The Blue State

Dean to Democrats: End the war or lose Congress

During the weekly Democratic radio address, DNC Chairman Howard Dean issued a wakeup call to the Democratic Congressional majority in Washington:

"The American people hired Democrats last November to ensure that weend this war," Dean said during the weekly Democratic radio address."So let me be clear, we know that if we don't keep our promise, we mayfind ourselves the minority again."

Listen to the Howard Dean radio address in its entirety.

Voters respect politicians that have the audacity to show some spine.  Voters are frustrated because although Democrats have a majority in both chambers of Congress, they have yet to show even a desire to flex their political capital.  Until they demonstrate that willingness to lead on Iraq, they do not deserve to stay in the majority.  Dean is a straight-shooter on this one.

Fox-hosted Democratic debate has been cancelled

After strong criticism from many progressive bloggers, the Nevada Democratic Party has decided to back out of a presidential debate that was supposed to be set up by Fox News:

Adam Green, a spokesman for MoveOn.org, said the Nevada Democratic Partyhad informed them of the decision: "Earlier today, a representative ofthe Nevada party called us and said that Fox was being dropped and thatthey were in the process of notifying their allies and Fox."

Blogs and other grassroots sites such as Fox Attacks put the pressure on Nevada Democrats to separate themselves from Fox.  It is proof that petition drives, like the one set up on FoxAttacks.com, does work.

I am not just trying to kiss up to that web site.  But I truly need to get the message across that grassroots activism is a real way that we can take our country back.  My new job is living proof that petition drives put pressure on people in positions of power.  They get scared, and then they eventually cave in.  I used to be a lot more pessimistic about this sort of thing.  Now, I know that we truly can make a difference.  If we sit on our butt and don't get involved in any way -- whether in the community or online -- then we had better shut up and not complain about all the discouraging things that are happening in our country today.

'08 Dem Convention will be in Denver

In 2004, President Bush won 97 of the fastest-growing 100 counties in the country.  Most of those countries were in the west, which is in the midst of a major population boom.  Arizona and Nevada are the growing faster than any other states in the country.  Idaho and Utah are not far behind.  Another state that is expanding rapidly is Colorado.  Today, the DNC announced that the state's capital, Denver, will host the 2008 Democratic National Convention.  DNC Chairman Howard Dean issued the following statement:

"I am delighted to announce that the city of Denver will host the 2008Democratic National Convention. I congratulate Mayor Hickenlooper,Governor Ritter, Senator Salazar and the members of the Denver HostCommittee for assembling an outstanding bid that demonstrates thecommunity's commitment to organizing a first-rate national conventionthat will put our nominee on the path to victory in 2008.

"There is no question that the West is important to the future of theDemocratic Party. The recent Democratic gains in the West exemplify theprinciple that when we show up and ask for people's votes and talkabout what we stand for, we can win in any part of the country.Additionally, we have a number of strong Democratic leaders in the Westwho will be a part of showcasing the vision of Democratic leadershipfor America as we introduce the next Democratic President in the RockyMountains.

The Washington Post has the raw data:

The convention _ which is expected to attract 35,000, including 4,950delegates and alternates _ will be held from Aug. 25-28 after theSummer Olympics in Beijing.

The Republican National Convention will start just 4 days later, on Sept. 1 in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn.

Denver last hosted the Democratic National Convention in 1908, whenDemocrats nominated William Jennings Bryan of Nebraska in his thirdunsuccessful effort as the party's standard-bearer.

This is second recent occasion in which the Democratic Party big whigs back in Washington began acknowledging the growing importance of the west in 21st century politics.  The political epicenter shifted west when the party announced last year that Nevada's presidential caucus would move up even before the New Hampshire primary, giving the silver state added attention, and potentially extra dollars for local politicians.  Harry Reid, the new Senate Majority Leader, is also from Nevada.

It looks like the party consultants are finally figuring out that they must win over western independents in order to win the presidency and hold both chambers of Congress.

