What Does the GOP Fear Most? Confident Dems

The latest GOP ploy to get media attention revolves around an attempt to spin Barack Obama as "too arrogant" to be president.

If clinging to comments made by Barack Obama in a closed door House session is any indication of how well we're doing in this election, my advice to the Democratic Party is this: We have them on the ropes, keep on doing it.

The supposed damning comments? Barack quoted Speaker Pelosi saying "This is the moment... the world has been waiting for."

Desperate for the spotlight, the Grand Old Party is now claiming these words of confidence by Barack Obama are in fact "arrogant."

The Republican National Committee circulated the comments to reporters under the banner, "Barack Obama audacity watch." John McCain's presidential campaign also forwarded the comments with the subject line, "wow."

Let me tell you something: as a Democrat who believes in holding strong to our progressive values I am sick and tired of Democrats who let the GOP bully them around.

Yes, the world awaits America's return to a position of leadership rather than the rogue demagoguery of the Republicans. Should anyone be surprised? Perhaps the ones most surprised is the GOP itself, who somehow think they are God's gift to the free world.

Indeed, if anyone has a brand for arrogance its the GOP. And yet, all they seem to be able to do is call Dems "elitists." They use the word "liberal" like its an epithet.

We should be proud of our progressive values. These are the values that propel societies into the future. The conservative values of the GOP are the values that hold us back from progress; back from change. Their lack of leadership has plummeted our economy into debt and the world into chaos.

One has to wonder at the irony of Republicans who care only about tax cuts for the richest 5% of this country, calling us "elitists." One has to wonder further if they misunderstand the meaning of the word "arrogance." Are they forgetting the arrogance of Bush and McCain eating birthday cake as the victims of Hurricane Katrina died in the Superdome?

What about the arrogance of invading Iraq and believing we would be greeted as liberators as John McCain and Dick Cheney have said.

How about the arrogance of president Bush standing before the American people telling us we should be "more of an ownership society," as we plunge into debt, lose out homes, and the economy tanks?

How about the arrogance of one man, John McCain: who sees Americans suffering and clamoring for change - yet has the audacity to spend millions of his corporate lobbyist money, convincing us we need nothing more than 4 more years of the same?.

Arrogance, thy name is John McCain, Dick Cheney, George Bush, and your gang of crooked and greedy cronies. There's no chance in hell this Democrat is going to stand by and allow another 4 years of my life to be wasted away under republican rule.

Sen Chuck Hagel: McCain Ad Attacking Obama Irresponsible

Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, who accompanied Obama on his middle east trip Criticized John McCain for his latest attack ad insinuating Obama disrespected troops by not visiting a military hospital in Germany.

Obama's campaign called the new accusation "wildly inappropriate."

[Chuck Hagel] agreed, saying on Face The Nation that the GOP's presumptive nominee is "treading on some very thin ground here when he impugns motives, and when we start to get into 'You're less patriotic than me, I'm more patriotic.'

"They're better off to focus on policy differences," he said.

"It's just not responsible to be saying things like that, again, if for no other reason than for the good of this country and the world.

"One of these two men, on January 20th of next year, is going to have to bring this country together, and the world, to deal with huge problems. I think the next president is going to inherit an inventory of challenges as big as Franklin Roosevelt inherited on March 4, 1933."

As an unabashed liberal, I admit I have my own misgivings about beefing up your war credentials with a republican Senator alongside you. But as a Democrat, I've always had some respect for republicans like Hagel, who have openly criticized the neocon policies of Bush & Cheney.

And yet as I ponder my candidate's apparent move to the right on military issues, I realize 2 things that give me confidence:

#1, The Core Values in Obama's foreign policy are still liberal: war is not the only way to solve problems, and economic and cultural exchange fosters stability. What is different from previous Democratic candidates, is that he talks about increasing our military in an almost Reagan kind of way. Obama is not going to be pinned down as other Democrats have been before him, as being weak on military issues. That is something Democrats need to re-brand themselves on, if we are to win this election.

