D. Tree's Progressive Politics

Cut, Cap, Balance, Shows Republican Desperation

2011-07-25T12:51:00.001-07:00

Republicans plan to roll out a "new" proposal... the only problem, it's not new. It's basically Cut, Cap, & Balance the do-over. The same principles that were already rejected by the Senate, and the President has said he'll veto.

The fact that Republicans are coming back to the table with this same phony solution actually shows how desperate they are: They are obviously so worried that Obama will be reelected, they have decided to gamble with our credit rating as their only means of achieving political leverage over the President.

Mitch McConnell said it himself: he's not putting country first, but party. He also said their number one objective was to prevent Barack Obama from being reelected.

So here we have our fragile economy teetering on the brink of another recession, and the GOP seems only concerned with how they can manipulatethe situation to further their chances of unseating the president in 2012.

The reason this shows desperation, is that in doing this the GOP is pandering to a very small base that doesn't reflect the values of most Americans. A CBS News poll found that while 84 percent of Tea Partiers believe they represent the views of most Americans, overall Americans disagree: only 24 percent say the Tea Party represents their views, while 36 percent say it does not.

So we have a Congress pandering to a minority of voters, all while holding our economy hostage for no other reason than to please this narrow group of people and to hurt the president. It's risky and desperate because the rest of the country is watching - and may very well lay the blame for worsening economic conditions that result - on the GOP.

70,000 This Weekend- Largest Rally in Wisconsin Yet

2011-02-27T13:15:00.000-08:00

Link

Republicans tend to admit they are acting against working people because their unions tend to support Democrats.

Implicit in this argument is the notion that Democrats only support collective bargaining, because of the political benefit they get from union members.

In reality, Democrats' support for collective bargaining comes from a moral value system that Republicans just do not share.

Democrats tend to believe that workers have universal rights, and they should be protected from the potential abuses of those who would employ them.

The support of collective bargaining comes out of this moral foundation - and that's where Republicans and Democrats differ.

Now, the same can be said for Republicans: their opposition to worker's rights comes from a moral value system as well, its just a *different* one.

And that's good because we *should* have competing value systems in a free society; however, the outcome of this particular moral conflict will have a significant effect on the 2012 elections.

The outcome of this conflict will determine whether the American public believes that working and middle class families caused our deficits, or if the rich people at the top did.

If I was a betting person, I'd throw my lot in with the working and middle class - by sheer number, our representative will at the ballot box is formidable.

And its the same with events across the middle east - let them inspire working America to rediscover our majority!

Tim Pawlenty Calls American Workers Greedy, at Tea Party Summit

2011-02-27T13:14:00.000-08:00

Link

Tim Pawlenty calls working and middle class Americans "greedy" - while he does his best to make sure Bank of America and other big corporations PAY ZERO in Federal taxes.

Hey Tim, us hard working Americans who don't live off of campaign donations know a thing or two about *greed* and let me tell you what it looks like: Anti-working class politicians like you, who allow working Americans to lose their wages and homes, while you pander to and protect those who PAY NOTHING IN TAXES.

We pay 1/3 of our income, but the biggest corporations pay ZERO. How is that greed, Mr. Pawlenty? I dare you to explain it, but I know you won't.

You have unleashed the lion with this union-busting trickery; a movement has been unleashed to make the rich PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE. The working class has sacrificed enough already!

Protests in Wisconsin Going Nationwide

2011-02-20T16:30:00.001-08:00

It will be interesting to see how far this spreads - and you can't help but notice the similar question being asked in the middle east (though on a much larger and dramatic scale); but it makes you wonder if our own "silent majority" is being awakened and inspired by events across the middle east.

On the other hand, sometimes it takes a threat Gov. Walker's, to unite the working and middle class. Statistically speaking, liberals outnumber conservatives. Yet it seems ever since the election of '08, liberals have been fragmented and lackadaisical... and in the meantime, the Tea Party captured the attention of the media, for its rambunctious theatrics.

Yet a CBS News poll found that 84% of self-identified tea partiers say their movement reflects the beliefs of most Americans - but overall Americans disagree:only 25% say their beliefs are reflected in the Tea Party, while 36% say they are not. cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002529-503544.html

Somehow, liberals and progressives took off their shoes after the election of Barack Obama - maybe some being misguided and thinking we could just sit back and let the president do all the work.

I have often wondered if Obama and Democrats on some level *need* a strong Republican opposition, for them to become the fighting Dems I love. So far, what I see is working and middle class families outnumbering Tea Partiers 1000 to 1.

Tea partiers, and media outlets take note: *this* is what a true majority looks like.

Al Qaeda Running Scared from Democracy in the Middle East

2011-02-20T16:29:00.000-08:00

After their stunned silence during the Egypt uprisings, a frightened Al Qaeda released their first statement on the revolution, warning *against* democracy.

I love how the Egypt and other uprisings are such a smack-down of Al Qaeda. These protesters are showing that they don't need terrorists to bring change; On the contrary, they are proving that the tried and true method of nonviolent protest is the most powerful weapon a people can have. AQ was silent as these uprisings spread, and now they come out with a weak statement on the wrong side of history in their own supposed backyard. If indeed, the uprisings continue to spread across the Middle East and Africa, they will go further to defeat AQ than any of our wars so far.

Time for the Right to Learn: the 1st and 2nd Amendments are NOT the Same Thing

2011-02-10T08:44:00.000-08:00

We hear a lot from the Tea Party, about how their identity as gun owners is so important, and how they fear Democrats will take away their rights to guns; as a result, we see a lot of gun imagery and gun-themed campaigns in our politics today. People have even shown up at the president's speeches carrying loaded weapons.

While some say there is not much we can do to quell this violent trend in our politics, I disagree. I believe the violence we are experiencing today is a result of a dangerous equating of 2nd Amendment rights to 1st Amendment rights.

This misunderstanding of our constitutional rights is pushed by politicians in the Tea Party, and the folks that follow them.

So to all you people who believe you right to bear arms is somehow the same as political freedom, I'm hear to tell you its not: the people who were massacred in Arizona were exercising their *1st* Amendment rights of "peaceful assembly."

The Constitution treats your right to express yourself and air your grievances *very* differently than your right to bear arms. The Constitution specifically states that political expression and airing of grievances must be "peaceful."

Even when referring to the people's right to replace the government, the Constitution refers to your right to "petition" a.k.a. your right to VOTE, not your right to armed insurrection.

So all this talk about your freedom to express your gun-loving self needs to be put in context of the Constitution: you have a right to own firearms, but you have no right to bring those arms to political events - such actions are chilling to free speech, and act as an intimidation toward those who would disagree with you.

There is no place for the language of gun play, and the use of violent imagery, or the brandishing of weapons in our politics. I urge my fellow democrats to encourage, and to support an effort to ban guns from political events.

I am willing to bet the Supreme Court will eventually rule on such a separation. Owning a gun has nothing to do with free speech, and our Constitution says so.

Dems Get Ready

2011-02-10T08:43:00.000-08:00

When the President talked about winning the future, he began the campaign for 2012. And its a good thing. Better to start the campaign now and get as far ahead as we can, because its going to get *ugly*

Notice how none of the mainstream republicans wants to disavow the crazies on the fringe right? They refuse to call Birthers crazy; they allow their spokespeople to pervert American history.

Why won't they disavow this behavior? Because they plan to make use of these crazies and their slogans during the election.

All those hateful signs you see at TP rallies? That's a preview of some of the ads swiftboaters will be airing, and with unlimited corporate money now allowed *anonymously* in the campaign, we are going to see A LOT of those ads...

Sorry to say it, but get ready for a wild ride... its going to be nasty, and they will put *everything* they can into defeating this president.

Its time to start forming our coalition, and time to get the word out: the Recovery Act stopped the recession, and brought down taxes to the lowest point in 50 years.