Democrats are the new ideas party

So Democrats never come up with new ideas, eh?  Sounds like a bunch of revisionist history to me.  In all reality, there is a reason why progressives call themselves "Democrats".  The party has a proven track record of thinking outside the box and boldly concluding that in America any hope is within our reach and every challenge can be met by the resilient.

Remember, we were the party of Social Security, minimum wage, the 8-hour work day, the Unemployment Compensation Act, the Marhsall Plan, the Peace Corps, the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act, the Water Quality Act, the Clean Air Act, Medicare, Medicaid, the Federal Home Loan Program, the School Lunch Program, NATO, and many others.

Some Democrats were less bold, while others touched the sky.  John F. Kennedy pledged during his shortened term in office to fund the effort to put a man on the moon by 1970, and we did it. 

In 1993, Bill Clinton passed the Deficit Reduction Act.  Many Republican lawmakers cried foul because it was a tax increase mostly on the wealthy.  But that added revenue, coupled obviously with the stock market boom, helped Bill Clinton balance the budget later on in his term.  Not one Republican voted for the Deficit Reduction Act.

I am a 23-year-old that has a lot to learn about life and history.  Ever since I started following politics back in 2001, the Republicans have been in power.  When looking at the most recognized new ideas over the last seventy-five years, most of them have came from Democrats.  Ever since the GOP has been in the majority, we have been missing that leadership.  That is why I am a Democrat.  If our side gets back in power, things will get done.  My generation is waiting for something to happen.

Although my parents and most of my extended family are Democrats, I'll admit that I even contemplated becoming a Republican after 9/11.  But after studying the issues and studying the history of what the two parties have offered, I am a proud Democrat.

You can be a liberal, conservative or a little bit of both, and that is your right.  But don't tell me that the Democrats lack new ideas because that simply is false.

8/29/06 Morning Clips with Breakfast

I want to make this a routine.  Once each day, I will post a roundup of the most buzz-worthy videos that sum up the latest water-cooler talk in politics.

First Up: Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert raided the Emmy Awards.  Yes, I am one day late for showing this clip -- but there was so much news yesterday.  During their presentation of the award for Best Reality Competition Program, the two reminded us why they are the perfect antidote to the Fox News channel.

Second in Line: Democratic Party ignores a potential opportunity.  Over in California, Republican Congressman Jerry Lewis, Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, is under fire for giving out money in exchange for campaign contributions.  The Democrats could challenge him and aggressively fund his opponent.  But as this UNC TV report explains, even though Lewis is now being investigated by the Justice Department, the Democats are too afraid of going after someone with such high status.

Third: Katherine Harris separates mind from sanity.  Jack Cafferty reads through some interesting e-mails that CNN has been getting about Katherine Harris.  If you recall, the Republican U.S. Senate candidate in Florida was the one who said that "God chooses our leaders," and that not electing Christian candidates means "you are going to legislate sin."

Fourth: Hannity the hurricane man.  During a weather report on Fox's Hannity and Colmes, Hannity seemed rather interested as to whether hurricane Ernesto will to hit Cuba.  Make of it what you want.

Fifth, But Not Least: Maher meet Kos.  This is from Friday.  Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos blog appeared on the HBO show Real Time with host Bill Maher.  The two discussed how the Democrats can possibly counter the Republican noise machine.

More clips tomorrow.

Saturday Editorial: Progressives, it's gut check time

Enough is enough.  It's time to stop letting Republicans distort our national security strategy -- especially when we know deep down that ours is stronger, tougher, long-term, and much more effective in combating terrorism.  Here are some suggestions.

It's gut check time folks.  We all knew that sometime before the November election the Bush Administration and their GOP allies were going to politicize our national security and say things about the Democratic Party's national security strategy that was flatly false.  They have to.  They have nothing else to run on.