#2, Obama plans to go aggressively into deep-red republican territory, competing in traditionally red states for the first time in a generation. The general election campaign has just yet begun, and we have yet to see the candidates fully engage each other on the ground. And when it comes time for Obama to swing down into those traditionally republican strongholds, he's going to come armed with a tough plan to rebuild our military and take the fight to Al Qeada in Afghanistan/Pakiston.

Sometimes I wonder if I even sound like a Democrat anymore :-) Then I remember that the New Democratic majority is a coalition of many different people. OK, I can compromise a bit on this. In a big tent, we all have to learn how to make temporary compromises in exchange for support in the future. I have an idea what kinds of things I am willing to compromise on, what about all of you?

Welfare to Work: Myths

My fellow Democrats,

Since social justice is an integral part of our party platform, and in the interest of making sure we are all armed with accurate information about public safety net programs like welfare, I thought I'd post this reference sheet from the American Psychological Association:

Myth: Poverty Results From a Lack of Responsibility

Fact: Poverty Results From Low Wages


Myth: A Huge Chunk of My Tax Dollars Supports Welfare Recipients

Fact: Welfare Costs 1 Percent of the Federal Budget


Myth: People on Welfare Become Permanently Dependent on the Support

Fact: Movement off Welfare Rolls Is Frequent


Myth: Most Welfare Recipients Are African American Women

Fact: Most Welfare Recipients Are Children-Most Women on Welfare Are White


Myth: Welfare Encourages Out-of- Wedlock Births and Large Families

Fact: The Average Welfare Family Is No Bigger Than the Average Nonwelfare Family


Myth: Welfare Families Use Their Benefits to Fund Extravagance

Fact: Welfare Families Live Far Below the Poverty Line

Finally, the APA goes further to suggest some recommendations for making the family safety net called "welfare" a more successful program:

1. Federal and state agencies should provide newspapers and other media with accurate information about welfare recipients and programs, including information on welfare reform.

2. Jobs need to pay better than welfare. Rather than focusing on welfare time limits, policy action at the state and federal levels must address reforming the low-wage labor market by raising wages and increasing the ability of low-wage workers to join unions and bargain collectively.

3. Public and private agencies should collaborate more effectively to promote and increase employment opportunities for women, especially of hard-to-place women.

4. States should provide training for case managers and other appropriate personnel to advocate for, support, and follow up with clients in ways that are not adversarial or punitive during their job search process.

5. States and federal agencies should fund and conduct research on the impact of the transition of mothers to work on the mother and the family and on what strategies best promote most positive outcomes for the mothers and their families.

6. States should require and fund formative and summative evaluations of proposed programs.

Thank you for your time and for all that you are doing to help us win in November!

Best,
D. Tree

Greens as the Next Liberal Majority?

For this Forum topic on the Environment, I would like to share something of a personal belief - a little "speculative politics."

If all indications are to be taken seriously, there is a strong likelihood that our climate is on the verge of a change that could be catastrophic to us.

As ocean levels rise and local climates change, we should prepare ourselves for mass population displacements, health crisis, and civil unrest around the world.

The danger is very real. The effects possibly as catastrophic as a WMD attack. Our civilization may well be threatened. In order to survive these changes, I believe a new global plurality will emerge. If ever there was a time for the Green movement to become a viable political force we may be about to witness it.

"How," Do you ask?

It began more than 40 years ago when the conservative movement coalesced around a long-term strategy to dominate our country's political system. In the 90's in Congress, and on to Bush/Cheney in the White House in 2000, they finally achieved their goal.

But what did they do with their power? The abused it. They forgot the fundamental tenet of our government system: checks and balances.

No democracy can survive without a healthy opposition party. The GOP took their dominance over our system and used it for greed, and incompetently made a mess of our economy in the process. Not to mention the thousands of brave soldiers killed. And yes, even the attack on 9/11 lies at your feet George Bush and Dick Cheney. You had a warning and chose not to act.

