Archive for January, 2008

The recent proposal for DUI checkpoints by Governor Chris Gregoire has raised some hackles around my neck of the sagebrush.  Nearly the hour after the news hit the local TV and Newspapers last week, I was getting her hate mail from my righty friends complaining about the invasiveness and the un-constitutionality of the whole thing… and I really got a chuckle out of it.  Really!  In fact, I’m dying for the republican leadership to get behind the proposal.  But will they?

First off, I think it’s miserable idea and I’ll touch on that later in another post. What is important is that while Dino Rossi is trying to paint Gregoire as soft on crime in his stump speech, he is conveniently ignoring one of the most prolific issues in public safety.  But given the crowd he is trying to sway, I doubt he would fair well telling them he supports a measure that invades thier privacy.

And what a crafty response from the Governor.  You see, if there was a problem that was any more well documented, it would be the problem of impaired driving.  And the Republican leadership in Washington State knows it.  But join with the Governor on this issue and you have abandoned the campaign theme that Christine Gregoire isn’t tough on crime.  Kinda funny huh?

It’s a good play.  But there also aren’t many democrats as far as I can see that are willing to get behind this.  And it’s easy cover to hide behind the 1988 Wa. Supreme Court Ruling that DUI checkpoints were unconstitutional for both parties.  The independent nature of Washington State voters, both D and R, don’t exactly want more intrusion into their privacy.  That is amplified by policies that are prime to our upcoming federal elections with warrantless wiretapping and telcom immunity on the table.  Still, if you are serious about public safety, at least this issue would come up.

I think it’s a sucker bet to take a political position on this when the vast majority Washingtonians are against DUI checkpoints.  But it draws at least one argument out of the republican playbook.  Despite republicans portraying themselves as being the “law and order” party, it only takes a little bit of law and order talk to install near silence.  For all the talk about ”sex offenders” there isn’t much more distinct problem than impaired drivers in the grand scheme of things.  And though I think neither party gets it right by bearing down with law enforcement instead of innovative solutions that reduce both DUI offenses and public attitude towards impaired driving, ”The Gov” just interrupted the conversation very well.  

In a remarkable bit of strategery, Rudy Giuliani is bowing out of the GOP Presidential race and although I agree with Goldy that his whole candidacy could very well have been just a ploy for sunny tee times and beach front margaritas for him and what little “paid” staff he had left, I’d take take it one step further.  We’ve heard about the backroom deals that are primary races with both parties where presidential candidates are not selected by public vote but rather a skillful calculation mixed in with the motions of primary campaigning.  This deal is looking to be the most transparent version we have seen in some time. 

McCain’s win in Florida with Giuliani skipping earlier primaries smells of just such a deal.  And what a way to do it.  “America’s Mayor“, and his steady plunge to electoral death in both primaries and polls combined with the love fest that seems to be flourishing between McCain and Giuliani suggests that this was the point.  A McCain-Giuliani ticket could very well be in the works.  It’s what makes Goldy’s post so delightful.

Think about it. Giuliani may be arrogant and vindictive and ethically challenged, but nobody’s ever accused the man of being stupid, so perhaps he and his advisers knew all along that he didn’t stand a chance on the national stage once Americans really got to know him. But just because he couldn’t win the White House didn’t mean he couldn’t make a little scratch on the side, and taking a lesson from Max Bialystock and Leo Bloom in Mel Brooks’ legendary The Producers, perhaps Giuliani realized he could make a helluva lot more money from a presidential flop than he ever could from a respectable run?

How would the scam work? Simple. Raise tens of millions of dollars while you’re riding high in the national polls, but stay out of the expensive media wars in the early primaries to “focus on Florida.” Then when your Florida strategy inevitably fails, you bow out of the race, having spent all your cash on high-priced “consultants” for, well, who knows what? Once out of the national spotlight, Giuliani and his “consultants” just split the loot and fly off to Rio, just in time for Carnival.

