But perhaps the maintenance of power is less and less dependent upon the powers-that-be. I really can't see that this administration is back on the highhorse again, Steve. I don't go to LofC pre-SOTU get-togethers or special film-showings with the folks in the in-crowd of policy-making, but I do live in America and it does seem to me that more and more of us are wondering about the homeless folks living in the woods and abandoned cars and just how the heck are our aging parents going to manage to pay their bills and die in something even remotely approaching a state of dignity -- things like that are very much on people's minds out here. Did the SOTU say anything about these things? Not that I can see.

I'm not saying that this makes Democrats attractive. I'm just saying that the president and Dick Cheney are growing increasingly bizarre to people who have to make real albeit unearthshaking decisions about their daily lives. The War on Terror seems far away and pretty fatuous when you have real scary choices you have to make every end of the month.

I fail to see how Alito's confirmation confirms Bush is back in the saddle "big time".
His first nominee was withdrawn in an embarrassing debacle, while Alito had the worst confirmation vote in years.
Bush failed at all his policy initiatives; in addition, his administration's failures in New Orleans will continue to haunt.

If the Alito nomination did anything, it pacified his base. I don't see any other effect.
The middle of the road voters don't care about Supreme Court nominations, regrettably.
Alito may give Bush a small boost, but that won't last long.

Last problem---what on earth is Bush going to do with his new momentum---pass more tax cuts? People are seeing through the tax cut charade by now. HSAs? Bring it on. Republicans say that the problem with health care in the US is that people have too much insurance, and that HSAs will help to cure this problem. Um, yeah..great analysis.
And Iraq? Noone can predict the future, but the trend is not good---by the way, where are the missing billions? Oh, and he's going to keep spying without warrants. Bush has put himself into a box with regards to NSA spying: he claims his actions are lawful; therefore he must refuse any offers to amend FISA, despite conciliatory offers from Congress. Most likely, he is desperately hiding the extent to which domestic surveillance is being used for purely political ends.

Obviously you could be right, Steve---maybe you are giving us the "beltway insider" gestalt here, but I don't think SCOTUS appointments affect public opinion much, outside of his base.
Hmm.. and Cheney? Signs of his continued good health are not in abundance.

Oh, and Steve, next time you see Grover, why don't you ask him how Bin Laden is? After all, he probably has more direct ties to Islamic terrorists than anyone else in DC.

Regular reader/lurker here - looking forward to seeing the film when it plays 'librul Austin - although may have to get popcorn while Perle speaks (sorry, Steve I always get that fight or flight impulse when seeing him).

Have been doing a lot of reading/listening (blog and non blog) trying to get a general snapshot of current Dem leadership dynamics and have yet t/b clear on anything, so let me ask in context of example -

Kaine on SOTU Response - not looking for opinion on this choice or his response - I simply want someone to explain the 'mechanics' of this decision - who debated, decided, and who had final say.

Like many progressives, I believe some major tweaking is called for, but there can't be any substantive re-engineering or reverse engineering unless we know the current configuration, and I am either more dense than I thought, or this is one murky picture.

btw, caught your Forum on C Span on Monday - yikes, the brainpower ! was wistful about having just 1/2 that much in current foreing policy . thanks

C'mon Steve, SURELY you've heard SOMETHING????? Please, confide in us......

WHICH GOD DAMNED IDIOTS CHOSE KAINE TO DO THE REBUTTAL, AND IS ROVE GOING TO PERSONALLY THANK THEM WITH A GOLF VACATION OR A NEW SUV???

marky - is that fdl marky ? hope so. was catching up on threads other night when fdl marky was saying they wouldn't be around as often for awhile - say it aint so, always like reading your imput

Clare,
Thanks, and yes that's me. I need to do more of the work thing, and less bloviating.

So you would want to see a right-of-center ACLU. Why? Are there issues not being taken to court or do you want to see some sort of anti-ACLU group? Or are there conservatives who are interested in civil liberties but can't bring themselves to work with the ACLU.

Bush SOTU is same speech he has given for past 4 yrs....war, war, terror, terror for two-thirds of the time, then a slice of domestic pabulum.

Bush hasn't had any contrainbts on him so far so what you're suggesting is quite scary. Are we talking "Nuke Syria For Peace" or a "Smile! You've Been Contaminated!" nightmare? Give it up, Steve.

Steve, Is it possible that because "experts" like you are always encouraging Democrats to make peace with the Republicans and find the center that the Dems are about as effective and inspiring as that warm bucket of spit?

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but the center is so far to the right that it is hardly visible. This is not Eisenhower's Republican Party.

Va Gov.Kaine gave the rebuttal to the SOTU that, no doubt, struck just the right notes with the vichy DLCers. Note his soaring rhetoric: “common sense solutions to common problems.” How very inspiring! What courageous leadership! Take that George Bush!

God, the Green Party is going to be turning away members before long. The Democrats are hopelessly lost.

"The Democrats are hopelessly lost. "

After the Alito debacle, this is an understatement at best. I honestly feel there is absolutely no hope for the democratic party. They are useless.

The ACLU protects the rights of NeoNazis and KKK members to march. This is not to the right enough for Norvie?

It's both amusing and galling that none of the "big" name "conservatives" who are so intent on turning the whole country into an Alabama actually live in places like Alabama or West Virginia. Nope, they choose to live in progressive areas that have high wages, good healthcare, good schools, thriving art and cultural scenes, and are not "right to work" states. Once their revolution is complete can we expect a mass rich conservative exodus to Scandinavia? Or perhaps Norquist will join Richard Perle and buy a house in France? F*%&ing hypocrites.

"...Grover Norquist and I spoke..."

Speaking with Grover Norquist is fraternizing with the friggin' enemy. If there is a God, Grover will soon be in jail.

Your head is so turned by being invited to these silly parties that it's facing backwards.

Steve, what are you about: Saving our country or striving to become a permanent fixture of the Georgetown social set?

James Wolcott reviewed Why We Fight in this month's Vanity Fair.

"The U.S. is the planet's sole remaining superpower, unrivaled in military might and reach, and yet our leaders have us leaping at every mouse."

"...a muscle-bound, world straddling fraidy cat."

bstanton-

Why the ACLU does it, why we have to do it.

Neier, Aryeh. Defending My Enemy. New York : E.P. Dutton, 1979

am willing to bet If you can google it, the Preface alone will further inform your thinking

For those who can't make it to the DC premier it can be seen online:

www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/video_iraqwar.htm

This may be an earlier incarnation of the film. I intend to check it out in the theater even though I have viewed it online. It's one of the best documentaries in recent years.

Couple Points.

