The verdict is in

I find the defendents, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, and Court TV:
Guilty of one count of wasting countless hours of our time over the past year and a half.

Third Way

A new centrist Democratic group is forming on Capitol Hill called "Third Way". It's reminiscent of the DLC. The idea is that they'll use the Senate to push bold centrist ideas to counter Bush's bold right-wing ideas. From today's Washington Post:

The notion of having Third Way oriented around the Senate was not incidental to its philosophy. Third Way supporters say the House is too partisan and less conducive to the more consensus-oriented brand of politics that the group believes offers the best hope for leading Democrats -- now shut out from power at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue -- out of the electoral wilderness.

"It's hard to be a centrist in the House these days," said Sen. Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.), who said that gerrymandering of districts and ideological competition within the parties has left that chamber more polarized. "In many ways, to be elected as a Republican, you've got to be hard-right," while many Democrats face pressure to position themselves "well left of center."

I like the approach, but one thing puzzles me: Who the hell is Senator Thomas Carper???

Fallujah was empty

MSNBC has an in depth report on Fallujah that is definitely worth reading. Key paragraph:

As battles go, Fallujah has been a big disappointment to the U.S. military, which had wanted to draw the Iraqi insurgents into a cataclysmic mistake: a “fair” fight. Not that any officer relished the prospect of a Stalingrad- or Hue-like street-to-street, house-to-house blood-letting. But the alternative has even less to recommend it: a continuing series of roadside bombings and mortar and grenade ambushes that bleed American forces and frustrate efforts to secure Iraq ahead of January’s elections.

Unfortunately, from a military standpoint, the latter, less attractive option is the reality, and the choice was never the U.S. military’s to make. Iraq’s insurgents, with weeks to react as U.S. forces gathered and postured about what was about to happen in Fallujah, decided against turning it into al-Alamo. They saw the folly of taking on the Americans on their own terms, and they did what intelligent, determined guerrilla movements have always done in the face of overwhelming force: They faded away and lived to fight and kill and maim another day.

That makes sense. I see what we were trying to do. We were tying to bait the insurgents into waging some sort of holy last stand. In their minds, they'd be seen as martyrs. Unfortunately, they chose to live and breath and fight another day.

But this still might work. Iraqis respond to violence.

Whether success in Fallujah — even a limited success like turning it into a ghost town — will be enough to bring the “silent majority” in Iraq off the fences is a major question. Military analysts suggest that similar pushes into other Sunni cities — Ramadi, Samarra and Hit — as well as the much larger, ethnically mixed city of Mosul may also be necessary. In the meanwhile, there is a real danger that the insurgents who slipped out of Fallujah ahead of the attack may slip right back again when things calm down.

Hornets in Fallujah

We've taken Fallujah.

The cost of taking that god-forsaken hell hole: more than twenty American lives.

We've also suffered scores of injuries. I'm going to go ahead and assume that many of those injuries occurred when soldiers were pelted with flowers and sweets as they entered the city. I've been checking the blogs all day but I haven't been able to track down an accurate number, so I'll hold off. But I'm sure it's high.

But seriously folks, Fallujah has become a rallying cry for terrorists everywhere. (And no, I'm not blaming America.)

The conservatives are fond of using the "flypaper" analogy. I too like incorporating bugs in my analogies:

The hornet's nest analogy: If you stick an American army into a Muslim country for a long period of time, you're going to stir up the anger of radical Muslim elements and create more terrorists. Even if you're liberating that country. It doesn't matter. You might have had the best intentions, but the results of your actions were both (1) negative and (2) predicatable. So while we can't lay the moral blame on America for the recent upsurge of terrorism in the world, we can lay the tactical blame. Now if you're a conservative, you're probably blowing steam out of your ears and screaming "You hate America!" at your computer. And that's fine, because you're an idiot. Please turn off your computer and go pray or something.

But for those of you who have common sense, let's continue. It's like a hornet's nest. If you poke it, they're going to come out at you. Granted, it's still their fault. Hornet's are crazy, and if provoked, they'll go nuts and sting you. It's just like the terrorists. These people are crazy, and there are certain actions that we can take to increase their insanity. That doesn't mean we need to appease them. We need to blow them up! But while blowing them up we should do two things:

1. Minimize the amount of holy sites that we blow up in the process.
2. Minimize the amount of secular containable Muslim countries that we invade.