I have a tendency to look at a VP candidate as someone strong on foreign policy or an ambassador to garner the good will of other nations toward Americans.  If a Giuliani VP ticket comes to being, none of those things will be in play.  Joe Biden called Giuliani a “foreign policy disaster” and as far as hugs and kisses for the good will among nations, Giuliani is likely to be internationally received as partially hatched chicken soup.

There is a bright side to this in the Democratic camp.  McCain polls (at least according to this poll) best against the top two Democratic front runners.  Giuliani’s MSM meme of “the more they know him the less they like him” could very well be the kiss of death and turn this poll around for even an Obama nomination.   

• Hillary Clinton - 266
• John McCain - 256
  

  ---

• Barack Obama - 188
• John McCain - 323

  ---

• John Edwards - 225
• John McCain - 216

Keep in mind that this is just a poll.  I’m particularly skeptical of the Obama/McCain stats being that even here in blood red Central Washington, Obama comes in a pretty good 3rd amongst all candidates in a goofy unscientific KONA radio poll.  A radio station who’s target audience are the Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity faithful.  But even more odd that Giuliani wasn’t even a selection!  But still… Obama lists impressively even in this little red burg. 

More and more I look at a McCain candidacy as having the same relevancy as Bob Dole’s.  The sad deal is, McCain is probably the best the GOP has and in some weird way, I actually kind of like the guy… but not that much.  But consider Mitt Romney’s (The Crimson Chin) Florida speech tonight where he pandered to a religious base with a “marriage before babies” (obviously failed biology), his attack on teacher unions, and unfettering praise for Bush and the war, I don’t have much sympathy for the republican party.  And they can send thank you notes to every republican president since Nixon for that.

So there is a bit of speculation… McCain\Giuliani?  Disaster!

Cheers!

2 years ago myself and Kendall Miller decided to start the Tri-Cities Chapter of Drinking Liberally.  I had never met Kendall in person but we set the location and just he, I and his daughter, showed up for the very first meeting.  In weeks that followed we saw a few more people show up.  In the months that followed, much more.  Now, two years later, Drinking Liberally in the Tri-Cities attendance rivals many other chapters around the Northwest.  And we’re still growing.  We have a variety of people who breeze through, some hard core regulars, local candidates, famous bloggers… you name it!  It seems every week there is a face I haven’t seen before.

So if you are looking for something to do tonight, come celebrate Drinking Liberally in the Tri-Cities 2nd Anniversary, and help promote democracy one pint at a time!

Drinking Liberally in the Tri-Cities

O’Callahans - Shilo Inn

50 Comstock Rd.

Richland

7pm till?

My two babies, who I love so much… and thier very wonderful mother.  And a very good picture…

Lee over at Horsesass.org reminded me of The Stranger’s Dan Savage piece on Bill Maher.  Dan cracks me up and this is a very good segment. 

Enjoy!

If you’re over 35, you probably used to laugh at Saturday Night Live skits about a robotic Ronald Reagan.

This brings it all back.

•  I know I’m not the only one watching this…  Do these clowns not understand just how bad this war is to the economy enough to say anything besides “I supported the president”, “it was the right thing to do”, “It was mis-managed by Rumsfeld”…. at least Ron Paul has the guts to stand up to that BS.  And get a bit of applause for it too!
• OMG, John McCain just said he went after Jack Abramhoff!!  Is that true?  Was it a stalking or simply love letters?  Sheesh!
• Ah Mitt… “Sending the same people back (meaning the Clinton’s) is like doing the same thing expecting different results”…  Kinda like sending Republicans back but with you know…. successful policies!  Now Mitt is bragging about how much money he has raised!
• Another one from Mitt, “I’m by far the biggest contributor to my campaign”…. translation:  “I’ll buy this shit if I have to!”
• More Mitt!…. Mitt doesn’t think people vote based on what Church you go to as well… ha!
• Huckabee says abolish the IRS… appealing to my inner liberatarian.  Are going to filter a flat tax through the Southern Baptist Church?  Tithings against terrorism?  Sounds like a plan.
• Rudy gets the hispanola question about his ad in spanish after his english only statements…. somehow twists it into border security.  Favorite qoute:  “Get online, become a citizen”…. I’m sure I heard that right.
• Chuck Norris!!! We have stooped so low now that Chuck Norris’ name can come up in a presidential debate!
• Sylvester Stallone!!!  We have stooped so low now that Sylvester Stallone’s name can come up in a presidential debate!
• Ronald Reagan!!! We have stooped so low now that Ronald Reagan is still coming up in presidential debates!
• Romney - I am going to Washington to “change things”.   Magic Underwear? How often do those get changed anyway?  I just wanna know….
• Huckabee says…. “I’d never use my office to push my faith” on anyone.  Hmmm… just the Constitution?
• Ron Paul asked if he’s gonna run as a third party candidagte? No… (probably doesn’t think he can beat Bloomberg)
• Ron Paul said “Big Tent”.  Eat that Dwight Pelz.
• If any of these guys are elected President…
• We are fucked!