Their Social Security privatization plan was exposed for what it really was.  The number of uninsured in this country is steadily on the rise.  The war with Iraq has been a failure.  The Administration has had five years to solve the nuclear standoff on the Korean Peninsula, but instead has outsourced that responsibility to China.  Corruption on K-Street is widespread.  This summer, Rick Santorum and a group of radical GOP Senators attempted to write discrimination into our constitution.  The fact is that the GOP are extremely desperate to divert attention away from reality.  So in politics, when issues completely favor one side, all the other side can do is resort to mischaracterizations and smears.

Even though this is expected, and even though I always try to make the political science student in me triumph over emotion, lately I have grown sick and tired of the fact that hardly any Democrat has responded to the GOP's charge that progressives are weak on terrorism.  We can't just sit around here and take it.  The question is what approach should we take in debunking their narrow-minded rhetorical notions?  There are many things we can say about Bush's failed foreign policy -- and we could go on about them for days.  But how to we narrow it down into one big idea? 

I have thought about it a lot.  We need to explain that Republicans, not Democrats, are endangering our national security because they have a one-dimensional approach when it comes to understanding the pragmatism that drives international system.  Andrew Bard Schmookler explained it wonderfully in a column published on the Smirking Chimp blog:

Now we can see what it is that the war on terror requires. It requiresgood intelligence and good police work and international cooperation.

It does not and did not require that the United States military invade another country.

We are up against an enemy that does not have borders, and does nothave armies. It is an enemy of hidden networks, many of which arelocated in the liberal democracies that are their targets.

By invading Iraq, the Bush administration distracted from the realwork in the war against terrorism. They've tied down our military in acountry that --as the 9/11 Commission reported-- was not involved in9/11, and was not at the heart of the real war on terrorism.

We now know that the president and his people were told by variousagencies that Iraq was not involved in 9/11. But they chose todisregard this information, and their words misled the American people.

WeDemocrats who criticize this disastrous war in Iraq are not soft onterror. We are all for fighting this shadowy enemy-- but we believe indoing it the smart way, the way that takes into account the kind ofenemy we face.

The Bush administration has blundered in their invasion in Iraq, aninvasion that has played into the hands of Osama Bin Ladin. The Bushadministration has weakened us for the real fight against terrorists,and has strengthened the people who want the West and Islam to sinkdeeper into war.

We know that there is a threat to America and to other Westerndemocracies. And we are hawks on prosecuting that struggle --throughthe kind of good work that the British investigators used to thwartthis recent terrorist plot.

The war in Iraq, however, has not made us safer. Quite the contrary.

And that's why opposing this war in Iraq is just the opposite of beingsoft on the war on terror. Karl Rove is trying to sell that lie, as away of covering up their disastrous decisions and their failure.

But these recent events remind us of the real nature of that war, and of what is required of us to wage it successfully.

We have to stand up and correct the embedded GOP notion that over-extended military force and a one-branch government at home are the only ways possible to fight terrorism.  That ideology is dangerous to our national security.  We need to stand up for law and democracy here at home, and for 21st century-style diplomacy-based counterterrorism abroad.

We can no longer afford to have loose cannons like John Bolton representing our principles in front of the international community.  Republicans are putting our security at risk, and are politicizing it to win elections.  They believe that political spin is more important than good ideas.

Progressives stand for smart counterterrorism.  We believe that the more we can develop strong relationships with other countries, the more those countries will work with us to use technology and the power of ideas to help make our world safer for democratic institutions.  We believe that fighting poverty and promoting education everywhere in the world will give young people more hope and a sense of responsibility, making them less likely to turn to radical religious clerics who want nothing more than to brainwash them and turn them into suicide bombers.

We have a much better national security strategy to offer, and it's about time we stop letting the Republicans get away with distorting the truth.