Democrats have turned the country in a new direction, and have opened the door to a brighter future. All we need to do now is step through that open door into the 21st Century, like the competitive, innovative country we know how to be.

The Failure of Republican Ideology, and its Shattered Remnants in the Tea Party

2010-10-21T10:02:00.000-07:00

There's an article in the huffingtonpost today that talks about the how Republicans try to have it both ways when attacking government health insurance, while simultaneously defending Medicare.

It's a good piece I suggest reading, because it points to a deep contradiction in Republican ideology. In the article, Sharron Angle is quoted criticizing the health insurance reforms enacted by Democrats.

Republicans like Angle cynically state the solution to health reform is "simple." Just let "the market" reform itself. I am so sick of hearing that ridiculous talking point. How naive you must be to think that health insurance reform will magically happen if we just have faith in the oh-so-great "free market."

Y'mean that great free market that inflated real estate values, traded toxic derivatives, and made rich creeps richer while bankrupting our nation? That free market that allowed insurers to jack your rates and discriminate against people with preexisting conditions, while making billions of dollars profit? The one that inflated gas prices and collected billions in profit while Americans lost jobs?

If we are to believe the conservative dogma about the oh-so-great and magical free market, we are to understand that health insurance companies would reinvest their profits in new jobs and better services. That Wall St. would put those profits from selling grandma's house back into our economy. That Meg Whitman would hire American workers at a decent wage.

But that doesn't happen does it? No, Ms. Angle the problem is not too much government intervention in the free market, it is a free market gone wild.

We have seen direct evidence of the complete failure of deregulation and unrestrained greed, in the 8 years of Republican rule our country endured.

Democrats have turned us in a new direction. We can either go forward, or we can return to the same failed policies that bankrupted us in the first place.

Democrats: Acting Responsibly to Restore the American Dream

2010-10-10T10:00:00.000-07:00

If you haven't seen it yet, there's a video on Huffingtonpost today, in which Arianna and Mike Huckabee find some common ground about capitalism and the middle class. Its a great discussion, and I think it illustrates some interesting ways that progressives can engage Republicans on common ground.

I would love to see more conversations like this between people from different political backgrounds, because ultimately our system of government predetermines some kind of compromise in the end, regardless of who is in power.

What's interesting it that despite party differences, Mike Huckabee and Arianna Huffington agree on quite a few things.

For example, they both agree that an erosion of the moral basis of capitalism is destroying the American middle class. But Mike seems to reflexively think this erosion is because of too much government intervention, and Arianna makes a great point that government itself is, in fact bought and paid for by capitalist interests.

These special interests purchase influence on legislation to benefit their greed - even if it hurts the country in the long run. In fact, that's how we got where we are now.

What we need here, is a way to persuade conservatives like Huckabee that government is the problem inasmuch as it is influenced by lobbyists and special interests.

From this perspective, passing health insurance reform and Wall St. reform was about government acting morally, to restore a sense of fairness to industries that had become too powerful and abusive of the American people.

We progressives wanted stronger reforms, but our conservative brethren thought if we tampered any more with the system we must be "socialists," so we went for a moderate approach. In the end, we implemented reforms that in fact changed a lot of things: we ended discrimination for preexisting conditions, and covered millions of uninsured Americans. We ended the insider dealings of Wall St. by requiring derivatives to be traded openly. And we stopped the recession, while at the same time investing in green industries that will lead our country into a new era of prosperity and freedom from foreign oil.

Socialists? Tyrants? Hardly. Democrats have acted morally and responsibly, and history will vindicate them for how much they achieved in two short years.

Dobbs, Whitman, and The Lie of Tax Cuts for the Rich

2010-10-02T09:59:00.000-07:00

I hope you have all been following the story about how Lou Dobbs had illegal immigrants working for him, because this issue - along with the recent Meg Whitman scandal - says something very important about the difference between Democrats and Republicans.

Dobbs crusaded on his show against companies who hire illegal immigrants. Dobbs made it clear that he thinks there is NO excuse, even if a subcontractor hires them.

Now, we find out that Dobbs is hiding behind the same excuse. The problem with Lou, is that he is a hypocrite with his "Do as I say, not as I do" attitude. He isn't even denying that contractors hired illegal workers.

The larger point that needs to be made, though, is this: Dobbs, Whitman, Romney, and all the other *wealthy* right-wingers who have been caught benefiting from illegal workers, are addicted to cheap labor.

And that's what really gets me. These people are RICH, for gosh-sakes, they have PLENTY of money to hire American workers at a decent wage if they practiced half the things they preach!

Don't blame the immigrants, who work harder for less than our own citizens. Blame the rich folks like Dobbs, Whitman, and the rest, who have every opportunity to hire American workers, but who are so cheap they just won't do it.

These rich right-wingers benefit from illegal workers, while at the same time they use the immigration issue to divide American workers and illegal workers. What we really need is for American workers and immigrant workers to band together to end the addiction to cheap labor for rich hypocrites like Dobbs.

One final point: Republicans have been selling us on this idea that if we cut taxes for the rich again, they will create jobs. The failure of this idea can be illustrated so well in cases like Dobbs, Whitman, and Romney. Those rich people who have every means of creating jobs for Americans, have been caught in a lie. Their actions have proven they have no intention whatsoever of creating good jobs for Americans. Cheap labor only. That's the Republican way!

"How Democrats Can Pull Off the Mother of All Upsets

2010-10-01T17:52:00.000-07:00

I hope you all get a chance to read Michael Moore's great piece on Huffingtonpost today, in which he shares prescription for victory, and argues for five things Democrats can do to win in November

He then asks his fellow democrats to contribute their own ideas, so I thought I'd share mine here. Feel free to add your own, or go over to Huffingtonpost and share them with Michael Moore, too.

Voters like candidates who stand for their values, as opposed to those who waffle on them. Therefore, Democrats should stand proud for the historic achievements they made in 2 short years, despite the GOP obstructing a record number of bills.

Democrats have passed smart, moral, and financially sound reforms.

Stand proud for the Affordable Care Act, which ended discrimination for preexisting conditions, and covered millions of uninsured Americans, all while remaining budget neutral.

They should be proud of Financial Reform, which prevents another collapse like the one we had in 2008, by creating a new market for derivatives trading, updating regulations, and creating a consumer watchdog agency to protect us against unfair business practices.

Democrats should be proud of the Recovery Act, which stopped the recession, while at the same time cutting taxes for working Americans to the lowest point in over 50 years.

They should speak out about the 100 billion investment in private green tech sector growth, which will lead to a renewal of our American manufacturing infrastructure and will put America on the leading edge of the coming green economic boom.

The Democrats have shown vision, as opposed to the other party which just stands there and says no.

Democrats should be proud of making that vision a possibility.

They turned this country in a new direction, and opened the door to a brighter future.

In November, we need to get out the vote and walk through that open door.

Getting the Job Done: How Democrats Can Win in November

2010-09-08T13:07:00.001-07:00

In the historic American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the Democrats enacted the largest investment ever in Green Energy. This investment is pumping billions of dollars into one of the strongest areas of our economy. Shortly after President Obama passed the Recovery Act, China - recognizing the economic potential of a Green Tech Boom - invested a similar amount of money in their own Green Tech sectors.

The Green Tech sector was the last to be hit by the Recession, and the first to recover. Today, new Wind Turbine jobs outnumber new Coal Mining jobs. These are private sector jobs, people. American manufacturing jobs, turning shuttered factories into wind energy, and high-tech battery manufacturers.

These investments will not only revitalize our economy, but will also renew our American manufacturing infrastructure. Its time we started exporting American ingenuity once again, and its Democrats who have led the charge on this issue!

This is the future of our Economy, and Democrats have seen it, and led the way. They have seized this moment and turned our country in the right direction, after years of misguided and out-dated policies.