I don’t know what this has to do with debates or republicans…. other than Mitt’s hair was… perfect.

It’s Tuesday… and COLD.  But even ‘Old Man Winter’ is no match for hot conversation found at Drinking Liberally in the Tri-Cities.  So come on down!

Drinking Liberally in the Tri-Cities
O’Callahans/Shilo Inn
50 Comstock Rd.
Richland

7pm till?

I am really conflicted about the nomination. Inside I feel the Clintons have the machinery, tenacity, and strategic political experience to win the general. But I also know that Obama would do wonders to heal this nation and move things forward. I am always deeply impressed when I hear him speak. And this you tube clip about Obama on religion might just very well have swayed me. The clincher quote is:

“or should we follow the sermon on the mount, a passage that is so radical that its doubtful our own defense department would survive its application.”

I really want to believe that Obama can win but I don’t want to be derailed in the general. But the more and more I listen to Obama the more I believe. His speaking is Robert Kennedy level stuff and I suspect he can bring the nation forward if the forces of evil don’t derail his candidacy.

~Gordon

Gordon made some really great points. But..

It’s not really a response. Er… actually I don’t know what it is… and I kinda wish it would stop.

This is post is in part a response a discussion to that brewed over in one my heated comments/reactions to Jimmy’s post about Obama and change. I have decided this presidential campaign cycle that I am a 100% pro Hillary. I would like to offer a thought through defense of Hillary and some of the specific reasons I came to this position.

False Equivalencies:

I have grown older and my politics have shifted somewhat. In 2000 I voted for Nader in the general. I don’t personally consider myself personally responsible for W sweeping into office because Gore won Washington State by a significant enough margin. At the time I was swept up in much of the enthusiasm and change that Nader presented us young voters. It was exhilarating. I remember attending a rally at the Moore theater and I was genuinely caught up in the idea of building a new green party that would present some measure of accountability in the system. I see very similar enthusiasm coalescing around the Obama campaign and I don’t doubt its authenticity or commitment. But in retrospect, I have come to realize that there were several political lies I had to buy into to accept the Nader message.

The first suggestion was that the two parties are no different in substance, two sides of the same corporate coin. Bush = Gore, Gore = Bush was the dominant meme at the time. I kind of accepted this at the time but as we have all learned Bush was not Gore. I knew Bush would be bad for the country but I remained ambivalent about the Gore candidacy. It wasn’t really that I was “mad at Clinton”, I used to say in the 90’s that Clinton was the greatest Democratic president since FDR, and I still believe that today. But I remember the moment where Gore actively distanced himself from the Clintons treating them like political toxic waste. Maybe his advisers had a point but it was over done and fueled my ambivalence about Gore. I actually liked the net result of Clinton’s presidency. My only gripe with the Lewinsky business is that Clinton let the scandal sap any progressive agenda he may have pursued in the last few years of his presidency. He effectively provided his enemies too much ammo to turn him into a lame duck. But any 2000 angst was not a reflection of actual policy just a desire to push forward more. But at the end of the day I bought into the basic lie that policy differences were minimal and accepted the notion hook line and sinker.