----------------------------------------------------

Other sites blogging about this issue: TruthDig, The Existentialist Cowboy, Brilliant at Breakfast, A Rational Being, Newsvine, The Next Hurrah, Craig Murray, The Osterley Times, Faithful Progressive, Skippy the Bush Kangaroo, Media Matters for America, Crimes and Corruptions of the New World, The Moderate Observer, No Touch Monkey, Tennessee Guerrilla Women, The Carpetbagger Report, My Findory News, Bad Politics, Firedoglake, Daily Kos, Suburban Guerrilla, Majikthise, Left Center Left, The Indisputable Truth, Brownian Emotion, Liberal Woman, Cut to the Chase.

PA-Sen: Casey out in front as Santorum begins bus tour

New poll in from Pennsylvania, and Democrat Bob Casey leads Republican incumbent Rick Santorum in the race for U.S. Senate:

Bob Casey: 45%
Rick Santorum: 39%

(Poll conducted between July 31st and August 3rd among 550 registered voters from Pennsylvania.)

This comes just as Rick Santorum, knowing his political future is in trouble, announced that he is launching a statewide bus tour.

On the issue of energy independence, the AP asked the two candidates to explain their views.  As you can see below, Santorum and Casey are from two different worlds:

AP: Please explain whether you think global warming is a problem andif so, if you think the problem is manmade? What, if anything, shouldbe done?

SANTORUM: While the EPA acknowledges that a warming trend of aboutone degree Fahrenheit has been recorded since the late 19th century,scientists have not decisively concluded the cause of this trend. Ibelieve we must be cautious in reacting to this issue because makingdrastic public policy changes could pose serious consequences to oureconomy and our quality of life. This is why I am opposed to radicalapproaches like the Kyoto Protocol, which would unfairly placeinternational regulations on our nation, killing our manufacturingsector that is so vital to areas like western Pennsylvania, whileallowing nations like China to pollute our environment withoutrecourse. Last year, I supported an amendment offered by Sen. ChuckHagel of Nebraska that called for promoting and adopting technologiesthat reduce greenhouse gas emissions by providing loan guarantees toprojects that employ advanced climate technologies. This is a reasonedapproach that doesn't squelch job creation but balances it withenvironmental concerns.

CASEY: Yes. We must take mandatory steps to slow, stop, and reduceglobal warming pollution. Waiting to do so will only make the problemworse and the solution more costly. Rick Santorum thinks that it doesnot exist.

Rick Santorum's long-winded answer is not going to cut it in today's political environment.  Gas prices are near record highs, and the Middle East war and hurricane threats in the gulf are putting our energy lifeline in danger.  The longer we have Senators like Rick Santorum that continue to question the scientific consensus, the longer we will continue to believe the false idea that the solution is to drill our way out of this mess.

As a strong supporter of Bob Casey, I am nervous about the upcoming three months of campaigning because the big GOP donors will be heading into Pennsylvania to shake things up.  The only way we can kick the Republicans out of the majority in the Senate is if we take the initiative and get involved.  If you can contribute or volunteer for the Casey Campaign, you will help steer America towards that goal.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Other sites blogging about this issue: MyDD, Meetup.com, Berkeley Bubble, 2 Political Junkies, The Huffington Post, Caffeinated Politics, Political Wire.

Richardson lists seven ways to improve our foreign policy

In the Democratic Party's weekly radio address today, Bill Richardson, the current New Mexico Governor and former Energy Secretary under Clinton, took the time to unveil seven ways that we can improve our foreign policy.  Hint: it starts with realism.

Here is the full text

Here is the full audio (QuickTime)

And below is an excerpt of Richardson's seven-point proposal:

We need a new realism in our foreign policy, which includesthe following elements:

One, achieve national security through energy independence. We needa man on the moon effort to reduce our dependency on foreign oil -- gofrom 65-percent to 20-percent by 2015; increase fuel efficiency; investin green buildings and fuel cells; and become the leader of the futureeconomic engine of the world -- renewable energy, such as ethanol,solar and wind.