GOP strategists say they have a "brand" problem. Well, they're right: the country has just about had it with the governing practices of the Republican Party.

By all predictions, the party who wins this election in 2008 will win by a landslide, and as disaffected republicans, independents and re-inspired liberals coalesce around a new majority, Democrats will come to a similar fork in the road: how will we share our power?

I for one, have had it with the GOP. If the Democratic Party can house as complex and diverse (and divergent) group of people as it appears to be doing, then we will have our new coalition. After a time we will become the de facto status quo.

But we will need to foster an opposition party, and personally I'd rather it was another party beside sthe GOP.

If the Greens were to fill that vacuum of power, then by definition the Democratic Party will become the new conservative party. The very definition of "conservatism" would change, the "brand" of the GOP relegated to the radical fringes with as much power as any third party.

Stranger things have happened, and who knows - we don't know what catastrophic climate change will do to us - but if we don't start taking the threat as seriously as we do the threat of terrorism, there may be no chance for us at all.

Peace,
D. Tree

Obama's Plan to End the Iraq War

There seems to be some lingering confusion over Senator Barack Obama's plan to end the Iraw War, so without further ado, and in an effort to promote accuracy when debating these topics on Partybuilder, here is the official plan:

"A Responsible, Phased Withdrawal:"

I. Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war.

The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 - more than 7 years after the war began.

II. A residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel.

Obama will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism.

On a basic level, the difference between John McCain & George Bush's plans for Iraq, compared to Barack Obama's is this: Bush & McCain have a plan for STAYING in Iraq, and Obama has a plan for LEAVING.

Only one of these people will be giving a new mission to our military; that of ending this war. Without a new mission, there will be NO end in sight.

I can see how people want more details - especially people who are uncertain about or critical of Obama in general - however, we must remember this is a general election, and it would be political suicide to commit to more details at this time.

We have an election to win, and subtlety and nuance must sometimes be left for a later day. We must come together around the general terms of Obama's plan and in that sense it is as different from McCain's as night is from day.

Newsweek: Obama the "True Realist" on Foreign Policy

He's been called a naive idealist. But in terms of foreign policy, he's the true realist in the race.

Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria wrote these words today in a very interesting piece on Barack Obama's "Realist" foreign policy ideas. In the article, Zakaria argues that while the Republicans criticize Obama as having "naive" ideas, it may be the republicans who are naive in the end:

Obama has elaborated more and more the ideas that would undergird his foreign policy as president. What emerges is a world view that is far from that of a typical liberal, much closer to that of a traditional realist.

Zakaria goes on to describe how out-of-touch conservative leaders are with the world, and the way it works.

Ironically, the Republicans now seem to be the foreign-policy idealists, labeling countries as either good or evil, refusing to deal with nasty regimes, fixating on spreading democracy throughout the world and refusing to think in more historical and complex ways.

The article concludes by contrasting the very different world-views of Obama and McCain, concluding that Obama's ideas will carry us forward:

In the end, the difference between Obama and McCain might come down to something beyond ideology - "temperament." McCain is a pessimist about the world, seeing it as a dark, dangerous place where, without the constant and vigorous application of American force, evil will triumph. Obama sees a world that is in many ways going our way. As nations develop, they become more modern and enmeshed in the international economic and political system.... America's job is to push these progressive forces forward.... Call him an Optimistic Realist, or a Realistic Optimist. But don't call him naive.

Click Here to read the entire article.

Best,
D. Tree

The "Unconventional" Candidate

Barack Obama, while having a liberal voting record, is known to work alongside, and be respected by, his republican colleagues.

Indeed, it is hard to paint Obama with the broad strokes of "liberalism" and "conservatism." I believe the reason for this has much to do with how our traditional notions "left" and "right" are in a state of transformation.