A similar meme is emergent this primary season and Hillary is often socked with the same amorphous “she represents corporate interests” critique. It smacks of shades of the same enthusiastic meme in 2000. Whenever I hear this I crave for detail from the critics but often don’t hear much. And while I am not “pro corporate” I will be the first to point out that not all corporations are the same. Being pro business is not antithetical to everything American. Obviously a balance is needed. And the Clintons pursued that balance in an effective way. There are always trade offs and pursuing a politics that is anti-business just for the sake of brandishing anti-business credentials is not very thought out, at least to my way of thinking. Now I am not saying that Obama is doing this directly but some of his supporters seem to take up this mantle.

Dirty Politics:

I have often read in the blog world and among Obama enthusiasts an almost trenchant and constant refrain of how the Clintons are the embodiment of dirty pool politics. I understand the criticism and moreover the angst about politics turning ugly. But I also do think many over-do the criticism. So far this election cycle things have appeared to have been relatively tame. And that is a credit to the candidates. But another almost universal truth comes to mind. Part of the reason we play is that we play to win. There was a great moment in the West Wing tv show where president Jed Bartlet makes the point that decisions are made by those that show up. And part of showing up in politics means going the long distance and winning in order to make decisions while being in office on behalf of your constituents.

A corollary of the dirty politics refrain has been an implicit criticism of the Clintons as being full of blind ambition. But again it is part of the playing to win that motivates the Clintons. And this is a quality I do admire. It may lead to some cringe worthy moments in a campaign but it is the process. As it is often said “don’t hate the playa hate the game…”. Now again particular political experience motivates me this time around. In 2004 I remember having some doubts about Kerry’s chief of campaign staff Mary Beth Cahill. Later my suspicions seem to be confirmed my the anemic response Kerry had to the swift boat attacks and the flip flop accusations. I always felt that if Kerry had allowed a pitbull like Carville to work for him he might have faired better in the wake of the swift boat attacks. I loathe to reinforce the stereotype “nice guys finish last” but in my life that has been true. I admire and respect Obama’s commitment to running a civil campaign but I do hope somehow that he demonstrates that he has the will to win in the general. His recent Reagan comments seem to suggest otherwise. He sees himself as more the product of historical shift and banks his candidacy on that. I understand the sentiment but it strikes me as remarkably passive, even as he professes to be a visionary. The Republicans may be weak this cycle but I would not under estimate them. Part of this is an expectations game by keeping expectations low. But deep down I am more interested in a candidate who demonstrates that she is committed to doing whatever it takes to win and thereby ultimately showing up to make the policy decisions that will benefit us all. We are in a battle to the death and mere change is not enough. Survival is a necessary condition to make those changes. And as for the dirty politics I think you have to lay some of that at the feet the marginally informed voter whose opinions can be fairly easily be manipulated.

Thomas Jefferson once said:

Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government;… whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights.”

The reverse of this is that things go wrong when the citizens are not informed. Part of fighting back is not dirty tricks but reminding the people what you stand for.

The anti war issue.

I am as mad as anybody about this endless war that Bush sent us into. But I also realize there is no point in focusing too heavily on the past. Things are about moving forward and finding that method that moves us forward effectively. Clinton has garnered her national security credentials which I think positions her well against the inevitable critique of “you are weak on defense” which will eternally plague the Democrats. But I also think this is more for show. Hillary will find the “right way” to move out of Iraq. Obama seems to rely solely on the rhetoric of ‘I am a more pure anti-war candidate because I never voted for the war’. This masks some important complexities of extracting from Iraq. I know Obama is full of good intention but will he be able to follow this intention through will good execution on the war issues? Say what you will about Clinton but Bosnia was handled well. Hillary will continue the tradition. Sure there were mistakes like Rhwanda and Somalia. But given the diminished moral authority of America I think we are going to have to proceed very carefully in our willingness to deploy force to solve the world’s ills. So at the end of a day I think we need someone who will be shrewd about the deployment of force. Obama seems to want to go a speaking tour with the world’s problematic leaders. I like the sentiment, but I think it takes more than that. Diplomacy is partly the gift of gab but it is also using realpolitik to your advantage and to get things done. And I think Hillary accepts and invokes this reality.