Again - let me stress - it's not America's fault that the terrorists are crazy and want to kill us. But we could at least refrain from sticking our hand in the hornet's nest and riling these maniacs up!

Yikes

The carnage continues over at Dailykos (a liberal blog). At first, they bashed Christians (I'm only into bashing Christian fundamentalists. I have all the respect in the world for devout Christians.) Next, they moved on to "ignorant red staters" (can't argue). Now they've finally reverted to form and turned their ire towards the real culprit: moderates! A contributor named JamesB3 goes off the deep end:

There's plenty of scorn for Bob Shrum, for Al From, for Bruce Reed. Lots of rage at Terry Macauliffe, a man whose only real job was to raise money and try to shore up connections within the party. Yet, none of the same rage for some of the people who helped put Macauliffe into power in the first place -- James Carville and Bill Clinton.

That's a fair point, I suppose.

Neither of these men had any particularly memorable advice to give. Not very detailed. Yet, Democrats say "finally, some sense!!" and "they WON, so we'd better listen to them!" and treat their opportunistic pandering as the gospel.

What is the last race that James Carville won? When was the last time that Carville stuck his neck out to help win a race? What was the last race that Clinton helped Democrats win? Where his personal involvement was a major asset?

I think the last race that Carville won was the last time when a Democrat won the White House. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Kerry has been criticized for his weak and confusing positions on the Iraq war. Where were Carville and Clinton when you needed them to oppose the Iraq war? When you marched in the streets and faced scorn and abuse from many in your own party, in your nation?

Well let's see. Carville was hosting Crossfire and criticizing the war on a daily basis. Clinton supported the war. I still think that with what we knew, it was the right position. Should we have trusted Bush to wage the war? Probably not.

When your civil liberties were being eroded over the past 4 years, where were Clinton and Carville to try to help you fight back? Oh, that's right, Hillary was in the Senate, happily voting for various measures like the RAVE Act and the Iraq war, all because she is desperately afraid to take any risk that is not painstakingly calculated.

What is the RAVE Act. Does it allow the Feds to prosecute people who are taking ecstacy?

Bill Clinton and James Carville belong to another era. The truth is that they no longer have the pulse of the Democratic voter base, if they ever really did. They don't want to change the party, as the party must be changed. They just want the party to get yet another facelift. To pander on "moral" issues, to make vague titterings to "evangelicals", to sell out key constituents in order to appeal to a large swathe of the populace that rejected the Democratic ticket in spite of the mushiest, least objectionable, least memorable platforms imaginable.

Bill Clinton and James Carville DO belong to another era. A short era called "The 90s" when we nominated competent candidates who could make the tough decisions that allowed them to win election in America's harsh conservative environment.

Mother Russia is strong like bear

From TNR:

When the topic of Russia came up in the first Bush-Kerry debate, both candidates said Putin's latest moves undermined democracy, and Bush said, "I don't think it's okay." The Russian state-owned television networks, which broadcast the debate, cut this part out--Russia being the last question, this was easy to do. Later, commenting on this deleted part of the debate, Russian pundits seized on Kerry's remarks as indicating that a Democratic administration would spell trouble for Russia--even though both Bush and Kerry said unflattering things about Putin's approach to democracy. There was probably some truth to that interpretation: Bush was a trusted friend doling out well-measured admonishments while Kerry was an unknown quantity launching his Russia policy by criticizing Putin. His negative view of Putin would seem to be his starting point if he were elected president--while Bush's starting point is his friendship and support for Putin.

Apparently the Russian government is ecstatic that Bush was reelected. I wonder why they like Bush so much? Could it be his kid-gloves approach? Or maybe it's his desperate need to be friends with dictators.

(The title is a quote from Rocky IV)

Whether it's Blue America or Red America, they all love whores!

