in the Bowers School of Poll Analysis, as I have, but lo, that was not the case.  

It took many snarky replies to try and make my case, an argument that Chris makes here clearly and easily:  If the level of Lamont's support is accurate, at 41%, the only way that this becomes a horse race is if there is no GOP candidate on the ballot.  

There's more...

Joe's Independent Bid

Lieberman must submit 7,500 signatures to town and city halls around the state by end of day tomorrow to get on the ballot in November.  His new party, of course, is called Connecticut for Lieberman.  Joe may have problems qualifying.  While he has submitted a portion of the required signatures already, it was politically embarrassing for him to actively do this while running in a Democratic primary.  

Every signature must be validated by local voting officials.  That leaves Joe 9 working hours to submit the required signatures, and hope they all meet muster.  

I am sure that Joe will be able to accomplish this task, given his huge warchest, but his inclusion on the ballot in November is not yet secured.  

The order of candidates in the voting booth will be

  1. Schlesinger (Republican)
  2. Lamont (Democrat)
  3. Lieberman (Connecticut for Lieberman)

Now, we must pressure all Democrats of national standing to urge Joe to leave the race, and actively campaign for Lamont.  Three months is a long time to change the dynamic of this race.  

There's more...

Meet Ned Lamont: Greenwich Millionaire

I am very happy this morning to see the results of the latest Quinnipiac poll on the Democratic Senate primary race.  Greenwich millionaire businessman Ned Lamont has decisively pulled ahead of veteran Sen. Joe Lieberman.  As is my usual habit on hearing this kind of news, I wallowed in the glow of the wire reports.  

But something struck me as not quite right.  There seemed to be a strange anti-Lamont feel to the articles.

From the New York Times:

Facing his first serious challenge in 18 years as a senator, Mr. Lieberman has sought to brand Mr. Lamont as a wealthy dilettante who is trying to buy his way into office, and who is out of touch with ordinary Americans. One of Mr. Lieberman's first advertisements began: "Meet Ned Lamont. He's a Greenwich millionaire."

It seems that the Lieberman's latest desperate strategy is to dismiss Ned as a "millionaire." And I understand why, I mean could anyone imagine a millionaire being elected to the US Senate?

All these stories are a covering new Quinnipiac poll. Note the straight up descriptive intro's to the two candidates:

Momentum for Ned Lamont, the anti-war Connecticut U.S. Senate candidate, increases as he rolls to a 54 - 41 percent lead over incumbent Sen. Joseph Lieberman among likely Democratic primary voters, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

That seems pretty fair.  Ned is an anti-war US Senate candidate, and Joe is an incumbent.  

But this is how the poll is being reported in the "mainstream" media:

Hartford Courant: "Millionaire businessman Ned Lamont, a political novice fueled by deep pockets and voters' outrage over the Iraq war, has extended his lead over veteran Sen. Joe Lieberman less than a week before Connecticut's Democratic primary, according to a new poll released Thursday."

CNN, via AP: "Millionaire businessman Ned Lamont opened a double-digit lead over veteran Sen. Joe Lieberman less than a week before Connecticut's Democratic primary, according to a poll released Thursday."

MSNBC, via same:  "Millionaire businessman Ned Lamont opened a double-digit lead over veteran Sen. Joe Lieberman less than a week before Connecticut's Democratic primary, according to a poll released Thursday."

It seems that Joe's anti-Ned ad campaign was quite successful in defining who Ned Lamont is.  I think that I would rather vote for a veteran than a millionaire businessman.  

UPDATE.. Maybe my whining about this on Kos has had an effect.  Hartford Courant has updated their article:  "Greenwich businessman Ned Lamont, a political novice fueled by deep pockets and voters' outrage over the Iraq war, has extended his lead over veteran Sen. Joe Lieberman less than a week before Connecticut's Democratic primary, according to a new poll released Thursday."

There's more...

A Real Solution to Medical Malpractice

I would like to propose a solution to the problem of incompetent physicians who are allowed to continue practicing medicine after settling a malpractice suit, or being found liable in a malpractice suit.  They should have their license to practice medicine revoked.  This is only logical.  Once the bad doctors can no longer practice medicine, we wont have to worry about malpractice.  

And we all know there are bad doctors out there.  I think it is great that there is a legal remedy to address this incompetence in the lawsuit.  The problem is that once a bad doctor is exposed, and has to pay money to their victims, they are still allowed to practice without having any other penalty imposed.  What kind of fucked-up society do we live in that would tolerate this travesty?  What other profession is afforded this preferential treatment?  

Look, if a bus driver was found to be liable for maiming or killing their passengers, would they be allowed to pay off their victims, and STILL BE ALLOWED TO DRIVE THE BUS?  Fuck no!  So why do doctors think they are better than bus drivers?  

Some people may say, "Doctors are only human, they might not be total quacks if they make just one mistake." Ok, lets assume that's true.  As a compromise, I suggest that the first time a doctor harms a patient, the medical license may be revoked for a period of time, let's say a year.  The guilty physician may use that time to both remediate basic medical education, and reflect on the pain and suffering they caused to their innocent victims.  

Now, you may think that, as a physician myself, I am being sarcastic.  I am not.  I believe this would help bring some closure to this endless debate.  Maybe once people realize that they can no longer receive emergency medical care, or obstetrical care, and all specialties suffer serious physician shortages, we can re-evaluate how, as a society, we address the problems of medical errors.  

There's more...