We have acted boldly in turning the page toward a clean energy future, and a freedom from foreign oil. It might not happen overnight, but a vast majority of the American people believe it *should* happen soon. We cannot turn back now.

But let's be clear: renewing our infrastructure through advancements in Green Tech, means big change for the powerful forces who stand to lose in the new energy economy. Change for the greater good, does not mean everybody always wins. There are entrenched interests who benefit from the way things are, even if our country suffers as a result.

The powerful forces standing in the way of Change have not stood idly by - they see the November campaigns as a business investment, and with the supreme court's recent decision to allow corporations - some of them foreign - to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections, they are doing everything they can to prevent America from turning the page, and changing for the better.

These powerful interests are trying as hard as they can to make people fear the important changes our country needs to make. These are big changes that are having a profound effect on our people from every state, every region. The recent economic collapse has shaken people, shaken their confidence in our economy. The GOP - at the behest of powerful special interests - has taken advantage of people's fears. They seek to divide us, rather than unify us. While Democrats are focused on positive solutions, and have worked hard to turn the page toward a more hopeful future, our opponents have spread fear, anger, and their only solution is to repeal the progress we have already made.

We can't let fear prevent us from getting the job done. We all know it needs to be done, and someone has got to do it. We cannot turn back now. Finish the job, Democrats. Stand proud for the new path we have turned America on. The path that leads to economic prosperity, freedom from foreign oil, and a revitalized American manufacturing infrastructure.

Martin Luther King wrote:
Fear knocked on the door
Faith answered
There was no one there.

Over the last year and a half, Democrats have opened that door. The Republican Party stands in our way, trying to scare the American People from stepping through that door, into a brighter future. Our job as Democrats - from now until November - is to remind America that we opened the door, and to give them faith in the brighter future that awaits. In November, let's unify our country, and take a step through that door into a new century of responsibility and prosperity!

"The Waterworld of White Self-Pity"

2010-08-31T13:16:00.000-07:00

Christopher Hitchens just wrote a brilliant article about Glenn Beck and the Tea Party on Slate.com, that I highly recommend you read.

Hitchen's basic premise is that tea partiers perceive themselves as an oppressed minority, and seek to reverse the advances of other oppressed Americans, because they fear losing their white privilege. He writes,

In a rather curious and confused way, some white people are starting almost to think like a minority, even like a persecuted one. What does it take to believe that Christianity is an endangered religion in America or that the name of Jesus is insufficiently spoken or appreciated? Who wakes up believing that there is no appreciation for our veterans and our armed forces and that without a noisy speech from Sarah Palin, their sacrifice would be scorned? It's not unfair to say that such grievances are purely and simply imaginary, which in turn leads one to ask what the real ones can be. The clue, surely, is furnished by the remainder of the speeches, which deny racial feeling so monotonously and vehemently as to draw attention.

I love that last part about how much the speeches focus on a denial of racial feeling as to make you question why. Methinks thou doth protest too much.

Are Tea Partiers really going to win in November, as they constantly boast?

Tea Partiers pretend they are an oppressed minority, while at the same time they brag about how they are going to win in November. According to a CBS News poll, 84 percent of Tea Partiers believe they represent the views of most Americans, but overall Americans disagree: 25 percent say the Tea Party represents their views, while 36 percent say it does not.

The Tea Party wants to have it both ways: they claim are both an oppressed minority (89 percent white according to the poll), AND at the same time they are the majority of voting Americans.

Something's got to give. My bet is that all this braggadocio about winning in November is nothing more than boastful bullying. Let the Tea Party be the minority they claim to be - they are the last gasp of a dying population: bigoted, fearful, and exclusionary.

Win in November? Hardly. Not if we GOTV.

Beck's Rally, and the Spiritual Foundation of the Christian Taliban

2010-08-30T13:15:00.000-07:00

Recent news articles - including those on left leaning publications - have been marveling at the fact that Glenn Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally delivered a "Religious, not political message."

Really? Anyone who writes about politics and claims this event was more about religion than politics needs to have their head examined!

They are forgetting one of the most important things about politics: All politics is moral. This rally attempts to build a religious underpinning to Beck's radical political ideas.

It attempts to blanket his followers politics under the cloak of religion, much like the way the Taliban cloaks their radical politics under religion.

We know what these folks believe, by now there should be no question about it. They have radical ideas that subvert our constitution. They believe they are the only true Americans, and anyone who disagrees is to be treated like an enemy. They believe they are at war with anyone who disagrees with them. They believe only their ideas have validity, and they are willing to engage in extreme measures - such as armed revolt - to enforce their far right ideology.

So when Imam Beck and the former Republican vice presidential candidate stand before this crowd and talk about Christianity, it must be noted they are talking about a very specific kind of Christianity: it does not include you or me, or anyone else who takes a different view. It is no less than the beginning of a spiritual foundation from which to grow an American Christian Taliban.

"Not political?" Give me a break!

On Being Angry at the President for Not Being Bolder

2010-07-28T13:14:00.001-07:00

A lot of progressive people who voted for Obama in 2008 have been expressing anger about him not being more bold in his presidency. Its understandably frustrating that we worked so hard to elect this candidate, and we believed so strongly in ideas like the Public Option, that we feel let down when it doesn't happen 100% the way we think it should.

Its frustrating because we know deep down that if we could just implement strong progressive policies, we could solve *so* many problems. We could prosper as a nation. We could even save money.

But we are pitted in an ideological battle that has been going on in America since its founding. It predates Barack Obama. And I think we must keep this in mind as we roll up to the November 2010 Mid-term elections.

Remember, when the candidate Obama told us that the work couldn't end in the election - that even after the election he would need our help - and our party would need our help - during what would be a long hard fight to bring change?

Personally, I was under no illusions about Obama when I voted for him: I knew I was voting for someone who I believed would act from the goodness of his heart and the strength of his intellect when given the enormous and *conflicted* job of President. That whatever faced in inside that Oval Office, he would do the best he could given the circumstances.

And so he went - into that bubble we call the American Presidency. And he is counting on us out here to both support him and keep him on the straight and narrow.

The question then becomes for me: when you feel that anger, when you feel that the president is not acting as bold as he should, what do you do with it?

I strongly believe we should channel that energy into finding ways we can positively support the President and our party, while *persuading* them at the same time.

Finding hope in the candidate who we sent to the White House was not that tough; but bringing *change* well that consists of much a harder and imperfect kind of work.

Democracy is messy. And if we squander this opportunity - if we allow our party to fracture in anger - then we will lose what little toehold we have gained, and the republicans will take us back to the miserable days of Goerge Bush and Dick Cheney.

We cannot allow that to happen. We've already passed some of the most historic reforms in a generation - and we have made the largest ever investment producing a Green Economy with the stimulus. These are changes we should cherish. Can you imagine the chances of these things passing under Republican leadership? Other presidents have tried for decades and failed.

So. How do we channel that energy into ways to support our party and increase voter turnout in November? Because if we don't do that, any hope we did once have, will surely never come to be.

On Recess Appointments, and the Vote in November

2010-07-28T13:14:00.000-07:00

There's a report on the Huffingtonpost today about President Obama and the possibility of recess appointments for important nominees, should the GOP continue to block votes on them.

According to press secretary Robert Gibbs, the President said it would depend on Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell whether or not recess appointments were made.

These important appointments have been held up for political reasons. I'm sorry to say it, but you can't help getting the feeling that some in the GOP *want* our country to hurt, so they can benefit from it in the November elections.

In addition holding up important nominations, the GOP has been filibustering a record number of bills from coming to a vote - including a much needed Jobs bill.

These actions have a damaging effect on our country, because they are blocking responsible plans to recover our economy. And the longer we wait, the worse it gets.

So, while Democrats are doing the hard work trying to get something *done*, the very-powerful minority has actively worked against them.