Check out Frank Rich's latest column at the New York Times. Money quote:

Those whose "moral values" are invested in cultural heroes like the accused loofah fetishist Bill O'Reilly and the self-gratifying drug consumer Rush Limbaugh are surely joking when they turn apoplectic over MTV. William Bennett's name is now as synonymous with Las Vegas as silicone. The Democrats' Ashton Kutcher is trumped by the Republicans' Britney Spears. Excess and vulgarity, as always, enjoy a vast, bipartisan constituency, and in a democracy no political party will ever stamp them out.

Get involved in state politics

That's my advice for those of you who live in Virginia and don't want to give up on politics for the next 2-4 years. We have a Governor's race and several competitive Delegate and Senate races next year (cough, cough).

Michael Powell - the talentless hack who was appointed because of his father

It looks like Saving Private Ryan won't be seen on many stations around the nation this Veteran's Day. Why? Because they're afraid they'll be fined by the FCC. Thank you FCC. You've protected countless children from the most realistic war movie ever made!

In other culture war news, check out this dispatch from Oregon:

PORTLAND, Ore. - As she watched her 3-year-old son convert a box into a spaceship, Kelly Burke was dreading the arrival of a letter that could change their lives. The stay-at-home mom and her partner of 15 years, Dolores Doyle, are among the nearly 3,000 gay couples who wed in Oregon this spring. Now the status of those marriages, and the benefits that come with them, is unclear after Oregon voters decisively approved a ban on gay marriage this past week.

"The mailman came this morning and I panicked," said Burke, who relies on Doyle's employer for health insurance. "My first thought is: 'Oh my God, here comes the letter. They're cutting me off.'"

She'll lose her health insurance? This must be exactly what Jesus wanted when he commanded that we vote against Gay Marriage! Let's all pray that many other gay people lose their health insurance. Maybe, in a couple of years, we can ban gay businesses! Then we can put them in camps where they can get to work making soap.

The devastating effects of inbreeding

It's truly tragic.

Hostage slaughterhouses

George W. Bush pushed off the Fallujah assault until after the election because it might produce politically unpopular casualties. Now we find out that insurgents have been using Fallujah as a staging point for hostage beheadings. If Bush had made the politically unpopular decision to invade Fallujah before the election, some of those beheadings might have been prevented.

What a strong and courageous commander in chief we have.

Semantic games

The battle of semantics is a crucial part of winning elections. Political consultants often try to reframe issues simply by shifting language. For example, Roe v. Wade fans won the abortion debate by framing their movement as the "pro-choice movement" instead of the "pro-abortion" movement. They shifted the debate from abortion to government infringement.

These types of rhetorical shifts usually occur under the radar, otherwise we wouldn't allow ourselves to be tricked into using the new language. They're also usually fairly effective. So you can imagine my dismay when I realized that, behind our backs, the Christian Right has changed their name to "evangelical Christians". The phrase "Christian Right" produces a negative reaction, even among many Republicans. But evangelical Christians? Most people don't even know what "evangelical" means (It means to take the bible literally and push its word on others, regardless of whether they'd rather unleash the hounds. In other words, to decline the powers of intellect and reasoning that God gave you).

Karl Rove did this (read the Slate article on the subject). And it troubles me. Imagine a world where Christian fundamentalists aren't laughed at (as they should be) and rather, allowed to participate in the political discussion! That's not a world I want to live in.

More election analysis (it'll continue until November 2008)

Since our Republican Overlords have decreed that we cannot criticize the president right now, let's get back to bashing the Democrats' performance in 2004!

The best critique I've read so far come from one Ralph Nader (!!?!?!) in Newsweek:

A month ago, with his own campaign sinking and desperate to be heard, Nader dispatched 10 of his people with silver platters and white waiter coats to the Kerry headquarters. They served up 10 ways to beat Bush. This was not utopian stuff, says Nader. Raising the minimum wage and attacking corporate subsidies are positions that can get a majority behind them; they are long overdue and practical. (The full list is at VoteNader.org.)

Amidst the rubble of what was the Democratic Party, Nader doesn't sound like a voice in the wilderness. He's saying what a lot of Democrats are coming to grips with, that they will be a permanent minority party for the next 20 years if they don't come up with some compelling ideas. It's insufficient to say how bad the Republicans are. The Kerry campaign didn't want to rattle the electorate. They thought Bush would fall of his own weight.