Kolbe will be missed, I think he was a very stabilizing presence for moderate Republicans in Washington.

As for Bush's speech. I dont have a lot of confidence he will actually push onward with his odes of energy reform and independence and entitlements reform.

Not to say Democrats have done anything about Soc. Security or Medicare either, all they do is criticize, but dont actually construct a plan to fix it, and it does need fixing.

I dont want myself, you, or any of our children having to be taxed to hell just to pay for Soc. Security and Medicare.

Countries who plop a huge portion of their budget towards Soc. Security and Medicare or other entitlements, become stagnant economically. There is no question that a renovation of the programs is needed, now.

As for energy, I dont believe a word Bush says, and Im conservative. Hes an oil-man thick and thin. He has no wide ranging solutions whatsoever to improve the inelasticity of demand in the energy market, and has done nothing but monopolize oil companies control of the American oil market with supply.

Kaine was a good point man to have.

As long as the Dems have cuckoo birds like Sharpton, Cindy Sheehan, and Howard Dean making appearances and acting like loons, they wont win.

Moderate, thoughtful, and constructive engagement will win, not morons.

JS, perhaps you could explain how the republicans win elections with cuckoo birds like george bush, dick cheney, tom delay, and so many more....

steve, george bush's central concept is: "don't negotiate against yourself," so he always looks like he's back in the saddle. And as long as he has a compliant gop house, he can stay in the saddle.

but my bet is, there are very few members of the gop house who want bush campaigning for them come this autumn, and that means the house may no longer be so compliant.

let's see what happens on the budget reconciliation bill today as an early indicator. i bet it just squeezes through, but the signs of weakness will be there....

I am compelled to comment on Steve's behalf. Haven't you ever heard of the old adage, "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer"? As far as the center of either party goes, Steve doesn't give too many hints as to who exactly are his friends and enemies. By doing so - by mingling at all of the functions and lunching with the political elites- he's using a brilliant strategy. He's getting INFORMATION, and, if you've ever spent more than a day inside the Beltway, information is power! So...keep mingling, Steve...

... war, war, terror, terror for two-thirds of the time, then a slice of domestic pabulum.

I think you meant baloney, as not even a king could slice pabulum...

However I agree that feeding the American people war + war + terror + terror is a great way to solidify one's kingship.

And keeping the Black King Osama alive?

That's a masterful strategy too.

My hat's off to the so-called repugs on that one.
Good going fellas.
Way to call off the troops at Tora Bora.

Imagine having the vision to realize at that moment that the White King's game would be over if the Black King was dead.

That is shear genuis of the arrant kind.

The brilliance of you folks has convinced me to throw off my oppositionist's cloak and join the elect.

Goodbye to the threadbare dimocrats.
And hello Regal republicans.
I'm yours!

Long live King Bush and Vice Regent Cheney!
Hurrah!
Hurrah!
Hurrah!

[Aside: Did you know that even a young Churchill almost fled to a "King's Party" during the Edward VIII shindy? Guess the same gene that makes most folks drop to their knees and worship a diety also encourages them to slaver after an authoritarian government on earth. Guess the forefather's knew all that too. Else... why all the checks and balances? I mean... you almost think they hated Kings or something.]

"...as the Dems have cuckoo birds like Sharpton, Cindy Sheehan, and Howard Dean...

What utter swill. Each of these people represent important and vital parts of the Democratic party. More than anything they have to courage to stand up for the values of the American people.

Shame on you for slandering Cindy Sheehan who wears an anti-war tee shirt protesting the deaths of thousands of our soldiers who are forever gone because of A LIE.

In our new America, she represents such a threat to the Republic that she cannot be in the same room as our war criminal president. Just what exactly do you think Casey Sheehan sacrificed his life for?

Bush talks endlessly about spreading God's gift of Democracy abroad, while smashing it beneath his jack boot here at home.

Steve, you are skating close to being totally irrelevant to the majority of citizens here in the U.S.A.; you know, the whole "We the people..." thing

Best to check w/your soul soon and often these days

here`s hoping you "awaken" from your slumber soon...

koreyel >"...I agree that feeding the American people war + war + terror + terror is a great way to solidify one's kingship.

And keeping the Black King Osama alive?

That's a masterful strategy too..."

Aye !

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." - H. L. Mencken

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/387392p-328749c.html

Rumor has it that emails were deleted from the email system at OOTVP. Why this fact was not brought to light at the time of Libby's indictment, I do not know. However, it would seem silly to keep the fact that emails had been deleted from the network archives in contravention of White House policy from the public. We aren't the folks that deleted them.

JS,

Democrats did have several plans to fix Social Security and make it solvent through for another 75 years--nothing that drastic needs to be done. Another fix as was done bipartisan in 1986 would work. Privatizing accounts was/is not necessary. It was a Democratic victory to stop last year--just about the only one. Unfortunately, and I am not defending at all the Democrats lack of programs and leadership, but as minorities in both House and Senate, they can't even get a bill out of Committee.

Medicare and the whole health care system is the big problem, but health savings accounts (HSAs) won't solve it. Most people would not save the 7-8% for Social Security and Medicare if it weren't taken from their paychecks as FICA. The average 401(k) only has about $55,000 saved in it, and they have been around for decades as have IRAs. They and HSAs only work for upper middle class and above and only those who at age 20-40 plan and save for their retirement. And all these personal responsibility programs leave out many working people who live paycheck to paycheck. Medicare Part D drug benefit was merely a gift to insurance and pharmaceutical industries that stand in the way of universal single payer (Could be done by just expanding Medicare) system we need. HSAs would just be a gift to bankers and investment industry.

Bush now is just "kicking the can" on this by creating a commission. Clinton had one, and Bush had one in his first term on Social Security. What really hurts is creating intergenerational rifts as without Social Security and Medicare, most younger people's parents and grandparents would suffer.

parrot >"...Rumor has it that emails were deleted from the email system at OOTVP..."

these folks tried the same trick during Iran-Contra & got bit

He, he

I`ll bet that w/in the federal IT bureaucracy there are copies of said emails backed up

Don`t mess with the technical folks; ever

"There is no such thing as inaccuracy in a photograph. All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth." - Richard Avedon

If you speak of Bush's "resurgence", presumably you have some quantitative measures you can cite? The polls certainly do not show it.

Susan -- Your scorn about my attending the social gatherings where I get much of the material for this blog is noted -- but I won't change. Read this blog from day one -- and you will find diverse, passionate, principled discourse on all sorts of public policy issues -- but particularly foreign policy and John Bolton. I don't believe in hanging out with those who are just like me, or who think just like I do. I'll always talk to my opponents, to the other side, to the enemy -- so as to bring them around and to hear what they are thinking.