Idealism

Maybe I am just getting more cynical as I get older but I am less and less impressed with idealism. Sometimes it just seems fickle. But also I have seen its corrosive side in the Bush administration. The likes of Wolfowitz and Bill Kristol exude an idealism that has lead us to disastrous consequences. Now I am not trying to compare Obama to these neocons, but the audacity of hope sometimes runs smack into dangerous delusion. And as it is often said the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Hillary doesn’t seem over adorned with the trappings of idealism. There is a time and place for that. And while hope and idealism make for great campaign signs and slogans sometimes they get in the way of good governance.

And finally my biggest concern about Obama. Part of politics is working together and making change through the institutions of the party. Now I would never suggest that some one is not entitled to run. But I have a hard time accepting his jumping ahead of game a bit by riding the hype train express. Obama is a young, smart, gifted candidate. But I think his decision to enter the race demonstrates that he has fallen a bit for the hype that surrounds him. Sure maybe he is making a shrewd political calculation, saw his opportunity, and jumped on it. But part of this doesn’t settle with me given some of the relative obscurity of his actual positions he would or has taken on difficult political issues. They call it paying your dues, its a Union term but it is also how effective organization and political change is created. And I just have a hard time with his candidacy after spending two years in the Senate in a as a relatively hot rising star after coming into office in a relatively uncontested race. His last political foe was Alan Keyes. And I can assure you however bad things may be going for the Republicans they are going to have a much more worthy adversary than that. So I remain uncertain about his prospects in the general.

These are just my gut opinions. Take then for whatever they’re worth.

~ Gordon

I got roasted in the comment thread about my last Hillary post (by my brother no less!).  First off, it isn’t about Hillary hating.  It’s about the real context of the MLK riff that the Traditional Media, as well as most of the public seems to be ignoring. Also how Clinton plays into that context.  But the argument of substance between candidates was brought up… 

[...] Change like freedom can mean a lot of different things to a whole lot of different people. But I haven’t seen Obama be too specific on the changes he wants. He masks his positions, and doesn’t take tough revealing votes in the Senate. At least Hillary accepts her votes and owns up to them. Just like the bullshit he tries to spout about being opposed to the war. Not shit Sherlock but you also weren’t in the Senate so your non vote didn’t really matter did it.

Annie Wagner on the Slog puts it pretty well.

The charge that Obama lacks substance is completely specious. It’s become a commonplace in this campaign, but that doesn’t mean it’s accurate. The accusation stems from the relatively modest number of policy proposals Obama enumerates in his stump speeches—speeches which help set the tone of a campaign but which are not the primary source of information for most voters. (We can’t all live in Iowa or New Hampshire.) There is an enormous amount of detail available at his website for anyone who’s interested in specific policy matters.

[...] Further, let’s keep in mind that promises made during campaigns are not magically realized after a president is elected. The proportion of voters who buy into a candidate’s vision (and the enthusiasm they exhibit) has a huge impact on the feasibility of that president’s agenda once he or she takes office. I believe Obama’s reticence about wonkish detail on the stump is part of how he’s able to appeal to such a wide audience: The greater the precision with which you describe policies, the more chances a voter has to disagree with you. This was, as many have realized, George W. Bush’s exact strategy in 2000—and guess what, it worked. (Well, except for the whole winning the election thing.) He made a sharp right turn upon taking office, and thanks in part to a roll-over-and-play-dead Congress (which included first-term senator Hillary Clinton), he was able to ram his agenda through. Obama’s agenda would be both progressive, in contrast to Bush, and innovative, taking on some entrenched interests that Clinton is afraid to touch.

(emphasis mine)

This is one of the reasons why I (and I guess I’m not alone) have a problem with Clinton.  It’s not that I don’t think she wouldn’t be a great president.  She would.  And I’m prepared to vote for her if she wins the nomination and I won’t cringe one bit.  But for now, at this stage in the game, these are the things that have me leaning Obama. 