Meanwhile the powerful minority offers no plans of their own, and when pressed the only thing they offer is the same plans George Bush had.

Yeah, we saw where that got us. And these guys think they should get *more* power?

I think that in November - when presented with a clear choice of the party who is actually working on solutions vs. the party who jeers from the sidelines - the voters might give the GOP a big surprise.

Republicans of Yesterday Considered "Liberals" by GOP of Today

2010-04-05T12:53:00.001-07:00

There is a lesson in here for us progressives and liberals. We should take note.

Justice John Paul Stevens announced he is going to retire during Obama's term - most likely within then next couple of months - and already Republican leaders are vowing to fight against anyone the President nominates who is not deemed conservative enough. The GOP may even hypocritically filibuster Obama's nominee, despite their long-held position that nominees deserve an "up or down vote."

The problem for Obama lies in the fact that today's Republicans are far more conservative and ideological than those of the past. Justice John Paul Stevens considers himself a Republican, and he was appointed by a Republican president. So how is is that he is widely considered "the leader of the liberal wing" of the Supreme Court?

The answer is simple: he is apolitical (as all Justices should be), and since his appointment the court has become highly politicized. In today's Republican party, and its lurch to the hard-right, objectivity is not enough. For the rabid members of today's Republican party, if you are not outwardly ideological; if you are not overtly politicizing everything to the benefit of the fringe right, you might as well be a liberal. Therefore, in his objectivity and his attempt to stay out of politics, Justice Stevens is deemed a "liberal" in the eyes of his Republican brethren.

This toxicity is bad for America. The GOP is moving so far to the right, that people once considered centrist republicans are called liberals. In fact, for today's Republican Party the rule is simple: if you are not for them in every way, you must be against them. A party cannot govern with this kind of ideological purity - this litmus test - And thus, we have the Tea Party fielding candidates against their own party if they are not deemed "pure" enough. They will fragment the GOP in their desire for extreme purity.

I doubt the Republicans - or the Tea Party for that matter - can win enough voters to turn the tide in their favor. They have painted themselves into an ideological corner. But if they do gain seats in Congress despite their extreme views, it will be bad for America. We are a nation of diverse views and beliefs. We cannot be governed with an ideological iron fist.

So get out an make sure your neighbors and friends are voting in 2010! We have so much work left to do, and the election of our new President was only the beginning. We need to support him and support our party, because we are the party of inclusion, not exclusivity; we are a big ideas, big tent party and we will not let the toxicity of ideological purity paint us into a corner.

This is what our President believes in. He is a moderate Democrat. I know my colleagues feel he is not liberal enough, but remember he never promised to be. We all knew from the beginning he was much more of a centrist - and if you didn't realize that I'm sorry but you must not have been paying attention.

I am as liberal as they get, but I will not hold progress hostage to my own sense of ideological purity. Look at the Republican party of today as an example of where that kind of certainty and purity leads.

Thank you for reading,
D. Tree

On Opposing the Senate Healthcare Bill... Don't Do It!

2010-01-21T08:09:00.001-08:00

Dear Fellow Democrats,

We worked so hard to elect a Democrat majority in 2006, and Barack Obama in 2008. We accomplished this by coalescing our different internal groups: progressives, liberals, independents, and - yes - even Conservadems.

Now that we have some amount of power, I am so saddened to see our party do what it has done in the past: our diverse groups are fragmenting because we expect some "perfect" version of policies to be enacted immediately. We seem unable to act like a TEAM.

How will we ever be able to govern, if we cannot compromise with each other? It will be impossible, and we will lose the power we worked so hard to attain... before we ever have a chance to show the American People that our ideas will make this country better.

Let me give you an example: Like you, I am receiving emails from various liberal and progressive causes - causes I supported during the elections, and during the fight for a public option. These action groups are now calling on me to petition the President to fire his top adviser. They are calling on me to demand my senators and congresspersons vote against the Healthcare Reform bill because it doesn't have a public option. In essence, at the same time conservatives and independents flee our party, my liberal fellows are actively fighting AGAINST the president we worked to hard to elect!

My fellow Democrats, don't you see how wrong this is? Have you ever heard the phrase "Cutting off one's nose to spite their face?"

Please don't misunderstand me. I am as liberal as they get! But I am also a PRAGMATIST. We need to learn a bit of pragmatism in our party. We have a Healthcare Reform bill that will cover over 30 millions uninsured Americans, will end discrimination against pre-existing conditions, and that will reduce the deficit. What, pray tell is wrong with that???

In politics there is a concept called a "Strategic Initiative." It is an idea that Republicans have long used to powerful effect: When you can't get a "perfect" bill, you pass something as close as you can get. A bill that opens the door to more progressive change, and that makes it harder to turn back time. That is what the Senate Health Reform bill is. Its not perfect, and it doesn't include a public option - something I fought very hard for, and something I know in my heart is necessary for effective reform. Heck, I support a Single Payer system, but I understand its too early for us to get that right now.

The House has passed its bill. The Senate has passed theirs. The time for insisting on a Public Option in THIS bill is passed. But, ask yourselves this: Are we more likely to get a public option in the future if we let this bill die? Or, having passed this bill that gets us one step away from a Public Option, will we be in a better position to pass it in the near future?

Fellow Democrats, we MUST seize this moment and pass reform now. We have delayed long enough. Debated long enough. If we work against this bill now, we are only playing into the hands of Republicans who want to kill the bill and start over. This is wrong politically, and will be the death of progress before it even has a chance.

Look, Democracy is messy business. Its not perfect, and it will never be! We cannot afford to hold progress hostage to our own perfect versions of reality! If we do not learn how to compromise with each other to form a Governing Coalition, we shall never achieve our progressive aims and our beloved country will only suffer further under the leadership of a party that CAN work lockstep together - and you know who that is.

Thank you for your time,
D. Tree

Unacceptable: 40% of Democrats Say They Won't Vote Next Year

2009-12-03T02:55:00.000-08:00

My fellow Democrats we should be very alarmed at a new report that says forty percent of Democrats "Probably won't vote" next year

Forty percent of self-identified Democratic voters say they are "not likely" or "definitely" won't vote in next year's Congressional elections, according to a little-noticed poll released over the Thanksgiving weekend.

Sure, the Republican Party is in disarray and imploding on itself, but we cannot allow that to make us lazy. In electing Barack Obama, we made a promise that we would stay involved. It was as much about us, as it was about him. Now we have as much responsibility as he does in fixing the problems America is faced with.

We worked so hard over the last 4 years rebuilding our majority and strengthening our moral position in politics, and we cannot afford to let that go at such a critical moment in our history. Our country needs us, Democrats. So get up off your butts, and start spreading the news to your friends and neighbors: We are all depending on you to stay involved, and to help fix our country.

We have huge challenges before us. Goals that will take years to achieve. Like building a green economy to revitalize our industries, or stopping out-of-control health care costs. These goals can't be achieved if we allow Republicans to take back any seats in Congress next year. Do you realize all it takes is ONE more republican senator getting elected, to kill our majority and hamstring the president? One. Think about that.

In addition, there is doubt these goals can be achieved with the fractional majority Democrats currently have in Congress. What we need to be doing now is gearing up for the 2010 elections, inspiring our fellow voters, and making sure that every Democrat gets out and votes in the 2010 Congressional Elections, so we can INCREASE our majority.

We cannot allow this present state of affairs to stand. 40% not voting is unacceptable. It is up to us to make sure this doesn't happen, so let's get out there start waking people up!!