So, thanks for the note -- but I'm going to keep doing what I'm doing, and I think that my blog's subatance speaks for itself. And besides, I have a LOT of readers who want to know what parties Grover Norquist goes to.

It's kind of like political train-spotting. . .I think.

best,

Steve Clemons

Susan said >>Steve, what are you about: Saving our country or striving to become a permanent fixture of the Georgetown social set?

Susan said >>Steve, what are you about: Saving our country or striving to become a permanent fixture of the Georgetown social set?<<

Seriously, Mr. Clemmons. That you think that finding common ground with the likes of a man who's about everything that the democratic party is against is apalling, and completely negates any credibility you may have had -- at least with me. I too listened all Monday morning to your jaunt on C-span. I was impressed and enlightened, especially in regard to foreign policy matters; your guests were well chosen. But having read many of your comments here as of late, my impression is that you are hypnotized by the charm of the right so much so that you are missing the forest for the trees. I'm sure they're really nice people and I'm sure they want to "work" with the progressives like yourself who have a bit of influence -- and can be EASILY influenced -- but their idea of work with us equals whittling away at our core values until ours look just like theirs. I think you're being suckered. I can tell you right now, the democratic constituent DOES NOT WANT to have any bipartisanship with a party that seeks to destroy everything we hold dear, like the constitution for starters. You don't speak for me, and when this little tidbit -- your sandbox conversation with Norquist -- makes the light of day on places like DKos, you can better believe that any action you take on behalf of the pregressives will be suspect.

Signed, a commoner just outside the beltway where the view is OBJECTIVE.

It seems that building political alliances is among those things, like making law and sausage, about which one prefers not to know the details. Nevertheless, I don't mind Steve showing the offal that's part of the process. Still, he should ask Grover about Bin Laden. Norquist is among a handful of top Republicans---including Bush himself, actually---who are one or two degrees of separation from Bin Laden. I can't think of any Democrats who are as closely tied to Osama. If Bush really wanted to know where Bin Laden is, he wouldn't have to go farther than his rolodex---or Grover's.

To Linda:

Excellent Post. I dont necessarily think the accounts are the way to go either, especially when one looks at the fine print with the start up requirements, hidden fees, and same sort of language regarding usage of the account, much in the way we use a benefit plan today.

My point is simply a bipartisan brainstorm to come up with a cohesive measure against the problem of entitlements in the baby boomer period and in the future, we cannot subject future generations to such a tax-heavy burden.

As for Social Security, I think part of the problem, much in state programs like pension systems and unemployment benefits, which are tax-funded, they are raided by politicians, and the answer to that is always to tax more to put it back.

I want the innovative, out of the box thinking in regards to economics, but also using simple fiscal austerity combined with cost/benefit programs. Maybe its too hopeful and utopic, but I believe it can be done, I honestly believe Washington has gotten fat and lazy, not just Republicans, but also Dems. They just all seem so out of touch with reality, its more about talking points than real world mentality, and its whats setting us behind.

Now, now, this blog is notable for its lack of unrestricted emoting, there are, no doubt, plenty of good and honrable folks on the "inside" . I don't think the chance of being co-opted is worth the risk but at some point at some time all these folks are going to have to sit down at the table. Do you believe that some state of equipoise is possible or do you think that you are bound to a never ending battle between good and evil, a constant state of war? the truth is that 90% of the diffeences expressed are ego and about 10% substance.

To Susan:

DeLay, Bush, and Cheney are not cuckoo birds. DeLay and Cheney are liars and IMO a real fraud to the Republicans they say they represent.

But, Sheehan's behavior has been outright laughable to almost sad. She is completely uninformed on all issues. She has said that the US has used nuclear weapons in Iraq, in case you wanted a measure of her "sanity".

She grieves for her son, but in doing so, and championing her democratic right to protest the war in Iraq, has allowed herself to be manipulated and postered as some sort of "joan of arc" which is a disgrace. Most of her family has outrightly criticized her actions of late, some have completely detached themselves from her.

Dean is nuts.

There is no need to go in on Al Sharpton, the facts speak for themselves, he contributes nothing to the "progress" of humanity.

We have lost our muse. What we need is the Tom Joab speech, someone to admit that we have no power and that all we can do is bear witness and perservere; maybe its over the top but, "can't we all just get along" ain't a rallying cry. i.e. how about if governor milk toast said last night:

"Good evening fellow americans... apparently we are NOT going to mars.

More seriously, we are also not doing alot of things we in the democratic party think we ought to do. The people have spoken and we are in the minority, but it will not always be so and we think you ought to know what it is we do stand for;

First, we are now the party of opposition, the loyal opposition, and we, like the Republicans when they are in opposition, owe it to our country to speak up and be heard when we think that those in power have lost their way. This is true whether we win control of the Congress in 2006 or if we never win another election again, but we do expect to win and when we do expect that republicans will hold us accountable just as we are trying to hold them accountable. It is our duty.

Second, we have to acknowledge that we have very little power right now, even as we see our country going in directions that offend us, and make us fear for our country and perhaps more importantly our children's futures, we believe that it has become acceptable to "market" the truth to the american people because those in power don't have the courage to trust in the innate wisdom of americans. We believe we have been lied to and mislead, and we are sad because history is proving us right. Right or wrong we believe that americans are owed the truth, and right or wrong, americans must accept the consequences.

Third, even as we see the Republican party decaying into graft, curruption and the baser elements of the human spirit we know that not all who disagree with us are currupt and that not all that agree with us are morally pure. Were we granted the kind of unbridled power they have enjoyed, perhaps we too would have become enamored with it and forgotten our first principals.

Having said all of that, most americans understand that our country has lost it's way, lead astray by the well meaning and the arrogant, those who are, "seldom right but alway certain", that perceive doubt as weakness and conciliation as surrender, those who do not have faith in the universal power of true freedom, and in their heart have no faith, and it is that, in the essential wisdom of 300 million people who love their country. We believe it is an offense to our principles to be prodded, lied to and manipulated, for any cuase, all "for our own good". We will have the policies, the government, and the country we deserve, we expect nothing more or less.