Two, re-build alliances and reinvigorate our allies. A far- sightedpolicy would have built a coalition to prevent Iran from developingnuclear weapons. Most immediately, we need an international coalitionfor peacekeeping in the Middle East.

Three, focus on the real dangers. Prioritize resources to fight AlQaeda and Jihadist terrorists and the most urgent dangers, such asnuclear terrorism. That means a new strategy for success in Iraq thatallows us to redeploy our troops.

Four, don't outsource our diplomacy. We need direct, face to facetalks with North Korea. We should also talk directly with Iran.

Five, we need to pay attention to Latin America, our own back yard.The key is passing a comprehensive immigration plan now that includesenhanced border security, a path to legalization for the 11 millionimmigrants already here, and sanctions against employers who knowinglyhire illegal immigrants. The House should stop holding these sillyhearings. Mr. President, your good words on immigration should befollowed by deeds to pass a comprehensive plan.

Six, face up to global environmental threats. The first thing thisAdministration did was reject the Kyoto Treaty. America should be theworld's leader, and that means owning up to grave environmentaldangers, such as global warming.

Finally, respect human rights and American values. Prisoner abuse,torture, secret prisons and evasion of the Geneva Accords should haveno place in our foreign policy.

Also, Richardson had one other good point that I did not include before:

Above all, it means understanding that military power and diplomacy arenot alternatives to one another, but rather are complementary sourcesof strength. What the Bush Administration has failed to understand isthat while diplomacy without power is weak, power without diplomacy isblind.

Richardson, above all, appears to be subscribing to Joseph Nye's soft and hard power theory.  Hard power is our capacity to coerce and defeat through military force.  Soft power is our worldwide appeal, which allows us to promote our values.  You can't have just hard or soft power -- you need both.  Right now, we are exercising too much hard power and not enough soft power.  No it comes as no surprise that in the Middle East we are seeing an overload of hard power between Israel and Hezbollah.  Maybe it's about time we started balancing things out.

-----------------------------------------------

Other blogs writing about Bill Richardson: The Bill Richardson Blog, Washington Outsiders, Democracy for New Mexico, Daily Pundit, Pike Place Politics, Oval Office 2008, The Imus Show Blog.

WA-08: Momentum is in Darcy's favor

If you are looking for a good example of the anti-Republican political shift that is going on in mainstream America, look no further than Bellevue, Washington -- just 10 minutes away from where I live.  Bellevue and the area surrounding it usually votes Republican, and did in 2004 when they elected GOP Dave Reichert to U.S. Congress.  However, with the war in Iraq and high gas prices here at home, residents of that district are now realizing they are not getting what they asked for when they headed to the polls to help reelect President Bush.

Republican Dave Reichert is in huge political trouble.  Democratic challenger Darcy Burner, out of nowhere, rose in popularity over the last few months and is now outpacing Reichert in fundraising.  Laughably, what helped Burner was President Bush's visit last month to campaign and raise money for Reichert:

But President Bush's private fundraiser for Reichert in Bellevuelast month was expected to boost the former King County sheriff farahead in the money race. Instead, Burner said, Bush's visit may havebeen a bigger financial boost for her than for Reichert.

"We had lots of money come in specifically because of thepresident's visit," said Burner, a former Microsoft manager fromCarnation.

Reichert is so desperate that he is now switching his position on embryonic stem cell research.  In the Democrats' attempt to override President Bush's veto last week, Reichert decided this time to break ranks with his party to support federal funding that would have made use of discarded embryos.

This is pretty serious.  Why would Reichert change his opinion on such an important issue?  It means that a seat normally considered out of play for the Democrats is now up for grabs.  John Edwards plans to raise money for Burner in the beginning of August.  The Democrats also announced that this fall they will spend roughly $30 million on television spots.  While the tv ads will focus mostly on the Midwest and Northeast, you can bet that Burner's district will get some help as well.