----

P.S. - a note to Chairman Tim Kaine and the staff at the DNC

It long been known that many Americans only get involved in politics once every 4 years for the presidential elections. But under the leadership of Howard Dean, the Democratic Party was jarred out of this lethargy and inspired to pay more attention. He initiated the 50-State Strategy, the Democracy Bonds project, and his grassroots organization Democracy For America funded and encouraged new candidates for local and national offices in every one of the 50 States. Where is this energy now? Where is Governor Kaine on these important issues? We hear almost nothing from him! What has he done to continue growing and strengthening our party? When we hear that 40% of Democrats probably won't vote next year, we have reason to be VERY concerned. Step up to the plate Mr. Chairman, or get someone else in who will!

Obama Pushes Lobbyists Off Advisory Boards

2009-11-28T06:10:00.001-08:00

By now most of you should be aware of the sweeping Lobbyist Reform President Obama has ordered, but not surprisingly it has yet to be covered on mainstream news outlets like CNN.

In case you missed this big piece of news, here are some highlights:

In a little-noticed blog post published on the White House website in September, President Obama's special counsel for ethics and government reform Norm Eisen announced that the administration no longer wanted federally-registered lobbyists appointed to agency advisory boards and commissions.

This is a big victory for taxpayers, and an important reform to one of the biggest conflicts of interest existing in our government. When lobbyists sit on advisory boards, how can their advice be trusted? They are getting PAID to give certain advice, they don't give that advice out of the goodness of their hearts!

On Friday, the Washington Post reported that the move "may turn out to be the most far-reaching lobbying rule change so far from President Obama," resulting in "hundreds, if not thousands, of lobbyists" being ejected from federal advisory panels.

Not surprisingly, lobby groups, corporations, and other K Street influencers are up in arms."

What amazes me is how long this practice has been going on. Every previous administration has simply allowed paid lobbyists to influence advisory boards on important issues facing taxpayers. And yet these boards get advice not in the taxpayers interests, but in some wealthy corporation' interests instead!

I'm proud of our President for making this change. It is yet one more example of how Barack Obama is living up to his promise to change Washington.

The most ironic thing about all of this? Those lobbyists who are being kicked out of influential positions will now probably turn to the Tea Partiers, in an attempt to support their opposition to Obama on every front.

Its really sad to see these Tea Party members acting like they are standing up for taxpayers by going against the President. This President has done more in his first year to support taxpayers than any president in the last 30 years.

I'll be most of those Tea Party member don't even realize that Obama gave the largest Middle Class Tax Cut in history when he took office. That tax cut is part of the Recovery Act that Tea-baggers just love to whine about.

Will this story eventually make it to major networks like CNN, FOX, or ABC? We'll see. In the meantime its up to us to spread the word!

Senate Opens Debate on Health Reform: A Proud Moment for our Democracy

2009-11-22T04:18:00.000-08:00

The Senate made me proud when they overcame a GOP filibuster threat and voted to open debate on The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

This is an important step toward the final part of our Health Reform initiative. Once the Senate ends debate, their bill will be voted on by a simple majority. In the final step, the House bill and the Senate bill will be combined and the President will sign it into law.

Over these last few months, we have been blessed to witness the workings of our government in the way our Founders envisioned. We have heard debate from all sectors, including those opposed to this reform.

We have incorporated as many of these viewpoints as we possible can, through our open and vigorous democratic process. From town halls to the steps of the Capitol, we have studied this reform from every conceivable angle.

This reform will cut the deficit, cover the uninsured, and bring down costs for small businesses. And that's just the start, because once we have a healthy population we will start to see savings in other areas as well.

Its times like this that I admire the principles of our Founders so much more. They constructed a system of Checks and Balances, that at times seems inconvenient, but are wholly necessary in the end.

That is one reason I never could understand the Right's aversion to government and belief that it only hurts the individual and society. That belief could not be further from what our Founders believed. They designed our system with those concerns in mind, because they were escaping previous systems in which the King or the Church had too much power.

Today I am proud to see a functional government once again. Democracy can be messy, but its a beautiful mess - and while it may be imperfect, it still works to produce the best result for the times.

Bless the Founders and bless those representatives who work in government because of civic virtue - From here on out, let's try to put our differences aside as Democrats and stand together in our support, so they can pass Health Reform before the end of the year.

CBO:Dem Bill with Public Option Reduces Deficit

2009-10-22T00:38:00.000-07:00

CNN reported today, "CBO finds Dem bill with public option reduces deficit,"

A preliminary estimate from the Congressional Budget Office projects that the House Democrats' health care plan that includes a public option would cost $871 billion over 10 years, according to two Democratic sources.

CBO also found that the Democrats' bill reduces the deficit in the first 10 years.

Just more evidence confirming what we already know: offering a public option to small businesses and the uninsured saves the most money.

The argument for reforming health insurance with a public option is that its better for the pocketbook. This is not about ideology, its about saving the most money and reducing the deficit. Anyone who cars about fiscal responsibility should be 100% on board with this reform.

Spread the word high and low!

And in case you are worried, don't be. We ARE going to pass health care reform. And then we will pass every other piece of overdue legislation one by one.

The Republican Party is done. Things will never return to the way they were. By the time we are done with our work, we will be firmly in the 21st Century - with our eyes on the future, not the past.

Defining Our Progressive Coalition

2009-10-16T13:13:00.000-07:00

Right now my primary concern as a Dem is keeping our party together amidst so many different factions.

Our ability to stay together as a party will determine whether or not we accomplish the goals laid out the Democratic Party Platform last year: Health Reform, Energy Reform, Equal Rights, Environmental Reform etc....

To that end, what I'd really like to see is some discussion of "Defining Our Coalition."

The Conservative movement grew and thrived by building what they called a "Triumvirate" composed of 3 major groups within their party: Fiscal Conservatives, Social Conservatives, and Neo Conservatives.

Binding these 3 groups together was an unspoken principle: I will trade my cause with your for the moment, if you will support mine then next time it comes down the road.

Dems have always floundered when we gain power, primarily because we have no discipline between our various groups. To make things even more complicated, we have an even bigger tent than before, with moderate conservatives coming to the Democratic Party in order to support Obama (and perhaps because they didn't want McCain/Palin).

How will we define our new coalition? How we answer this question will be critical to how we do in the mid-term and next Presidential elections.

Thanks for everything that you do,
D. Tree

Defining the Progressive Coalition

2009-10-16T01:48:00.001-07:00

Republicans Want "Death Room" Health Care

2009-09-28T15:25:00.000-07:00

You know how the Republicans are always talking about "Death Panels" and such?

And they also talk about how no one is denied care in America "Just go to the Emergency Room," they say.

(p.s. don't worry about being bankrupted, or worse - making the taxpayers pickup your bill).

Well, remember that video that make news last year of a woman dying on the waiting room floor and no one even noticed?

Take a look at that and you will see the kind of health care Republicans are promoting. The are promoting Death Rooms.

That's the kind of care they want for America. They don't think we deserve any better than that. They call that "the best in the world."

Republicans actions reveal their own weaknesses: why haven't they come up with a plan of their own? Because the Status Quo *is* their plan. The like Death Room Health Care just fine.

That's just one reason we need a public option. So people don't have to go to the emergency room in the first place.

A public option will save us so much money.

People argue it will hurt the insurance industry too much - but how else do you propose to cut costs?

The Public Option is the best way to save money, and that's the point isn't it? I could care less about insurance execs losing their multi-million dollar bonuses!

And as for those Republicans who prefer Death Rooms and bankruptcy, they are just useless. And passage of a strong health care reform bill will insure their sound DEFEAT in the next elections.

Do Righties Believe in Magic?

2009-09-28T15:20:00.000-07:00

So let me get this straight:

The Economy Magically tanked into the worst downturn since the Great Depression. Of course it had nothing to do with the Republican redistribution of trillions of dollars in surplus to the rich elite, and a trillion dollar war we didn't need to wage.

For 8 years, the GOP told us "be patient, the wealth will Magically trickle down to the rest of you." Of course, for those of us alive during the Reagan years, we already knew "Voodoo Economics" failed before and would fail again.