The Myth of Iran

The United States cannot take any military action against Iran.  This is a result of Bush's incompetent leadership, which has left our military demoralized and over-extended, our people war-weary, and our country diplomatically compromised.  I will explain why this is an obvious fact shortly, but before I do, I want to say that discussion that action against Iran is a possibility plays directly into the neo-con's hands.  This is the theory of pre-emptive war: it only has to happen one time.  After a nation proves that it will causally declare war, weaker nations will quake in fear at the threat of war.  It may have worked if the invasion of Iraq had gone well, but it didn't, and the rest of the world knows it.  

Is anybody suprised by the sabre-rattling?  I am not, but I am suprised that few people can see through it.  War is against Iran is impossible.  Suggestions that it is possible advance a neocon narrative.  

Why is it impossible to take military action against Iran?

First:  Too many political risks.  Many people blogging these days talk about how unstable Bush is, and how he will declare war at the drop of a hat.  Were any of you people living in the US in 2003?  Bush was not some maverick war-mad renegade, but rather, because the Democrats refused to engage in any kind of critical debate prior to the invasion, Bush took no short-term political risks in starting the Iraq war.    I have been opposed to any action against Iraq since September 11, 2001.  When the issue was first raised after the attacks, it just made me laugh, thinking how confused people can get.  Now, seeing how things have unfolded since then has made me ashamed of this fickle people, but in March 2003, 2/3 of the US population supported the invasion of Iraq.

Today, consequences of declaring war against Iran are huge, in the short-term, and the neo-con cabal that run this government have proven themselves to be pandering political cowards.  They don't have the courage to take real, short-term political risks.

Second:  To paraphrase the '92 Clinton campaign, "It's Iraq, stupid." The only coherent military and diplomatic goal of this administration is to stabilize Iraq, and to limit US casualties.  The Bush government cannot afford a major destabilization of Iraq, especially at this time.  Bombing Iran may slow the Iranian development of nuclear weapons.  Doubtful, but possible.  But what would this do to the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan?  Iran, bordering both countries, is in a position to seriously fuck with US occupation forces, and that is one thing that Bush cannot risk politically.  More dangerous, it would lead to popular revolts against US occupation in both countries.  This is obvious and inevitable.  

Third:  "It's gas prices, stupid." Any military action against Iran would lead to huge increases in the price of oil.  This would be speculative.  The US would control the waters of the gulf, including the Strait, and its airspace, within hours of an attack on Iran, and oil would still easily flow from SA and the emirates.  But the markets would react violently, and this could threaten the global economy.  

A more immediate risk to US energy interests is Venezuela.  Oil from Venezuela accounts for almost 20% of US imports, and Chavez, the president of Venezuela has stated emphatically that if the US bombs Iran, all oil to the US would be cut off.  It takes 3 days to get a tanker from Venezuela to the US.  It takes weeks from Saudi Arabia.  The neocons know that we cannot risk losing Venezuelan oil.  

There are a lot of other reasons why no military action against Iran can be taken.  The cartoon riots throughout the Muslim world come to mind.  All this Iran war sabre-rattling is neo-con ego, and empty posturing, sound and fury signifying nothing.  

There's more...


I just read this on the MSNBC website: "Hackett, the 1st Iraq vet to run as a Democrat, in a time when we AS A POLITICAL PARTY are trying hard to deflect attacks by the GOP right wing machine on our commitment to national security & terrorism. And to do this in such a crucial Red State like Ohio. Unbelievable!" exclaimed a commenter nicknamed "fightingLadyinblue" on the MYDD.com website."

There's more...

In Defense of BUSH

I have to defend the president and make it clear that I am adamantly opposed to creating animal-human hybrids.  This idea surely is the result of liberal christmas-hating atheists and has no place in a god-fearing democracy.  The sight of half-human half-animal hybrid creatures walking around the streets of our beloved land would, without doubt, be a sign of impending armagedon.  It may be a cute thing at first, watching little boy-dolphins frolicking in the sea, and little wolf-cub girls chasing the cats, but soon they would grow up.  And then what?  They would probably want civil rights protections and access to the minimum wage.  And it would give the phrase "hung like a horse" a whole new meaning.

I may be sounding like a Republican, but I will throw you liberal animal-hybrid activists a bone (no pun intended.)  Technically, these "humanimals" would not be real people, and as such, they would not be protected by the soon to be instituted abortion laws.  So, we would be able to abort them without going to jail.  This may, in fact, help alleviate the impending abortion withdrawal all you liberals will soon be feeling.

That having been said, I am not opposed to human-plant hybrids, and I suspect these "humants" may be the solution to sending man (or whatever) to Mars.

There's more...

Tim McGraw: the next Democratic Golden Boy?

From Yahoo News

This was fun to read.  "NASHVILLE, Tenn. - Country singer Tim McGraw says he wants to run for office someday in his adopted home state of Tennessee -- perhaps for governor or U.S. senator -- and he's getting encouragement from a fellow Democrat, former President Clinton."

"I think he's got it," Clinton says of McGraw in an Esquire magazine story that hits newsstands Monday. "The Democrats need candidates whom people can relate to in a personal way, people who understand their lives and their concerns and share their values. And I think that's something Tim can do without even pretending."

He identified health care as his top issue, and said one of his main reasons for wanting to enter politics is Clinton, whom he calls "the best president we ever had."

Me and Tim have the same opinion of Bill.  Ashame about Bill's wife though.  

Daytona Beach dumps Diebold

After another Florida county documented the ease with which Diebold voting machines can be hacked, Volusia County Board of Elections voted to get rid of Diebold.

As a person who does not accept the accuracy (and possibly the validity) of the 2004 election, it was nice to see this article on the front page of the Daytona Beach News Journal.  The lead paragraph describes the Diebold machines as 'controversial voting equipment.'

I hope we can score some real voting reform here.  Black Box Voting


Advertise Blogads