While the DCCC is doing their part, we in the netroots need to do ours.  This could be the seat that determines whether we can take back the House.  Please give all that you can to the Burner Campaign.

(I do not work for or know anyone at the Burner Campaign.  I am just a concerned citizen wanting change in America.  Helping the Burner campaign is a great way to help turn the tide.)
-----------------------------------------------
Other blogs writing about this issue: Northwest Progressive Institute, Hominid Views, Coolaqua, On the Road to 2008, Pike Place Politics, Forward Together Blog, Uterine Cancer, Hotline on Call, Majority Rules Blog, Jesus' General, Down with Tyranny, Blog Reload, The Left Shue.

The politics of '08 primary spots

The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee met over the weekend and engaged in an intense debate over where the two new primary spots, which will take place around the time of the Iowa Caucus and the New Hampshire primary, will be held.  The committee came up with Nevada and South Carolina.

But just as I wrote, the debate was intense.  Democratic strategists Herold Ickes strongly disagreed with the choice of South Carolina because he felt that it would give John Edwards an unfair advantage:

Harold Ickes made no bones about why he would not vote to choose SouthCarolina as the additional primary state. His reason was summed up inone name: John Edwards. Prior to the vote, Ickes, a DNC Rules memberfrom the District of Columbia, tried to persuade his colleagues that ifSouth Carolina was selected it wouldn't be taken seriously by otherDemocrats because Edwards, a former Democratic senator from neighboringNorth Carolina, would be considered the hometown favorite. This drewloud protests from Don Fowler and Carol Khare Fowler, DNC Rules membersfrom South Carolina.

I must say that I sort of agree with Ickes.  There's certainly been a lot going right with John Edwards lately, and he would make a great presidential candidate.  But it is almost certain that South Carolina would vote for John Edwards because he grew up there.  Of course, on the other hand, objecting to primary destinations just because a specific candidate is from there might be a bad precedent to set.  Tom Vilsack, for example, is from Iowa.  I don't hear anyone saying that the Iowa Caucus should not go first.

Bottom line though: this is sure a boost to John Edwards.  The latest Des Moines Register poll taken of Iowa Democrats puts him ahead of all other possible '08 contenders, even including Hillary Clinton and Tom Vilsack.  And now with South Carolina in there as well, Edwards has a good shot at taking at least two of the first four primaries.  Obviously we are very early in the game, and opinions can change up until the very last day as we saw with Howard Dean in 2004.  But as of now, Edwards has the early advantage.

As for Nevada, that is the best state that the Democrats could have possibly selected.  The Las Vegas area, especially the town of Henderson, is one of the fastest growing areas in the country.  Many of these voters consist of new families that own their first home.  In 2004, Bush carried 97 of the country's 100-fastest growing counties.  We need to give these new population centers a large say in who the Democratic nominee is.  Although Arizona, New Mexico and Utah are also surging as far as growth, Nevada was probably the best idea.  I am glad they chose that state.

Even though Nevada and South Carolina will be moving up a bit in the primary calendar, Democrats are still campaigning like mad in New Hampshire.  Mark Warner and Evan Bayh are supporting local candidates in that region in order to possibly get their endorsements in 2008.

As of now, this is what we know about the list of Democrats that could run:

• Candidates that have officially declared their intentions to run: Chris Dodd and Joe Biden.
• Candidates that have said they might run: Mark Warner, Evan Bayh, John Edwards, Tom Vilsack, and Tom Daschle.
• Candidates that have not said anything but are acting like it: Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Russ Feingold.
• Candidates that will likely not run, but still could: Barack Obama, Wesley Clark, Al Gore and Bill Richardson.

So, as you can see, we are expecting a pretty big field.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Other blogs writing about this issue: Socratic Gadfly, Georgia Politics Unfiltered, News you Can Abuse, The World Newser, Political News, The Object of Power, Copeland Institute for Lower Learning, Vichy Democrats, Truthout, Hotline, Political Wire, Huffington Post.