Friday, July 15, 2005

Bull Moose? Bull Sh!t.

I have yet to see Marshall Wittman make a positive comment about the activist portion of the Democratic party, and it continues to mystify me how he considers himself a Democrat. Sometimes I wonder if he's really a GOP plant, and posts like this are why:

Democrats can't merely be the party of "no" - or "we hate Karl". While we are seething with our justifiable anger, the Republican Chairman is making serious overtures to the African-American community. And what kind of effective out reach is the Democratic Party making to groups that have been estranged from the party in recent years?
Dear Moose, here is what was actually said:

Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican Chairman to tell you we were wrong.


But if my party benefited from racial polarization in the past, it is the Democratic Party that benefits from it today.


While I am not black, I am not white either. That doesn't make me an authority on this, but I know some people will scream. How this is a serious overture is beyond me. When you think of all the things that Republicans have done to cynically exploit race while giving NOTHING back. Nothing except stiring up more suspicion and bigotry. Paul Waldman from the Gadflyer says it well:
It's not just Nixon who pursued the Southern strategy, it was Reagan and his mythical "welfare queens," it was George H.W. Bush and Willie Horton, it was George W. Bush and the Confederate flag, it was Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond and the Republicans who try to suppress the black vote in each and every election.

If anyone is stupid enough to fall for this we have much larger problems then a paper-thin outreach attempt by the RNC chair. I don't think there is a danger of focusing on Rove, lots of other people are doing lots of other things to strengthen and develop Democratic or Liberal institutions to battle the Republican hosts. Allow us our moment to savor the troubles of one of the most odious, slimiest people to ever appear in this nation. Hat Tip to Donkey Rising for quoting the Moose and bringing it to my attention.

Note: I have been on vacation for a lot of June, and I started a new board about politics for people from a certain forum and this is why I have been gone, I am the only mod there, and I needed to get it up and running.

Monday, May 23, 2005

Nuclear Compromise?

Why does it feel like the GOP just forced broken glass down our throats?

Fallout Shelter (Part 1)

Okay, so with school recently out and a trip to Chicago coming up I've been celebrating my extra-high GPA this semester by gaming a LOT. Mostly Suikoden IV which I've finally caught up on, before moving on to Killzone. But I suppose I should surface a bit to express my views on the Republican "Nuclear Option." Despite convincing arguements by some people I remain a champion of it. This is part one of at least a two part series on the filibuster.

Why? Well the noble part of the answer is because I truly believe in limiting the will of the majority. Just because a majority of people want something, doesn't make it right. The Senate is not a democratic institution, that is what the House is for, the Senate is supposed to be a break of sweeping changes. You've seen how much damage this administration has done working within this tradition, without the filibuster it can only get worse.

The less noble part is confusion. Why can't republicans understand that they cannot govern forever? If they were do so, then the nation would fall apart. One party rule is impossible in anything except a totalitarian regime. The more cynical or frightened might say that the Republicans have schemes to retain power, installing their secretaries of state in various states, the Diebold group, and I'd have to give some of them credence because I've seen nothing of this GOP party to believe they would restrain themselves.

Even more, when Republicans invoke the Nuclear Option right now, it's cheating. When the Democrats had overwhelming majorities and the GOP filibustered, did the Democrats try to remove that rule? The GOP has filibustered important things like Civil Rights legislation, economic stimulus package, campaign finance reform, lobbying reform, health care reform, a bill to prohibit hiring permanent replacement workers for striking employees, and racial justice provisions in a crime bill. Things that had they passed would have benefitted me directly, but that was their right as much as I didn't like it.

Other measures for the minority to block has slowly been whittled away since 1994, things like Blue Slips or having both Senators approve of a judge from their home state to be nominated. The filibuster is all that is left, and thus it is relied on in abscense of these others.

So that's why I support the use of the filibuster and why I think the filibuster is appropriate to use to block wingnuts from having lifetime appointments. Up next? A bit of legalism on the filibuster.

Monday, March 28, 2005

Baseball [and I] are back!

Been busy recently but here's a baseball post for those waiting for the new season. Check out Jayson Stark's article on ESPN about steroids and baseball. Now those who know me know that I don't like Barry Bonds much at all. I hope he never breaks Hammerin' Hank's record. But I think this is a pretty good article aside from the "GM" part. Why don't they ever just give their names? It's annoyting to read "a GM" or "an NL GM" etc fifty times in an article.

Anyhow, read it and come to your own conclusions. Comment if you want.

Moving into new era will be a slow process

Monday, March 14, 2005

A little bit of anger

While discussing disagreements about Marshall Whitman of the DLC who he says "lashed out" instead of admitting the truth (that his particular defense of Leiberman was mistaken) Jonathan Chait does a little lashing of his own.

I actually agree with Marshall and the DLC on the suicidal purity of the Democratic party’s left wing, embodied by the Howard Dean movement and its fanatical internet contingent, even if I disagree with his support for Lieberman in particular. (I think Lieberman's zeal to be seen as bipartisan, apologetics for torture, history of supporting capital gains tax cuts and fighting sensible regulations on Wall Street allow party liberals to tarnish the whole moderate wing as sell-outs.)


Now I don't think that Howard Dean and those of us who support him are into suicidal purity. We just want someone who has the guts to fight the Republicans. Why else embrace Reid who is pro-life? Reid has done a wonderful job so far as democratic Senate leader. Are we fanatical? I'm sure a few are, but fanatical about what? Dean himself? Dean's stances like balanced budgets, slow expansion of services to help people like early child-care or health insurance, insistance on not rapidly and stupidly going into a land war in the middle-east?

Indeed Mr. Chait, if you'll actually look you'll see intense discussions on why Lieberman pisses us off. Look at the DailyKos post about Ben Nelson who many of us disagree with. Wow. The man DOESN'T STAB US IN THE BACK ON NATIONAL TV EVERY WEEK! WHAT A CONCEPT!

You know... until I read that I though Bullmooise was a disgusted Republican who just leaned left - heh, if he's DLC maybe he is. Now that I know for sure who it is, there are certain things Whitman has written that both anger and disgust me. Which is about par for a RINO I guess.