We beleive that this Administration has unleashed an historic abuse of the good will and essential honesty of the American people, but there is little that we can do to stop it, all we can do is, as many americans have done in the past, when our government has failed us before, persevere and return to first principles;

we will be there to bear witness when graft and cynical curruption is exposed, wherever it leads;

we will be there when our countries fallen come home with broken bodies and broken spirits, only to be ignored by those who sent them, regardless of our views as to the wisdom of the cause;

we will be there to protest when our country equivicates and rationlizes torture and aggressive war, which has never been our tradition and conflicts with out most basic values;

we will be there to offer comfort to those who have no health care, the poor, the sick, and the addicted, who have value in our eyes as children of God, whether our government helps us or not;

we will be here to support the Bill of Rights, the most radical document ever to have been given life by a free people, and to fix it when it is torn in the emotion of the time, and precisely when it appears most hopelessly inconvenient;

We will be here to call things as we see them and to question, to always question, those who would claim as theirs, the limitless power of a free people;

We wish the President of the United States, our President too, all good wishes and fortune for his 6th year in office, we pledge to work with him when to do so does not conflict with our basic principles, but whether he is successful or no, whether he is lauded or reviled, whether WE are vindicated by what now passes for history or discarded in a disposable world, we will be here;

Make no mistake, we stand in opposition, it is our duty;

may god bless amercia, goodnight

According to JS, "Dean is nuts."

So, what should we do about Howard? Chain him up? Lock him in a padded cell with Michael Moore and force them to learn about the niceties of polite politics by listening to Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Dennis Miller? I say this to Howard Dean: keep it up, Howard. I may not always agree with you, but I find the truths that issue from your mouth to be refreshing. I watch with anticipation the embarrassment and the consternation of the Democratic Party leadership as they struggle to recover their "bipartisan" relationship with the neocons, and their huge donations from the corporations that sponsor them. As the corporations squeal in anger and slam their checkbooks shut, I along with countless thousands of ordinary Americans, the real working folks who keep this country running in both the red and the blue states, open our checkbooks to donate to a politician for perhaps the first time.

In a December 2004 speech, Howard Dean spoke eloquently of the need for a principled progressive resistance to the Republican agenda:

"Here in Washington, it seems that after every losing election, there’s a consensus reached among decision-makers in the Democratic Party is that the way to win is to be more like Republicans.
I suppose you could call that philosophy: if you didn’t beat ‘em, join them.

I’m not one for making predictions – but if we accept that philosophy this time around, another Democrat will be standing here in four years giving this same speech. we cannot win by being “Republican-lite.” We’ve tried it; it doesn’t work…

There’s only one thing Republican power brokers want more than for us to lurch to the left – and that’s for us to lurch to the right.

What they fear most is that we may really begin fighting for what we believe – the fiscally responsible, socially progressive values for which Democrats have always stood and fought.

I’ll give this to Republicans. They know the America they want. They want a government so small that, in the words of one prominent Republican, it can be drowned in a bathtub…

We need to be able to say strongly, firmly, and proudly what we believe, because we are what we believe."

Howard Dean is right. He was right when he called upon the Democratic Party to celebrate its grassroots activists in 2004, and he’s right when he says it now. It hasn't been since the days of Harry S. Truman that a president said it so powerfully. Perhaps it's time for an American president to say these words again.

And finally this from the Daily Howler:

"Do Democrats and liberals need to learn to play tough? As a general matter, we would say yes. But one important conceptual strain lingers in Dana Milbank’s important Post story—the conflation of toughness and dishonesty. “Playing tough” doesn’t mean “being dishonest.” In our view, the best way for libs to play tough would be to try something they’ve often recoiled from. The best way for libs to play tough would be for them to tell the truth—to tell the truth about the gong-show character of our modern American politics. If Dems and liberals decide to play tough, they will start to tell the truth about the crackpot discourse of the past fifteen years, the discourse that has transformed modern politics. In the past dozen years, that discourse has typically come from Republican and pseudo-conservative sources, and has been lovingly channeled by the mainstream press—as, for example, in the War Against Gore which put George Bush in the White House.

But Democrats and liberal elites have made a different decision. With few exceptions, they have decided to keep quiet about recent history, leaving voters unprepared when the latest wave of dissembling hits. For example, when the Swift Boat ads began in 2004, how many voters said to themselves: “Omigod, there they go again? There they go again, with the same kind of bullsh*t they peddled for twenty straight months against Gore?” We’d guess that very few mainstream voters were inclined to such thoughts, because Democrats and liberal elites had made no effort to describe the earlier mainstream press wars against Clinton and Gore. For the most part, Democrats and liberal elites have maintained silence on these matters. Hence, when new waves of attacks begin—when the Swift Boat stories started, for example—voters simply aren’t equipped with the requisite skepticism. They’ve heard “liberal bias” all their born days. They’ve never heard anyone tell the truth.

And no one played a larger role in all of this than the hapless Bob Shrum, the man who seems to lament the fact that Dems won’t lie like Republicans. To judge from the quotes in the Milbank piece, Shrum thinks “playing tough” means “being dishonest.” But how sad! Maybe if Shrum had ever tried telling the truth, Dems and libs wouldn’t have to lie to win their political battles. If Dems and libs would try telling the truth, they might find that they can abandon sad dreams about slick, skillful lying.

But “Shrummy” want to play kiss-kiss with Chris. As a Hardball regular, he can’t be truthful about the past dozen years. He isn’t allowed to tell the public about the way their lives were transformed. That would mean discussing Chris—and Shrummy (kiss-kiss) just won’t go there.

HOWARD DEAN GETS IT: Hurrah! Hooray! A million kudos! We’ve just watched Howard Dean on Face the Nation, and omigod—Howard Dean seems to get it! The Post’s John Harris asked the boss what Democrat activists want:

HARRIS: What are the activists in your party expecting from senators on the Roberts nomination? As I said, as long as I've been listening to you speak, your message has been consistent: The party's got to start fighting, stop getting along to go along, show some backbone.

DEAN: I think what activists are expecting is for them to be tough but fair. I mean, the hallmark of the Republicans is, Say anything. If you keep saying it people will believe it even if it's not true.

HARRIS: Does that work for them?

DEAN: I think it has worked for them because we haven't stood up and said, “This is absolutely not true and therefore, you ought to be embarrassed to be saying so.” And we need to say that every single day. So we want to be tough but we want to be fair. I think the damage the Republicans have done to this country not just in the largest deficits in the history and this bumbling stuff that they've done in Iraq. The real damage they've done is they've undermined people's belief that democracy can work and the way to fight this is to be tough but fair."

A "nut" JS? No, he's a modern day Jeremiah. And, if we listen to him, he will tell us how to lead our party, and ultimately our country out of the wilderness.

Steve sez: "And besides, I have a LOT of readers who want to know what parties Grover Norquist goes to."

Susan sez: More than anything Steve wants his readers to know he hangs out with the "Kool Kids." Gag me with a spoon!

Here is an interesting post about how the DLC came into existence and why compromising with Republicans is a mistake.