I do cringe at the comparison Annie makes with the Bush strategy.  And I don’t exactly think that is accurate in the broad sense in that Bush’s message was aimed at the conservative idealogs by his positions on abortion and his evangelical bent.  Also, and more importantly, he just happened to have a bunch of folks still ticked off about… Bill Clinton, and a bunch of 501c organizations smearing his opponents.  He didn’t win on this strategy, he won because of fear, anger and smear.

Moving on…

A few days ago, before the Jan. 15 debate in Las Vegas, I commented on the Clinton/MLK issue:

While all the whoopla over Clinton’s comments contrasting LBJ and MLK’s efforts in the civil rights movement something really troubling has been missed in the dialog.  It isn’t that the efforts of King were degraded, and neither were Johnson’s efforts in the civil rights legislation.  What is being missed is the people, just like you and I, who are the real reason for the civil rights legislation. 

Politicians tend to give themselves too much credit.  I think King would say the same thing.  But I also think King would be quick to pass credit on to the hundreds of thousands of people who worked, fought and died in this country to see that dream come true.  Civil rights happened because of us.  Because we Americans stood up.

As we saw in last nights debate, Tim (complete utter jackass) Russert didn’t get it at all.  I felt like screaming at the television when he continued to bait Clinton and Obama into the fray of race talk that would have made a good buzz for ratings… at least for a couple of nights.  I figured yelling at the television was a bad idea… kind of like having a fly drop into your soup when your sitting at home alone.  You can’t blame the waiter, just the fly.  But at least Obama picked up on the theme in the debate.

“Change is going to happen because the American People determine that change is going to happen.  And that’s what I draw from Dr. King’s legacy.” 

 

I guess I’m not the only one to feel this way… Barbara Ehrenreich just says it better. 

But Clinton’s LBJ remark reveals something more worrisome than racial tone-deafness - a theory of social change that’s as elitist as it is inaccurate. Black civil rights weren’t won by suited men (or women) sitting at desks. They were won by a mass movement of millions who marched, sat in at lunch counters, endured jailings, and took bullets and beatings for the right to vote and move freely about. Some were students and pastors; many were dirt-poor farmers and urban workers. No one has ever attempted to list all their names.

[...]

Women’s rights, for example, weren’t brokered by Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem over tea. As Steinem would be the first to acknowledge, the feminist movement of the 70s took root around kitchen tables and coffee tables, ignited by hundreds of thousands of now-anonymous women who were sick of being called “honey” at work and excluded from “men’s” jobs. Media stars like Friedan and Steinem did a brilliant job of proselytizing, but it took an army of unsung heroines to stage the protests, organize the conferences, hand out the fliers, and spread the word to their neighbors and co-workers.

It’s this theme about change that keeps rattling around in my head.  How can we cast another vote for a candidate who doesn’t seem to get that.  I don’t think I can.  But my guess is that so many people will not recognize that it is up to us and not a candidate or president.  A good leader is great but can only go so far, and history is full of good leaders who just don’t recognize what makes change happen… including Hillary Clinton.

[...] A case in point is Clinton’s 1993 “health reform” plan. She didn’t do any “listening tour” for that, no televised town meetings with heart-rending grassroots testimonies. Instead, she gathered up a cadre of wonks for months of closed-door meetings, some so secretive that the participants themselves were barred from bringing in pencils or pens. According to David Corn of The Nation, when Clinton was told that 70 percent of Americans polled favored a single-payer system at the time, she responded sarcastically with, “Now tell me something interesting.”

The problem of course will be getting people off their couch to support the effort of “change”.  So far so good, but the pessimist in me thinks this country is still too self absorbed to do so.  

Chew on that.

Via Strange Bedfellows…

Rebuttal to the Prebuttal

This is the video response the state Democrats put together in response to Dino Rossi’s presponse to Gov. Chris Gregoire’s State of the State speech Tuesday night. Cher lovers rejoice.

Ah yes… if I could turn back time.  Rossi is thinking Flinstones right?

No thanks…