For 15 years, the GOP claimed the "Free Market" would magically reform Health Insurance on its own. Never mind that 15 years later, Health Care costs us 15% of our GDP and will take up more than 1/3 of our total GDP within 10 Years, making it impossible to fix the deficit unless we change.

Now that we see signs of Economic recovery, the GOP claims it was all going to Magically get better on its own. Of course it has nothing to do with the fact that Progressive economic policies have been proven to work, while Conservative economic policies have been proven to fail.

We've seen this all before. In 1992, when Bill Clinton was elected president - and the economy ruined from the previous 12 years of Republican rule - the GOP critics made the same accusations: "You'll never be able to fix the deficit. You'll only make things worse," they said. 8 years later, a lot of Republicans had egg on their face as our Economy thrived.

Of course, to a Republican all this is because of Magic. Apparently just like they think Climate Change can't be caused by humans, so Conservatives also believe human actions don't cause Economic Change.

For all the "Realism" Republicans like to boast about, they sure do believe in a lot of Magic. Do they also believe in the Tooth Fairy?

Fine. In the meantime, let the rest of us - people who believe in taking the necessary steps to fix our Economy - take care of making all that "Magic" happen. As usual, the Adults have to clean up the mess irresponsible Republican children left behind.

A Majority of Americans voted for our Democratic Platform and our promise to reform Health Insurance, Energy, and more. This is the Will of We The People. Stand Proud to fight this fight - those who stand in the way will regret it in 2010 when they are voted out of office!

Best,
D. Tree

Can Waxman be our Hero? Can Waxman be our Champion?

2009-07-25T03:35:00.000-07:00

Rep. Waxman may bypass committee vote and bring Health Care bill to the floor for a direct vote before the August Recess.

"Waxman, a California Democrat, indicated that he would bypass a committee vote if necessary and bring the bill directly to the House floor for a final vote."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/24/health.care.slowdown/index.html

House Democrats, now is your moment to stand strong. It is time to wield the power We The People voted to give you. Reform Health Care now and don't look back.

Please spread the word and tell your friends to let Rep. Henry Waxman know you support him in his efforts to get a vote on Health Care Reform before the August Recess!

Contact Rep. Henry Waxman here:
http://waxman.house.gov/Contact/

Best,

D. Tree

http://twitter.com/partybuilder

Torture Memos Release: Why Are NeoCons So Mad?

2009-04-21T01:24:00.001-07:00

Neo-Cons like Dick Cheney, Michael Hayden and Newt Gingrich are up in arms about the release of legal opinions justifying torture during the Bush administration.

Why are they so enraged? They can't be really that mad about "secrets" when the memos simply detail what reporters have already written countless stories on. There is no national security jeopardy in that.

No, they are worried about something else: Being held accountable for creating those opinions, and being written down in history as the authors. Simply put, they are scared for their own backsides!

President Obama's decision in releasing the memos was as much about protecting and restoring patriotic values to our government as it was about protecting the very CIA officers ordered to carry out torture.

I applaud the President's decision to stand strong for our values, while at the same time granting amnesty to the CIA employees who followed Dick Cheney and his Torture Cabal's heinous orders.

By releasing the memos, and at the same time protecting the CIA officers ordered to carry them out, President Obama is doing something no one in the Bush Administration ever did: he is holding those who give the orders accountable.

Its time to bring accountability back to our government and this is a great step. Its time to hold people like Dick Cheney responsible for the programs he initiated. And this is only the beginning.

Neo-Cons famously like to send subordinates out to do the dirty work. They send troops to die while sitting comfortably in their royal living rooms. They draft opinions on torture thinking they can sacrifice their employees, and avoid responsibility for themselves.

So keep this in mind when you watch how fuming mad Cheney gets from all of this. Remember, for the first time in a decade he may well be worried about being found responsible in all of this.

Put simply, he's worried about protecting his own backside when he thought employees at the CIA would take the fall for him. Not this time, Dick.

Thanks for your time,
D. Tree

Threat of Right Wing Extremism Rising

2009-04-15T01:43:00.001-07:00

CNN reported today on the growing threat of right-wing extremism and neo-Nazism on the rise in America as a result of the election of our first African American president.

Of course anyone paying attention has seen the signs since Obama was nominated, with the FBI reporting a sharp increase in the number of assassination threats from day one of his candidacy.

But some on the far-right either want to sweep this news under the rug, or they are in denial about some of the less savory elements of our society.

conservative radio talk show host Roger Hedgecock was not persuaded. "If the Bush administration had done this to left-wing extremists, it would be all over the press as an obvious trampling of the First Amendment rights of folks and dissent," he told CNN.

Unfortunately, as is often the case, CNN did not do their full research when printing this story, because Bush DID name left-wing groups as a domestic terrorist threat when he was president!

The extreme right-wing likes to think they are perfect citizens, somehow singled out and always the victims, but its a fake victim mentality. Perhaps they are too self-absorbed in their own angst to recognize and understand what is happening around them. The ironic thing for people like Mr. Hedgecock who either ignore the facts or deny them, Bush conveniently left out right-wing extremists on his domestic terror threat report because they have ties to the Republican Party,

The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not include extreme right-wing groups, some of which have ties to the Republican Party, on its list of potential terrorist threats, according to a report last month by the Congressional Quarterly, a publication with high-level sources in Congress and the federal government.

Is it all starting to make sense now? The article continues,

"It is remarkable that there is no mention of the anti-abortion, militia, racist and homophobic groups that do not “publicly ... promote nonviolence,” but rather openly advocate the killing of blacks, gays, abortion providers and government workers. Moreover, these groups have acted on their words.

Fascist, racist and anti-abortion groups are responsible for nearly all the terrorist attacks in the United States—with the exception of September 11, 2001—over the past two decades. These include the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, which killed 168 people, as well as bombings of abortion clinics and assassination of abortion providers, and multiple cases of individual rampages, like that of Benjamin Smith, who went on a killing spree directed at blacks, Jews and immigrants in 1999."

We must acknowledge that we have elements in our society that are broken and have been for a long time. I accept that believing in free speech means hateful people like this can say whatever they want short of inciting violence. But when they make threats on the President, or on any American citizens or places, they should be taken as seriously as any other terrorist group.

Thanks for your time,
D. Tree

Challenging Alex Castellanos on "Change"

2009-04-03T08:31:00.001-07:00

CNN's Republican strategist Alex Castellanos published a commentary this week in which he claimed the President is not living up to his promise of Change, and - in a remarkably childish "I'm rubber you're glue" moment - went so far as to boast that the 2012 GOP message will be "Change."

Funny, Mr. Castellanos, it appears that the GOP has been obstructing every major effort for Change since Obama was elected. How convenient for you, then, to claim he isn't bringing "Change" about!

That kind of reminds me of a kid stealing a baseball and then claiming he should be captain of the team because no one can hit a home run! Kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy, eh Mr. Castellanos?

But of course Castellanos is intelligent enough to realize this. Castellanos ("Father of the Modern Attack Ad") is only doing what he does best: making disingenuous arguments.

Let's take a look at some of the other boilerplate arguments Castellanos and other Republicans have been using:

Obama is "Increasing the size of the US Government" - I wonder if Castellanos realizes it was a Republican president who oversaw the last big increase. Take a look at this Wikipedia page on the Federal Budget and you will notice that George Bush oversaw a 38.7 precent (1.2 Trillion Dollars!) increase in spending during his two terms. And most of this tax money spent on an unnecessary war.

Now think about this: While increasing the budget, George Bush redistributed wealth to the richest - the same Wall Street Execs and Bankers we now see getting outrageous bonuses. If these guys are getting all the tax breaks, then who is paying for all the war? The rest of us.