From Digby at Hullabaloo.

http://tinyurl.com/cgjox

Confessions Of An Old New Democrat

"...the DLC banked on the idea that consensus politics of the old school could be recreated in a Republican era. They were wrong. The Republicans desire total political hegemony. And any innovation they propose must now be clearly seen for what it is --- the radical ideologues want to dismantle the New Deal and create a Randian paradise and the politicos want to further enrich their wealthy contributors. The rest of the rubes think that if the Republicans win they’ll get rich and go to heaven and the hated liberals will be vanquished from this earth. We cannot compromise with people like this. We must defeat them head on..."

Dear Donalin -- I will continue to work to talk with those folks in the political process on all five sides of the aisle. If Kos is your thing, I applaud that. Go for it. You make no sense though. On one hand you applaud the conference I assembled, and my remarks. You must read this blog because you find something interesting here -- but then you tell me that my credibility has been "completely" negatated because of a conversation with Grover Norquist. That's that part of the hyperventilating, irrational left that I don't like.

I'm willing to listen to your critique and weigh what you impart, but I have little interest in a progressive agenda that won't organize in a way to get itself back into the majority. To do that, I need to know what various political players are up to -- and I need to know what wedge issues divide them. If you are up for guilt by association games -- then this blog will not be for you.

I want the Dems to do better, much better -- but they have not organized in a way that is compelling and able to win. In the mean time, the best strategy is to rebuild the moderate Republican crowd -- and to divide the right-wing, fundamentalist crowd from the sensible moderates. At the same time, it would help if Dems congealed around some foreign policy vision that made sense.

Sorry to go on so long -- but your lack of patience for who I meet or talk to -- or some about cocktail parties -- is silly. That's my way. Deal with it, or read other blogs....

You can make your choice to depart any time because I'm not going to move in the direction that you and Susan are suggesting.

If you'd like to stay and discuss issues, great. But I will chat about people I encounter as well.

Best of luck in your decision.

Steve Clemons

This just doesn't sound like regular Steve Clemons. The tone is a bit off, the rhetoric is fuzzy, the grammar and spelling is sloppy. The last statement about Bush and Cheney seems unconsidered given the fact that the SOTU address was only two days ago.

It almost sounds like Christopher Hitchens has comandeered the blog. Say it ain't so!

"...The tone is a bit off, the rhetoric is fuzzy, the grammar and spelling is sloppy..."

Too much partying perhaps? :>)

"...I'm not going to move in the direction that you and Susan are suggesting."

I have not suggested that you move in any direction; I only question your motives. I think that attending these parties strokes your ego.

Nonetheless, I could certainly be wrong; it's really none of my business. However you keep bringing them up.

And, for the record, I have yet to read a comment on your blog inquiring about what parties Grover Norquist attends, and I've been around since you breathlessly announced that you went to a party and danced with "The Nanny."

And that, dear Steve, was a very long time ago.

God yes we need a right wing civil liberties organization. The ACLU was ok with me when it was defending the rights of Nazis to march in Skokie, but today's version is all about pushing whatever 5 left wing causes are in vogue. Attacking religion - only Christianity not Islam, pushing the gay agenda, flakking for illegal aliens, pushing socialism, etc. No love for gun rights from the ACLU. The ACLU is right up there with the NY Times when I hear them say something: so what?!

Did I mention the ACLU and leave out it constant litigation supporting Roe v. Wade. I support abortion rights but Roe v. Wade and Griswald were a joke. I see no "right to privacy" in the Constition ... besides the Pro-lifers would argue that a developing child, i.e. fetus, in a woman's belly, has a right to privacy not to have it's brains sucked out and its limbs pulled apart.
The Constitutional way - give us 2 more real judges and that's how things will be done - is to let each individual state determine the legality of abortion in its borders.
The ACLU is so screwed up that they are wrong even when they are on the right side of an issue.

Mr. Clemons,

I'm irrational and hyperventilating?

On Monday what I took away from your conference is that we are essentially in a geopolitical nightmare. Your speakers sounded calm yet forceful, but the underlying theme was there all the same -- America is in huge trouble -- we are dancing on the edge of the abyss.

And here at home? (In no particular order)I saw last night that a bill was passed in the house that will negatively affect me on all fronts. Higher education, child support enforcement and medicaid cuts. I have watched a thousand people die in NOLA. I have watched my energy bills double and triple. I have learned that the government is illegally wiretapping Americans. I have learned that our deficit this year is 442 billion. I am hearing the drum beat of war with Iran. I see an administration that demonizes (and arrests at times)any one who disagrees with them. I see an administration who says that liberals sound like Osama BinLaden. I see our soldiers without proper equipment. I see an average of 15 soldiers KIA a week. I hear the president say that we don't torture except when we think it's necessary to torture. I see oversee-ers of special prosecutors suddenly being appointed judgeships. I see pictures of the president and Abramoff being kept from the public. I see the SC being stacked with right wing ideologues who believe in unitary executive power. I see more tax breaks for the rich. I see the disparity between the rich and poor growing exponentially. I see coprorate America screwing it's workers to enahnce the shareholders bottom line. I see the total decline of the unions. I see the GLOBE warming. I see credit card companies writing the bankruptcy bills. I see cronyism that puts the mob to shame.I see corruption in so many places involving so many GOP elected officials that it is impossible to keep up. And this isn't even the half of it, and you know it.

And I see moderate democrats act as though the spirit of bi-partisanship will somehow save us from the monumental amount of trouble this country is in. The constitution, foreign policy, domestic policy -- all of it is turned on its head in five short years but will NEVER be reversed in five short years. And we have three more to go. As it is, the chances of winning back the house are slim. And forget the Senate. Why? because moderate democrats don't express the outrage we the voters have every right -- nay, RESPONSIBILITY -- to feel. You just don't represent.

You should ALL be running around like you hair is on fire, but first, you might have to put down that drink.

I'm sure you're a really good-willed person, and I certainly applaud your efforts to inform and effect change. But you simply have got to get the idea out of your head that you have any ability to sway a party full of LOYAL crooks and liars.

They have to be held accountable first. You've heard the expression; "No Peace Without Justice"

First, to JS, to whom I almost replied directly to ask if .edu in your e-mail address means that you are a prof or a student, and I am guessing the latter. I just hope you don't believe the conservative line that you will get no Social Security or be taxed heavily--or that it will be necessary (as it isn't) to cut the benefits of those already on Social Security, as they paid into the system for their entire working lives.