[snip]

The [Massachusetts] court's May ruling in favor of gay marriage put the [gay marriage] issue in play, and Bush's support for a constitutional ban allowed him to draw a bright line between himself and Kerry. It was the clearest difference voters could see. On the war, Kerry supported it; on the economy, Kerry offered words, few of them memorable. "No wonder enough of the voters go for the moral issues," says Nader. "What else do they have? When you take away the economic issue, then you allow the presidency to be personalized. If Bush happens to be more likeable, don't ask me why, he becomes the transmitter of the moral issues. They garnish it with gay marriage and abortion and occlude all the secular immorality."

While I disagree with most of Nader's policy prescriptions, the idea of making poverty a moral issue appeals to me. How many times does the bible mention abortion or gays? Doesn't it mention poverty much more often? (Somebody email me, I'm a liberal elitist who hasn't ever been closer than 5 feet from a bible).

In John Edwards' primary campaign, he spoke about poverty with passion and inspiration. Wesley Clark's stump speech revolved around "True Family Values: An honest wage for hard work, etc.".

We don't have to abandon the Democratic Party that of the past. We can be the party that fights for the poor, the disenfranchised, and the meek, as long as we infuse Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama's rhetoric into our message ("Hard work and responsibility reap rewards. The bible says it.").

US troops enter Fallujah!

We can only hope that they conquer the barbarian hoards.

Oh and by the way, Republicans commandeth that we silence our critiques of the president while the troops are in Fallujah.

Shhh.

I'm done with serious political discussion...

Wouldn't it be hilarious if the Republicans outlawed abortion, put the 10 commandments in schools, and increased the police state? I think it would. I'm seriously looking forward to right-wing attempts to change the government. I can't wait until John C. Biblethumper (the C stands for "Closeted Homosexual") comes out of the woodwork and joins the public discussion.

Jim Demint and Tom Coburn are now US Senators. If these guys had been alive in 1931 Germany they would have tried to laugh the "liberal elitist" Nazis out of town. Let's put them on TV every week!

And as for abortion...I think the nation would benefit from a break from it. And the coat hanger industry has been badly hurt by 9-11.

I'm with Jon Stewart. For the sake of comedy, bring on the right-wingers!

Unmask the radicals

Look, the Republicans have portrayed liberals as these whiny intellectual elites who go to Starbucks and have an abortion every 6 months. Are we really like that? Of course not. Think about it - how many black people go to Starbucks?

Anyway, we need to start unmasking these radical Republicans like we did in the 90s. Let's face it - the right-wing controls the Republican party right now. We need to start putting Jerry Falwell back on television. He pulls the strings in the Republican party, so let's bring him out into the open! Any group with the name "Family" in it should be booked on television shows, because they're nutty. Let's go ahead and let the Republicans try to outlaw abortion. See where that gets them...

It's time to pull the mask off of the right-wing machine.

Hillary Clinton

Jordan pretty much sums up my thoughts on a possible presidential run for Hillary:

The other line of debate to emerge from the media in the immediate election aftermath suggests Hillary is now the de-facto Democratic nominee in 2008. Nevermind the need of the chattering classes for the sort of idle speculation that keeps the media machine going in the absence of real news, or even the Fox News-Rush Limbaugh obsession with all things Hillary, which exists, so far as I can tell, to keep Dick Morris from rusting. Actual Democratic party leaders and activists seem to be touting Hillary as the Great Clintonian Hope.

All I can ask in response is, WILL THESE PEOPLE NEVER LEARN? First of all, let's look at Hillary without the baggage: she's a socially liberal Northeastern senator (formerly a lawyer) who utterly lacks the human touch or the ability to speak persuasively about what she believes. Hence her tone-deaf speech at the DNC this summer. She is part of the 60s counterculture that this country has obviously rejected in the ballot box this November 2nd.

Doesn't sound enticing enough yet? Ok, well factor in that she's A CLINTON, married to THAT SCOUNDREL, purveyor of HILLARYCARE. She may excite our base but she enrages theirs. As if our base will need exciting after four more years of George W. Bush.