Obama is perhaps the first major candidate to come out of a "post framing" progressive movement. Traditional liberal ideas are presented differently than in the past, and communicated with a sensitivity toward voters with both conservative and liberal values.

(for anyone interested in the recent history behind all this, please check out Rockridge Institute: LINK )

Obama is also unconventional because of his family values, which are indeed more conservative than previous Democrat candidates.

Furthermore, Obama has an established track record of working *with* conservatives across the aisle in order to accomplish common goals. Bill Dickson's recent post about the "Accidental Surrogate" is very informative in this respect: LINK

Also, Obama's passing of historic civil rights legislation while an Illinois Senator is the perfect example of how he works with both sides, to accomplish traditionally progressive goals. In the case of the civil rights legislation, his bill was passed unanimously among both Democrats and Republicans. Since then, his legislation has been adopted in 4 different states.

That is really unprecedented! Remember folks, this guy has 12 years legislative experience under his belt, and is also an expert on Constitutional Law. He was president of the Harvard Law review for gosh-sakes! This is a very accomplished and intelligent person with a track record of getting things done and working with very diverse groups of people.

His track record backs up his words about how he will bring these same changes to Washington.

(boy, am i tired of people saying he has not track record of working across the aisle!)

So what does that mean for those of us who are hardcore liberals? (and being formerly registered as Green, I count myself in that group) It means we are going to have to do two things in order to act in the spirit of change Obama is talking about: We as liberals are going to have to acknowledge that we haven't always been 100% right about everything (LOL, that can be hard to do), and we are also going to have to be willing to compromise a bit and give some space to our conservative brethren so they can at least participate in the debate.

That's my thought for the day about Obama and how he seems to be tacking to what people describe as "the center."

Peace, and thanks for all that you do.

D. tree

Does John McCain even understand what MONEY is?

One of the best things about getting my monthly subscription to Rolling Stone, other than the no-holds-barred political journalism, is reading the latest installment of Get Your War On, a brilliant comic strip by David Rees.

So after taking a couple weeks off from PB, I thought I'd start some new posts with a little tidbit from this month's issue of Rolling Stone (sorry, only text posted since this comic is not online yet):

Picture this: 3 office workers sit around a break room table, conversing and having coffee. Here's what they are saying to each other:

Woman 1: Did you see that John and Cindy McCain are carrying more than $200,000 in credit card debt?

Man: Goddamn, I knew they loved the Iraq War, but I didn't realize they were paying for it themselves.

Woman 2: McCain admits he doesn't "understand economics." Do you think it's possible he doesn't even understand what MONEY is?"

To enjoy more of David Rees' insightful humor, please check out his website here, and thanks to all the hard working Democrats out there doing their best to help us win this historic election!

Best,
D. Tree

Barack & Michelle: Soccer Mom and Dad :-)

I normally wouldn't post something so "cutesy" but I watched this video today and couldn't help but smile.... so I thought why not share it.

If you haven't seen this nifty little video of Barack and Michelle attending their child's soccer game, click the picture below to check it out.

Viewing this video reminded me of that fateful speech, in which Michelle talked about how proud she was to be an American (you know, the one where people twisted her words to make it sound like she was saying she'd never been proud before?)

Well, in that speech what moved me was hearing her talk about how committed and involved Barack is a a father. She talked about how despite the grueling campaign, Barack had *never* missed a parent-teacher conference or a birthday for one of his daughters.

Seeing Barack and Michelle enjoy some time together as a family, watching the soccer game, and playfully joking with each other, really brought a smile to my face.

I like seeing how much they enjoy each other's company, how comfortable they are with each other, how they smile at each other, and how much they genuinely love each other.

This is possibly the next first family of the United States, and I couldn't think of a finer example. It's a far cry from the family life I had growing up, but in many ways they represent the kind of family I always wished I had.

Please click the picture to check out the video, and enjoy!