Social Security was enacted in 1935. So even the most elderly on it today in their late 80s and 90s paid into the system. It is not insurance, but was designed as a pay-as-you-go system, i.e., the tax payments of current workers pay the benefits of current retirees--so it really is a social contract between generations. And it has been running with a big surplus for decades including right now. But the excess in the Social Security Trust Fund has never been protected--so you are absolutely right that politicians raided it, borrowed from it and put in IOUs that will have to be paid back to fund future benefits, especially for the Baby Boomers, as their payments and large numbers created the surplus. The surplus also was created by the adjustments made bipartisanly in 1986 so that everyone paid just a little more ever since then.

Remember all the talk in Presidential Debates about "putting Social Security in a lock box." Well, that didn't happen, and we have to blame Bush and the Republicans as they have been in control and could have kept that promise. Entitlements will eat up the federal budget as Bush loves to say. However, others for years have proposed that entitlements like Social Security, be taken out of the federal budget, budgeted separately, and not available for borrowing to make the federal deficits look less bad. Neither party could balance the budget for decades without borrowing from Social Security. With the Clinton surplus, we were on the road to being able to do that.

The innovative thinking you want already has been done, mostly by progressive Democrats, and solvency for Social Security can still be achieved by doing that, changing a few formulas for cost of living adjustments raises, very small cuts in benefits some 20-40 years from now, etc.---essentially a little here and a little there--so there are ways to fix the problem by having everybody sacrifice a little, well known in advance, so that people can plan for them.

As for the name calling and passions, some on this blog find Howard Dean's style offensive and others find George Bush's style offensive. I'm not fond of either style, but in substance I believe Dean has been more correct. Indeed Jimmy Carter recommended and instituted energy reforms that should have been continued for the past 25 years and would have made a big difference today.
And to avoid being partisan, Eisenhower in 1961 was exactly right about the military-industrial complex. Of course, way back 25 or 50 years ago, there was more comity and bipartisanship in DC. Bush ran on a platform of being a uniter and not a divider. He surely hasn't accomplished that.

There is little doubt that the Far Right wants to destroy the good and enduring entitlement programs like Social Security--the ones in which everyone participates (why they are called "entitlements") as opposed to means tested ones, i.e., welfare. It also is a fact that these Democratic programs run at high levels of efficiency with overhead of only 1-2%. And indeed Medicare initially ran that way and was put into effect extremely efficiently in the late 1969s by Democrats and then by Nixon (who BTW on domestic and social programs would today be to the left of most moderate Republicans).

The Republicans' record isn't as good: In the late 1980s there was a program of catastrophic Medicare that was passed but included means testing and having those more wealthy pay more. Anyone who knew details about Medicare knew that it would fail. It did within a year and had to be
repealed by Congress. Medicare Part D is much worse than that and was passed only by using every trick in the books--holding votes open for hours overnight, even an attempt to threaten a Republican member retiring with retaliation of not providing campaign funds for his son who was running for office. And worse of all, it was passed based on inaccurate data from DHHS because an analyst there who had the true cost data was threatened by political appointees. And then with several years of lead time, the Republican executive branch didn't plan and execute its introduction well. The Democrats did fight to have the program have the ability to negotiate drug prices with drug companies, and it would have worked more efficiently and cost effectively if that were done. But pharmaceutical and insurance lobbies prevailed. Unfortunately, it is not going to be repealed or significantly fixed while Bush is President and Republicans control Congress. And it will add to the budget deficit, and everybody knew that when it was passed.

Regardless of party or preconceived ideas, I just hope "We the people" have the sense to come together and demand and vote for the kind of President and Congress we need and want.

Sorry for such a long post somewhat off target. Steve, I'd like to hear more about the screening last night.

Linda

If one side wanted to kill all the Jews, and the other wanted to kill none, meeting in the middle wouldn't be the right thing to do.
I'm interested in your approach, Steve, but I don't understand on what basis you believe that the current middle of American politics is close to reasonable solutions on any issues.
I don't think you can split the difference on Social Security or healthcare, for instance. In the latter case, one view is that we need single payer care, while the other side; honestly I'm a little confused about what they want, though I understand that the Republicans believe Americans have too much health insurance. At any rate, there is no obvious middle ground here.
I'll agree that there are many sensible Republicans out there; however, Bush is content with some chafing at the bit (chafee-ing?) as long as he gets the votes in the end.

I believe that many of your readers on the left and right have a sense of urgency in our domestic politics; in my case, this is chiefly due to worry over Iraq, but others are concerned about the economy. I sense an implicit resignation on your part to three more years of Bush Unchained, with your eye turned towards reaping benefits of bipartisanship after 2008.
Well, a majority of Americans believe Bush should be impeached if he lied to get the country into war with Iraq. How about finding some middle ground with middle America?

Gonna need the Waammbulance, a little peedy-odey -

all the informed debate/discourse above, and no one took a shot at my original question about current Dem leadership dynamics and configuration -

not because it's the "coolest question ever", but because it is so fundamental to the work ahead for Progressives.

Susan, Donalin, and Marky, agree w/ all your depictions of the current state of affairs. But our fate is tied to the Democrats and until we get a firm grip on how they operate and who is pulling what lever at any given point - we will be consigned to continually deal w/them on a case by case, scattershot basis (ironically, one of our major complaints about them)

Who's driving the bus, or is it more like World Rally with a driver and navig.?, more like the Rolex wherein different drivers get in at differnt points in the race?, or like NASCAR, where the driver gets all the air time, while hundreds labor behind the scenes or pit wall ?

the journey of a thousand miles, begins with a single step, but unless we know the starting point, we aren't going anywhere.

that's enough mixed metaphors, I think I hear the waammbulance approaching.

Why We Fight was a very powerful movie. It was refreshing to hear Eugene Jarecki's respond to insightful questions after the premiere. I nearly found hope in his own optimism that we are not already too far gone. Eugene rightfully pointed out that all dark times are followed by periods of enlightenment (I, somewhat a fatalist at times, believe much darker times are still to come). Unfortunately, I was unable to ask a couple of my own questions.

The first question I really wanted to ask Eugene, which didn't feel appropriate in the theatre setting, stems from my reading of Jeff Wells at Rigorous Intuition. I wonder if Eugene, during his research of the military industrial complex, encountered elements of the Occult? Jeff Wells has coined the phrase "Military Occult Complex" due to his own research, and he raises some interesting issues. At one point in the film, I believe it is Charles Lewis who describes war as a ritual in which all presidents partake.

Another thought that occurred to me after the film is, what happens when the machinations of war and the products of the M.I. Complex are focused internally? At some point, dissenters become a very real enemy of "the State". We have a "War on Drugs" which has grown into a self-perpetuating, capitalist machine with no end in sight; in many respects the "War on Drugs" and all its participating corporations mirror the larger beast that is the Military Industrial Complex.