Obama is increasing George Bush's budget by 13.8 percent. This increased spending is due largely to the huge rescue packages for those same bankers and insurance companies who benefited so much for George Bush. You can't blame Obama for getting stuck with George Bush's tab!

Besides deflecting blame from themselves, what republicans are really mad about is not the size of the budget, but what we will be spending it on: Education, Energy Reform, Healthcare Reform, and Jobs. This is the Change the American People demanded in the last election.

Republicans want to use government as a police force and friend of the rich. Dems believe in the government intended by our founders: to maintain a healthy and productive Country. Our founders had no problem with the government they created, why do Republicans seem to hate it so much?

We should expect more of these rubber-stamp Republicans employing the same tactic as Alex Castellanos: stand in the way of Change, then point the finger at President Obama for not living up to his election promises. Simultaneously, they offer no no new ideas, instead preferring to recycle the same ones that got us into this mess.

It appears that the GOP has fallen back on their old ways: when you don't have anything new to offer, repeat the same lies about the opposition until people start to believe it... and that doesn't bode well for the GOP in 2012, because people have become wise to their ways and the electorate is much smarter now than they were in 2000 and 2004.

Good luck MR Castellanos, your party is going to need it!

Ruben Navarrette: Obama is "Flunking" Economics

2009-03-27T09:50:00.001-07:00

CNN contributor Ruben Navarette posted a wide-ranging piece today in which he claimed president Obama is "Flunking" economics.

But to many of the rest of us, it's clear that President Obama is flunking economics. He is trying to do too much at once, and so he is not doing any of it well.

He also claims that anyone who criticizes Obama is simply attacked, a clever rhetorical ploy to avoid criticism to himself.

They won't tolerate any criticism of the president or his administration, finding it easier to simply attack critics. And whatever goes wrong that they can't defend or deflect, they just blame on George W. Bush.

Y'know, there is a point to everything you are saying Mr. Navarrette - but I wonder whether some of the criticism has less to do with the President's economic credentials than with the other many ways in which you disapprove of his performance. The article is less about the ways you would improve Obama's economic proposals and more about the way you apparently dislike him.

Its also strange to hear this claim about defenders of the President in such a negative light. Most people I've heard defending Obama's agenda are pretty smart, and make intelligent arguments.

Is this piece really about Economics? Or is this about something else? Perhaps Navarrette simply does not want to go down the road a large majority of Americans chose when they elected President Obama. To them Obama is neither moving too fast, nor is he trying to do too much! He's doing what he was elected to do.

A large majority still support the wide-ranging economic and political Change the President is trying to bring about. Of course its expensive, and of course its big. We are trying to pull out of one of the worst economic catastrophes in history!

What I don't understand is the growing plethora of people publicly casting doubt, when we are only 2.5 months into the presidency. Bringing Change with a big "C" to Washington is going to be difficult as it is without so many naysayers so early in the process. It's going to take time.

Do we face risks? Yes, but the rewards are high. And frankly we have tried the way of the GOP and it has failed. They are offering the same recycled dishwater plans of tax cuts for the rich but health and education cuts for the poor, and no regulation of Wall Street. The same bad ideas that led us to where we are now.

No we need to do more, and most of the country seems to agree. We need more than the same recycled ideas, we need BIG changes to healthcare, taxes, wall street, and war.

It is time to put progressive ideas to the test.

Thanks for reading,
D. Tree

What to Do About Do-nothing Republicans

2009-03-27T01:54:00.001-07:00

What remains of the Republican Party has been doing a lot of posing before the camera lately. Merely 2 months into our new president's term and this band of so-called patriots are doing everything they can to prevent our country from recovering from one of the worst disasters of a presidency we've ever seen. Several of these self-serving servants of the rich have even publicly hoped for the president to fail in leading our country out of this financial crisis.

Clearly, these Republicans are still working for the very same special interests that got us into this mess. All that tough talk from the GOP about AIG? Well, how do you think AIG got us into this mess in the first place? Through the actions of these same self-righteous republican stooges of the rich who are now complaining loudly about spending and "responsibility."

Well, let me tell you something about responsibility Mr. Boehner, Ms. Bachmann, Mr. Jindal, and Mr. Cantor: take it for your own actions over the last few years. Your cheerleading of Bush & Cheney for trillions of dollars and thousands of lives in the Iraq war; your irresponsible "look the other way" republican philosophy that allowed Wall St. to destroy our economy so you could pad your pockets with Lobbyist money!

I've been away from blogging since the election, and this is my first post since. Let this serve as an introduction for a new series of posts entitled "Help our Country Move Forward or Get Out of the Way." Over the next few weeks, when I have time to post I'll be using the opportunity to call out these obstructive and negative republicans who are holding back progress and who are standing in the way of fixing our broken economy.

Thanks for your time,
D. Tree

Debating Ed Rollins Advice to McCain

2008-10-06T10:47:00.001-07:00

Mike Huckabee's former campaign chairman Ed Rollins published this piece giving advice to John McCain on CNN today (Commentary: Time for John McCain to turn up the heat).

Even though I am a liberal I have respect for Rollins. He is very smart and clear-headed (too bad for McCain he didn't hire Rollins as his Campaign Manager!).

Though I'm not complaining... ;-)

BUT, i do have 3 points to debate Rollins on.

#1, the 90's argument:

Electing President Obama would eliminate important checks and balances on liberal Democratic power in Washington and that could be a disaster. It was a disaster when Bush and the Republicans controlled it all. It was a disaster when Clinton and the Democrats controlled it all.

Claiming the Democratic Congress & President in the 90's was a disaster needs backing up: most people remember the '90s as a period of American success! Also, remember, Republicans took over Congress in the mid-'90's,

#2, the "Change is only a brand" argument:

According to the latest Gallup polling, 87 percent of the country thinks the economic picture is getting worse -- another record. The Republican brand is as damaged as at any time since the Watergate scandal 35 years ago. The country is facing the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression nearly eight decades ago.

Rollins continues to argue,

What [Obama's] campaign has done is create a "brand" that represents change. But voters don't know what that means.

Rollins criticizes the Change theme of the Democrats as merely a "brand," but at the same time laments the GOP's damaged "brand." The two arguments cancel each other out.

Furthermore, citing the Gallup Poll above, voters indeed have a good idea what Change means: in this case the definition is a negative one, "Change" means essentially "whatever the Republicans ARE NOT."

#3, the "We don't know him" argument:

...we have seen thousands of pictures and heard hundreds of speeches and watched in amazement as his team has put together a brilliant campaign that beat back the Democratic establishment candidate Hillary Clinton. But we still don't know him.

Really? Isn't it a bit late to make that argument?

After thousands of speeches and 2 personal books how can we NOT know who Barack Obama is? He's been out there showing us who he is for over a year straight now. If we don't know him by now we haven't been listening....

.... and that leads to the major problem John McCain and the GOP have this year: a large portion of public has decided they *do* know who Barack Obama is, and that he is everything he says he is.

And that, "my friends," is the real reason John McCain is losing this election. The voters have decided they *do* know who these two candidates are. One represents the successful fiscal and foreign policies reminiscent of the flourishing 1990's, and the other represents the failed values and policies of the last 8. Is it any wonder that John McCain is behind? And as his campaign turns desperately to distractions and personal Swift-boat-style attacks, voters will only be reminded more of the negative politics of George Bush & Dick Cheney.

If there is anything I agree with Rollins on, it is this:

From what I hear, the campaign's plans are to put John McCain back in the seat of his A-4 Skyhawk bomber and drop bomb after bomb on Obama to try to convince voters he is unfit to lead.

I think that formula will lead to failure, just as Hillary Clinton's strategy failed.

Personal attacks won't work this late in the campaign and may backfire on McCain

Best,
D. Tree

McCain Needs a Permission Slip to Protect America?

