The Blue State

"Democracy Alliance" group: helping or polluting the progressive movement

If you read the book The Right Wing Noise Machine, you will learn a lot about how organized the conservative movement has been from top-to-bottom ever since the late-1970s.  They put a foundation together back then that today dominates Washington as far as talking points, money infrastructure and how mainstream news content is impacted.  Ironically, this book was written by David Brock, whose web site Media Matters is one of the many monetary recipients of a new money effort by a few dozen rich progressives to fund like-minded think tanks and advocacy groups.

This group, called Democracy Alliance, is mostly a secret organization that has donated $50 million to progressive causes over the last nine months.  Even though most people, including myself, would say that this money is mostly going to a good cause, many disclosure advocates have a problem with the donors' identities remaining secret -- as analyzed in Monday's Washington Post:

But the large checks and demanding style wielded by Democracy Allianceorganizers in recent months have caused unease among Washington'scommunity of Democratic-linked organizations. The alliance has requiredorganizations that receive its endorsement to sign agreements shieldingthe identity of donors. Public interest groups said the alliancerepresents a large source of undisclosed and unaccountable politicalinfluence.

Even though the identities of most donors continue to remain secret, the Democracy Alliance is managed by Steven Gluckstern, with major financial backing by Tim Gill and George Soros.  They started their effort last summer, and are definitely threatening to defy the stranglehold that the GOP establishment has on Washington.

Sometimes the effort to counter the GOP establishment can seem like pushing a big truck up a steep hill.  The more help we can get, the better.  But is this how we want to do it?  I am all for rich progressives lending a helping hand to the Democratic Party.  However, as this Democracy Alliance gets more exclusive and more powerful, we run the risk of having a small group of very wealthy people exercising too much control over the Democratic Party.  When in reality, our party is supposed to be about the voters, the families, the activists, the students, the teachers, the seniors, and the workers.  We are of the opinion that people-powered grassroots activism, not secret elitism, is the best way to protect democratic institutions, and it is the best way to ensure social justice.  Over the last few years, we have seen the affects of the infamous K-Street Project, and what happens when a small few in positions of power can put themselves above the popular consensus.  Do we want our side to head in that direction?  Or do we believe that the Democratic Party is at its most vibrant when it is funded from the bottom-up, not the top-down?  Blogs, town hall meetings, rallies, advocacy groups, student government, voting registration efforts, donation drives, education funding, and calls to public service are what gets us there -- not a bunch of out-of-touch billionaires using partiality to decide who gets money and who doesn't.

Again, don't get me wrong: I like the fact that they are donating to progressive causes -- doing their part in loosening the GOP's grip on Capitol Hill.  But the people donating should identify themselves, identify who they are donating to and not have any say over policy decisions.

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

Other blogs writing about this issue: DRN News, The Gun Toting Liberal, The Supreme Irony of Life, Jon Stahl's Journal, In These Times.

My take on the possible '08 Democratic Convention sites

I know that I am a few days late posting on this.  But it really is a shame that New Orleans dropped its bid to host the 2008 Democratic National Convention.  At the very least, by not having it there the Democrats will not be labeled as politicizing hurricane Katrina.  New York City, Minneapolis and Denver are still in the running. 

I would lean towards Denver, since my geographical bias tells me that the Democrats should not ignore the west.  After all, Colorado is one of many western states -- obviously behind Arizona and Nevada -- currently experiencing a suburban population boom.  We need to win those growing districts.  A Daily Kos poll puts Denver as the favorite of the three among progressive activists.  Then again, with the Convention being in Denver, you would get comedians making Mile High Club jokes with references to Bill Clinton.  So maybe the Democrats ought to leave that invitation alone.

New York is, well, too plain in my opinion.  How is that going to excite swing voters?  Certainly, the upside is that New York is the number one media hub in the country.  Coverage would be maximized as a result.  But the Democrats have had too much of the Northeast.  How about getting outside of their comfort zone for once?

That leaves one spot left: Minneapolis.  I have never been there, so I can't call it boring.  On a positive note, Minnesota is a swing state -- which neighbors Wisconsin, yet another swing state.  The best part about having it in Minnesota is the fact that one of their U.S. Senators, Republican Norm Coleman, is up for reelection that year.  This would allow the Democrats to feature the Democratic challenger in that race as the party's keynote speaker.  In 2004, the Democrats gave that spot to Barack Obama.  Look where he ended up!  So if it means that the Democrats might pick up an extra Senate seat, then Minneapolis here we come!

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

Other blogs writing about this issue: The Carpetbagger Report, 2008 Democratic Convention Watch, Taegan Goddard's Political Wire, Washington and the West, Gov Love, Slapstick Politics, Demnotes, MN Publius, Skyfire's Magic Roundabout.