Steve, last night you questioned whether some on the left think we have no enemies, that there are not really bad guys out there who want to hurt us. I wanted to respond, but didn't want to interrupt Eugene. Perhaps it's cynical of me to say that, while I realize we have enemies who very much mean to do us harm, I am more and more concerned about the Bush administration doing us harm than any enemies. I don't feel less scared of "terra'ists" due to any overwhelming protection afforded me by our government. Rather, my reasons are numerous. Foremost, many of our "enemies" as portrayed by mainstream media seem quite contrived with intangible, non-quantifiable boogeyman qualities. Also, it seems to me that our government does not take many threats and enemies seriously (of course, here I allude strongly, but not only to Osama Bin Laden); thus, why should I? The Fed spends and spends and spends for what seems to be a public facade of security. Yet, they ignore some of the most glaring vulnerabilities.

I'm rambling a bit. I highly recommend Why We Fight. I appreciate the opportunity to catch the premiere.

Susan... I enjoy your comments, mostly. But I'll keep posting like I've been posting. best, Steve

I agree with Steve that the Democrats are horrible, needless to say. I don't think that has anything to do with their being too "left". The problem is that the Democrats want to suck at the corporate teat along with the Republicans, and this goes against any progressive policy instincts.

Susan.

Theres a big difference between Dean and the likes of Savage, Coulter, OReilly, Hannity.

Dean is in a leadership position. L E A D E R S H I P.

He toes the outrageous Sheehan and Moore barbs on TV, without comprehensive understanding of situations and facts.

He was grilled about economic issues, and knew nothing.

When he was grilled about the war in Iraq, on specific issues like body armor, troop deployments, Iraqi parliament. He had to sidestep the question and talk about something else.

Many Democrats do not like him, do not want him as Chair, and have gone out of their way to try and push him out.

Dont worry, hell be gone after the 06 midterm elections when the Dems fail to seize a golden opportunity to take back the house.

To Linda:

Good Post. But, the Democrats "solvency" plan isnt as good as it seems, it still involves large base of taxation of the middle class, a class which is being taxed till the cows come home, and being hit harder by shrinking income.

The issue isnt so much just bipartisanship, as it is having a plan.

I understand the issue of getting bills passed in a Republican dominated Congress, but even Dems would admit, theyve been more interested in attacking Bush verbally, instead of undermining him strategically and emphatically with better solutions.

I see JS has appointed himself as blog thread sheriff... what a fool !

JS,
Compare Dean to Gillespie or Mehlman, to be fair.
Whether or not those two Republicans are informed, you cannot trust them to state facts on any issue whatsoever---Mehlman already has quite a track record of lies. Dean is honest, and he is informed...a lot more informed than Bush without a prompter, for instance.

Great post by Senator Russ Feingold
Pre-1776 Mentality

Stop the power grab, stop the politics, stop breaking the law.

It's time to stand up - not to cheer, but to fight back.

Now, if I had ever met face to face with Grover, it woulda been front page big black headlines worldwide, baby, and no regrets in facing a Nathan Hale moment.

dqueue, I share your concern. I don't believe the current administration and its supporters are truly concerned with the preservation of this country and the protection of its citizens' liberties. Yes of course, there are those who seek to harm us but my goodness! WE attacked an entire country which had done nothing to us and which had no real means of doing anything to us. It's one thing to act a little crazy so others think you might just use that big stick; it's another thing entirely to be crazy, flailing at imaginary terrorists with that big, increasingly useless stick.

People like Norquist who want to destroy Big Government but who don't speak out against Big Military and Big Invasions are not people who should have 'seats at the table'. Let's move the table.

Steve, I think you're great, but saying "Bush is back, big time" is certainly an exaggeration. Yes, he's still President, but he has no ability to push through any kind of serious domestic legislative initiative that his coalition would want.

In that sense, he's finished. He does still have executive military power and judicial appointment power, but that's it. Not good at all for him or his party at this stage of a Presidency.

As for your hope of rebuilding moderate R wing of that party, I think that outside of the Northeast it's a fantasy. But I'm glad you're out there.

Steve, I still would like to see you give the "cocktail party beltway Republican" version of how things are going in Iraq, from the side of those who think everything is coming up roses.
What does Grover "Lenin" Norquist really think about the war, for instance?
Or take Coburn, the doctor/Senator from your home state who seems fixated on abortions and lesbianism in junior high school bathrooms---does a guy like that even have an opinion about the war, or is he just a yes-man for Iraq, concerned only with recapturing the wombs of America from the women who current claim possession.

Taxes have become the "third rail." Paying them should not be a burden and should be fair, progressive but not excessive. I think the Republicans and conservatives have made it clear that they "want to starve the beast" and the 2006 budget just passed in the House is a good example and will hurt children, disabled, and elderly--not the very rich and not the middle class all that much. Bankruptcy reform will also hurt ordinary people and helped the credit card industry. Relaxing environmental and workplace protection (mines come to mind most recently) help working people.

I'd gladly pay 10% more in taxes to help those in need as I think that is what a good society does and to have everyone have access to health care, etc. Ever since WWII and at an increasing rate as time goes on, Congress often has been remiss in fiscal oversight---and especially in oversight of DOD spending. I haven't seen "Why We Fight" yet, but if it had Chuck Spinney in it, then I assume it's partly about it. And a lot of this is about guns v. butter too.

Linda

Linda,
An interesting factoid that emerged in the discussion following the movie last night: the disparity between defense and diplomacy budgets. I believe it was described as $450-billion for DoD vs. $30-billion for DoS.

Eugene Jarecki spoke briefly to the principle of defense as "strength of the nation" rather than "might of the nation". Very interesting.

Here's the strength of the nation under Bush

Fiscal 2006: Record YTD Increase in National Debt

I think Steve should be commended by providing an opportunity for open discussion of political issues. The current dynamic in Washington has the Republicans and mostly the conservative faction of the Republican party controlling everything. WH, Congress, Supreme Court, the legislative process and for the most part the debate. There is a tendency for the ruling party to stifle debate to expedite its political agenda.

By holding open forums, attended by people of all persuasions, we can have an open discussion of the issues. Needless to say, America would be better off if these discussions were occurring within the government structure. However, they are not. Steve has a good model for how discussions could be done and perhaps will one day be done again in the halls of political power. The best part is that intelligent voices that are otherwise ignored or reduced to 10 second sound bites can be heard on CSPAN and the print media and deliver an alternative message. So often, people complain that "Democrats do not have a message." This is untrue. Democrats have a message. They lack a forum to deliver their message. The more debate between Democrats and Republicans in open forums, the more people can understand that Democrats do have alternatives and decide whether or not they like them.

Bakho, I agree.
Furthermore, I think that more debates would get Republicans out of the talking point/code speech mode. While it's true that the Democrats don't get their message out, it's also true that many people don't know the true message of the GOP.
Case in point: when Bush spoke of banning animal-human hybrids, most of us were puzzled. In fact, Bush was speaking in code to the base, saying that he would ban research into diseases based on implanting human genes into animals.
If Bush said he was going to ban research into curing Down's Syndrome, diabetes, cancer, etc. which is based on techniques in the frontier of medicine, the vast majority of Americans would be appalled.
As far as Iraq.. I know I'm a broken record, but based on my conversations with the more intelligent Bush supporters, Republicans have reasons for being satisfied with the war which have nothing at all to do with Bush's public statements. In many cases, I am sure that these people have deluded themselves, coming up with a private explanation because Bush's public statements make no sense. Get the Republicans to say what they mean; a robust debate will force them to do that.

"Bush is back, big time"

The War Criminal.

What is to be done with War Criminals?

Over time, those who were thoughtful and informed found that they were faced by an aesthetic choice. The rabble, denounced, reviled, so obviously inferior not merely in their dress and speech, but most clearly in their unequivocal failure, seemed uncomfortable and awkward to those who considered themselves reasonable and refined. Their opinions were uncouth, smelling of desperation, their manners substandard. Against this was posed the obvious and self evident nobility of those who had mastered power. They dressed better, they spoke better, they were more genial company. And if there was some hint that it might be better not to cross them, well, this need not be spoken aloud, or even thought upon very much. Who should want to joust with this company of refined and sensible men, was that not itself, regardless of inevitable consequence, a vulgar act.

Thus it was that step by step, those who considered themselves reasonable and refined men, those who called themselves moderates, took naturally to jackboots and black uniforms. The simple truth is that everyone loves a winner, no matter how repulsive that winner is.

In the end, the choice for these decent people, these moral, moderate men and women, was a very simple one. There was a chain link fence to separate one sort of person from another. On the one side, were the raggedy in their striped pajamas. On the other side were snappy black uniforms and gleaming jackboots.

In the end, for the decent, for the moral, for the moderate, the sensible, the rational... perhaps it was merely a wardrobe choice.

I am quite refined in every way and could never think my President a war criminal as do some of the rabble 'round about us. I am patriotic, and of good stock. God bless America, His only true devotee. And, let us pray, those vile contemptibles that wish to blight our spirit with outrageous lies about Our Commander-in-Chief, let us pray that they either repent their seditious words, or they recieve a one way ticket to wherever they think it better to live outside this, the Land of the Free, and the Home of the Brave! God Bless America!

Bush being a war criminal is all water under the bridge. It's no big deal. We have to move on. More important is that he appears to be a very nice guy with the best interests of his beloved county first and foremost in mind. How can someone be accused of heinous crimes when he is doing the best job for the good of the county and the people elected him to show, and implement, the way. When you look at George W. Bush touring the nation, how could you ever see in him a war criminal? He looks kind, jovial, benevolent, steadfast, forthright and upright, all throughout his appearances in the heartland. Is this the face and actions of a war criminal? The President's appearance negates any thought of what some disaffected people horribly think of him. Come back into the fold wayward ones, we shall forgive your hot tongues that lashed out in your time of weakness. Be strong and come in under the wing of our present protector of America, your, yes, your President, the most honorable George W. Bush.

God Bless America!

In march the wingnuttiest trolls I've seen.

George W. Bush. Honorable. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

dqueue, it's extreme wingnuttery by these blathering fools !

Valdron, Tyron, and Holding out a hand,

Your point was not lost on me. Nice work. . . too bad some (most?) here won't get it.

Steve,keep your chin up! You are becoming one of the more well-known,respected bloggers. There are many of us who appreciate your interaction with your readers.(for the opposite see John Harris of the Washington Post who allowed the Ombudsman to trash the very best blogger of all,Dan Froomkin) Your blog most importantly gives me the info Im seeking and like Froomkin you put a nice touch of your personality in here too. I happen to LOVE the stories of where you are going,the social scene,pics of your dog,etc. Here I am a political junkie stuck in Ca; with your insight into all things D.C. it feels like Im peeking into a room that I would very much like to see for myself,thanks Steve. Be aware though alot of people feel like Susan,myself included sometimes when we see the horrifying things that Bush and the Neocons get away with. This gives us very thin skins.I think when the Democrats get around to finally figuring out who our "voices" are we will finally "exhale". Clark,Feingold,Gore have been great. Kerry USED the blogs for covering his political butt in 08,I cant believe how naive the people at DailyKos are for thinking it was anything else! Your Forum was fantastic and YES,we need to find any Republicans out there who are moderate and non-religious.

>>the journey of a thousand miles, begins with a single step, but unless we know the starting point, we aren't going anywhere.
<<

Starting point as of now: Accountablity provided by special prosecutors (since the check and balance system is currently *disabled*)

But if you really want to know, the starting point is this entry that seems to be erased from the the American lexicon; it's called CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

>>Kerry USED the blogs for covering his political butt in 08,I cant believe how naive the people at DailyKos are for thinking it was anything else!<<

Sounds like a GOP talking point. Democrat talking point: Who cares what his motivation was? It was the right thing to do. At least someone stepped up to the damn plate. And in case you had not noticed, Kerry/Kennedy mobilized quite a few people who in our grassroot effort got twenty four Democrats in the Senate to vote no on cloture. Do the math. From 2- 24.

Are you against mobilizing the voters who happen to be paying attention? I'll take marching orders from anyone who actually attempts to lead us in the right direction, and the ONLY direction right now is to STOP the GOP from wreaking anymore havoc on this country and its constitution.

Im surprised Steve is getting so much criticism in this thread.

Hes performing a service to us IMO, with some excellent info.

AND we arent being taxed for it? Although hed surely welcome a donation or two.

To Susan:

I dont see Dean as a leader, We can agree to disagree, but Dean is a carbon copy in terms of Bush in public speaking, using mantras, party lines, generalizations, and emotional triggers.
He's not a leader and much to the typical problem with politicians, even if Bush did something positive, Dean would blast it or find a way to say hed do it better.

Gillespie and Mehlman arent any better, I concur. They are what they are, PR heads. But Mehlman and Gillespie have shown a knack for organization and discipline with top notch efforts in elections and informations distr., unlike McAuliffe who spent more time confusing issues in fighting on pundits' shows.

Democrats should have named Brazile DNC chair, shes got more of what the Dems need IMO.

To Linda, Im not so willing to sacrafice more of my money, I like having discretionary spending, I give a lot to charitable organizations, but I have zero faith in government to use money wisely in areas of unemployment and medicare.