Video: DCCC television ad

The moment that the Democrats did something right by releasing an inspirational television ad, they got attacked because of what appeared in the ad for no more than three seconds: flag-draped American coffins. 

On one hand, the Republicans should not be complaining.  They have been using the September 11th attacks as a fundraising tool ever since the fall of 2001.  One of President Bush's 2004 campaign ads used the wreckage of the World Trade Center to promote a political message.  Except, unlike this one DCCC campaign ad that showed coffins for three seconds, the Bush Campaign spent an entire election season exploiting 9/11.

On the other hand, the Rahm Emanuel's staff should have predicted this.  Now, thanks to the flag-draped coffins being in the video, the country is more likely to focus on that then the overall message of hope.

Aside from all the controversy, this is one of the best ads that the DCCC has ever made.  Why?  It is positive, hopeful and explains that "there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America."

Watch the ad below.  You be the judge:

North Korea should be an easy one for the Democrats

By now, all of us heard about North Korea's 4th of July military exercise, which resulted in six missiles being fired into the Sea of Japan.  We also know that North Korea attempted to fire longer range missiles, which ultimately did not launch -- an utter embarrassment on their part.

Since the mainstream media has been pounding this one to death, I will not say a lot about it.

However, when progressives get into debates with conservatives about North Korea, there is no reason why our side should not have the upper hand.  Yesterday's defiance of the international community by North Korea was a direct result of what happens when Bush lets China control the negotiations with Kim Jong IL's brutal regime.  I am absolutely amazed that Democrats are silent on this issue.  In 1994, the Clinton Administration got North Korea to sign the 1994 Agreed Framework, which called for the dismantlement of North Korea's nuclear program in exchange for the United States helping fund construction of a light-water reactor that was to be used for power purposes only.  Unfortunately, the Republican Congress attacked Clinton for making the deal, calling it appeasement, which led to the agreement falling apart.  Then, once Bush came into power, it was all down hill from there (i.e. axis of evil speech).  The Democrats need to insist that the Clinton strategy of bilateral talks is the best way to proceed -- forcing North Korea to reduce its military economy and bolster its civilian economy, making Southeast Asia much safer.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Other blogs writing about this issue: Daily Kos, The Intelligence Summit, Policy Forum, Boing Boing, It's My Mind, Truth Dig, Beyond the Punchline, Mixter's Mix, Specious Reasoning, Razor Sharp Claws, HyScience, Pam's House Blend, Donkey Path, Samantha Speaks, Outside the Beltway, The Democratic Daily, The Ruth Group.

Democrats in good shape at the moment

Even though President Bush's poll numbers ticked up to 41% in the latest Bloomberg Poll, Democrats are looking in decent shape just four months before the midterm elections:

Democrats held a formidable advantage, 49% to35%, when registered voters were asked which party they intended tosupport in fall congressional elections.

The survey's resultssuggested that an old challenge — the gender gap — could pose a renewedthreat to the Republican hold on Congress. Although men split aboutevenly when asked which party they planned to back for Congress inNovember, women preferred Democrats by nearly 2 to 1.

Not all registered voters are going to cast ballots though.  Those who are the most passionate and upset usually show up to vote in the midterm elections.  So which party is more passionate then?  With all the anger over the war and high gas prices, I'd say that progressives are more fired up.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Other blogs writing about this issue: On Tap, The City Troll, The Common Ills, Innocence Blog.

So no Republican culture of corruption then?

This is why you never assign legislators with the task of imposing restrictions on themselves.  It is like asking a kid to voluntarily limit his or her chocolate intake.

The Washington Post reports:

Their message was clear: Hastert needed to champion legislation tocrack down on unethical behavior and impose tough new restrictions onlobbyists and congressional perks. Hastert, who had previously shownscant interest in the issue, responded with proposals that surprisedlongtime reformers with their reach: a ban on privately funded travelby lawmakers and severe restrictions on lobbyist-paid meals.

"We need to reform the rules so that it is clear, beyond a shadow ofa doubt, what is ethically acceptable," Hastert said at a newsconference 10 days after DeLay stepped down.

But that was then.Six months later, the legislation has slowed to a crawl. Along the way,proposals such as Hastert's that would sharply limit commonplacebehavior on Capitol Hill have been cast aside. Committee chairmen oncepredicted the bill would be finished in March, but the Senate did notpass its ethics bill until March 29 and the House passed its versionMay 3. The House has yet to name negotiators to draft the final package.

Legislatorsand public-interest group advocates say the most likely result thisyear is a minimalist package that would allow members to say they haveresponded to the Abramoff situation and other scandals but would dolittle to crimp their ability to accept lobbyist favors.

Thechange, these people say, reflects a calculation that the politicalstorm has mostly passed and that the need for more intrusive efforts toalter the congressional culture and the lobbyist-lawmaker relationshipis less urgent.

Once the incident with William Jefferson happened, the Democratic leadership began chickening away from the "culture of corruption" rhetorical approach.  Democrats have such a case here with all the ethical scandals that have plagued the Republicans ever since last year.  Most Americans still don't even know that Jack Abramoff was once the president of the College Republican National Committee.  It is because the Democrats have been so lazy as of late at pointing out the fact that corruption is almost completely a Republican issue.

The Republican filibuster on working Americans

For the ninth time since 1997, the Republicans in the Senate have blocked efforts by the Democrats to raise the minimum wage.  The vote was 52 to 46 in support of raising the $5.15 per hour national minimum wage.  But the Democrats fell short of the 60 votes needed to prevent a Republican filibuster.

Ironically, this vote against the minimum wage came just one week after Republican Senators voted overwhelmingly in favor of increasing their own wages, as they have done almost every year for the last decade.

The two resolutions by Democrats on Iraq

After Republicans stalled yesterday, the Senate is getting ready today to hold a fierce debate on the Iraq war, and ultimately vote on two resolutions.  The first resolution is supported by Harry Reid and the rest of the Senate Democratic leadership.  The second resolution, the one written by John Kerry and Russ Feingold, sets a specific deadline to remove all forces and will be voted on later in the day.

The first resolution is nonbinding, and asks the Administration to begin the redeployment of U.S. troops this year:

It would call for -- but not require -- the administration to begin "aphased redeployment of U.S. forces" this year, and would not set a firmdeadline by which time all forces must be out of the war zone.

Even though the resolution will obviously not pass, it is supported by almost all Democrats.

The second resolution is the more detailed one, and is opposed by most Democrats -- which was why it will be voted on later in the day:

One proposal offered by Democratic Sens. John Kerry of Massachusettsand Russ Feingold of Wisconsin would set a hard pullout deadline ofJuly 2007.

Many are criticizing John Kerry and Russ Feingold for offering this second resolution.  But as John Murtha explained Sunday on Meet the Press, redeploying U.S. troops to the periphery will not hamper the efforts to help the Iraqi government combat terrorism.  For example, the air strike that killed Zarqawi was based out of Qatar, and the intelligence gathering that led to the air strike was conducted by Iraqis.

GOP rolls out attack machine slogans

Last night at the annual Republican Party Gala, President Bush was only able to raise $17 million, which amounts to less than half of what he raised at the event in 2004.  He used the moment at the podium to introduce some of the campaign rhetoric that his party will use during this election season:

"We're the party of the future and our candidates will run against theparty of the past, a party that offers no new ideas like the RepublicanParty, a party than can only offer opposition," he said in a 31-minutespeech interrupted frequently by loud applause.

Some of the same themeology was placed on the official GOP web site yesterday, such as the following banner:

This is all expected to be part of a Rove-like attack that centers around scaring voters into not voting for the Democrats.  While this same tactic was used in 2002 and 2004, this year's installment has a twist.  The Republicans are expected to focus their attacks on House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee John Conyers.  The notion is that if the Democrats take back the House, Conyers will head the Judiciary Committee and push for the impeachment of the President (even though two weeks ago Nancy Pelosi put an end to that rumor).  Attack ad after attack ad will be unleashed in media markets where there are close races, reminding voters that if they vote Democrat they will also in effect be giving their support to Pelosi and Conyers.

Even more significantly, the GOP will also tell voters that they should not support the Democrats because they are a party without an agenda.  This might prove to be a blessing in disguise, since the Democratic leadership will then be forced to do what progressive bloggers have wanted for the last year: roll out a specifically detailed agenda on everything from foreign policy to all things domestically related.  So while the attacks will make the 2004 election look tame compared to this one, the atmosphere will encourage the usually dull Democratic Party insiders to take some rhetorical risks for a change.

On immigration, GOP House majority stays the course and gets nothing done

What did I say earlier today about House conservatives not wanting to budge on immigration?  Now Sensenbrenner is rhetorically firing back at the Senate and Bush:

"He basically turned his back on provisions of the House-passed bill, alot of which we were requested to put in the bill by the White House,"Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., angrily told reporters in a conference call."That was last fall when we were drafting the bill, and now thepresident appears not to be interested in it at all."

From what transpired today, it is safe to say that President Bush's speech on Monday only encouraged House Republicans to give voters the best possible reason today as to why they don't belong in majority.  This hyper-partisanship has led to egotistical inaction at the highest levels of government to the point that Republicans are fighting amongst themselves and getting nothing done.  Democrats need to present themselves as a party that promotes cooperation and transparency.  They also need to explain to voters that America has been through too much divisiveness to continue staying the course on the road that leads to more inaction.