2008-09-29T21:11:00.001-07:00

Do I have this right? On the question of striking Bin Laden across national borders, McCain says he wants to call a meeting before taking action?

Sure, its been 3 days since the first Presidential Debate of the General Election, and much hay has been made about the candidate's different responses to this question, but I have yet to see anyone compare their answers to a similar question posed to Bush & Kerry back in 2004.

You might remember a different variation of the same question came up, and how Bush and Cheney ripped John Kerry on his answer of passing a "global test" for your military actions.

Bush said Kerry will allow foreign powers to veto military action:

Kerry "said something revealing when he laid out the Kerry Doctrine," Bush said at a convention of home builders here. "He said that America has to pass a global test before we can use American troops to defend ourselves. . . . Senator Kerry's approach to foreign policy would give foreign governments veto power over our national security decisions."

Dick Cheney repeated the charges continuously, making it one of his favorite lines:

Vice President Cheney has long accused Kerry of proposing to seek a "permission slip" from foreign countries before taking military action

Now, correct me if I am wrong, but it appears we find ourselves in an interesting situation here: the Republican candidate is saying he would consult with Pakistan before launching a strike against Bin Laden or his top lieutenants?

Indeed, we find ourselves in strange times if it is the Democrat who is asserting that we have a right to strike Bin Laden across national borders, and it is the Republican who is seeking a "permission slip."

My question is, when will the rest of the media - and even the Obama campaign - pick up on this ironic twist of events?

Suggestion to Dems: Drop the Palin "Experience" Angle

2008-09-19T11:14:00.001-07:00

My dear fellow Dems (and Obama strategists if you are listening).

I believe the constant talk of Palin's lack of government experience is a Trojan Horse for us.

A friendly suggestion: let's drop the talk about her experience now!

Why? Well, for some Dems who were along for the Clinton/Obama primary fight, this might seem like a natural line of attack; However - and I'm only speaking for myself - "experience" has never a deciding factor in my decision.

Even though I vowed to support the nominee, no matter who it was, Obama's relatively little Washington experience was actually a plus in my book.

I have never based my presidential decision on the person's resume: I have (as I believe most voters do) based my decisions on the kind of leader and person the candidate is.

In fact, the more experience they have, the more likely I would be to look for someone else to support: voters want to see fresh and new faces. The more we hammer away at her lack of experience, the more we emphasize her "outsider" status... this only works in her favor!

The presidency is not based on a person's resume (even though you can legitimately say "it should be.") No, the person who wins the presidency is the candidate who connects with the voters and inspires them.

So, turn this around and look at it from the Republican perspective: Palin's lack of a Washington resume is as appealing to them as Obama's relative freshness is to many of us.

Are you following me so far?

Furthermore, when we hammer the notion of "experience" being the reason voters should not support Palin, the more we undermine our own candidate, who also does not have many years of Washington experience.

It is working against us, and distracting everyone else from more beneficial lines of advance.

On the experience issue, I think the best thing we can do is let the Republicans fight amongst themselves about Palin's level of experience. This issue is more relevant to their *internal* party politics, than it is to us. They will fight about this issue amongst themselves without our help.

In the meantime, here's what I think we SHOULD focus on: Sarah Palin is *just-like-George-Bush*.

- She is the governor of an oil rich state, just like Bush was Governor of Texas; therefore she will approach Energy policy from the perspective of the Oil and Gas industry.

- She is hardcore evangelical Christian who believes the government should align with her own personal values, rather than reflecting the diverse values of our nation.

- She governs not with nuance, but with brash and bold pronouncements. She will be just like Bush in her foreign policy: all stick and no carrot.

...and finally, the biggest whopper of all:

- Palin believes she is above the law: if she is willing to ignore subpoenas for something as trivial as "Troopergate," how do you think she will deal with much more serious matters?

Governor Palin has only been on the ticket for a few weeks, and already she's abusing he power and refusing to work with her other legitimately-elected counterparts in State government.

This shows us how she will deal with Congress, and the other branches or our federal government. This also shows us how protective she is when it comes to matters of personal job performance and judgment.

We can see from this example, she is the opposite of the REFORM and TRANSPARENCY she claims herself to be.

Just like Bush in 2000 said: I am "compassionate conservative," will not engage in "nation building," believe in a "humble foreign policy," and will "limit greehouse gases" (yes he said all those things), so to with Governor Palin. She says she will be a reformer, but her actions show her to be more of the same.

The problem with Palin, therefore, is not that she is inexperienced: its that she is just like George Bush.

So rather than focusing on the "experience" issue, I suggest you spread the word that we focus on this instead:

We cannot afford another George Bush in the Whitehouse, and that is exactly what Sarah Palin is.

What's the difference between Sarah Palin and George Bush? LIPSTICK.

Ask McCain about Social Security... NOW!

2008-09-17T12:42:00.000-07:00

The time is now: as Wall Street implodes, thanks in part to the deregulation and lack of oversight of our Republican administration, John McCain is desperately moving to the left in an effort to show he can handle our volatile economy.

McCain said in an interview that he didn't want the government to bail
out AIG. "But there are literally millions of people whose retirement,
whose investment, whose insurance were at risk here," he said in an
interview with "Good Morning America" on ABC. "They were going to have their lives destroyed because of the greed and excess and corruption."

Now all of a sudden, John McCain favors regulation. (Much - I'm sure - to the chagrin of free-market fundamentalists in the Republican party).

Now all of a sudden, John McCain is worried about average Americans affected by this lack of oversight and deregulation.

Yes, it boggles the mind. He was never worried about it before he had an election to lose! And as he tried to tack to the right during the Republican primaries, he often boasted about how against regulation he is.

Well, not John McCain is singing a different tune and its our opportunity to press the advantage: I'm calling on the Obama team (if you are out there and listening), to immediately question John McCain's commitment to protecting social security.

The GOP has been trying to privatize Social Security for years, despite widespread opposition. Will John McCain join the rest of the American people opposed to gambling our future on Wall Street?

We see what is happening now on Wall Street. The American people need to know this is a preview of what could happen with Social Security: one misstep, and millions of Americans will lose their retirement savings.

Social Security was set up as a trust fund. It is not supposed to be touched. It is not supposed to be gambled, and we are experiencing the reason for that right now: Wall Street is collapsing, and we cannot afford to risk retirement savings byt throwing them into the very same volatile environment.

John McCain is caught between a rock and a hard place. Will he continue to deliver his prepared talking points? Will he continue to tell the American people all we need to do is continue the Bush/Cheney tax cuts to stimulate the economy?

There is only one way to find out, and that is to press the advantage and force him into making statements on Social Security. Let him tell us where he stands now, as the financial markets crumble - and then let's call him out on it when he is forced to share the liberal position of "hands off social security."

Barbara Walters Grills McSame on "Reform"

2008-09-12T11:24:00.001-07:00

This is great.

This morning on The View, host Barbara Walters grilled John "the Same" McCain about his claim to reform Washington, and his choice of far-right Sarah "Loony Tunes" Palin as VP.

She also pressed him about his increasingly negative campaign ads.

After a predictably jokey reply (McCain's normal way of getting out of trouble, BTW), Walters wouldn't take his joke as an answer:

Walters went on to press Palin's reformist credentials, noting McCain has served in Washington for more than two decades and asking repeatedly, "who's she going to reform, you?"

McCain began to answer by saying Democrats have held control of Congress for two years, before Walters quickly interrupted: “But tell me who she is going to reform — we aren't talking about the economy, we're not talking about housing, she was chosen to reform, who is she going to reform?"

"The Democrat Party, the Republican Party, even an independent," McCain said, appearing somewhat frustrated, "She'll reform all of Washington."

"How? What will she do," Walters appearing somewhat exasperated said. "What is she going to reform specifically, senator?"

Indeed, Senator McCain who is Palin going to reform? You are talking about the Republican Party, right? That's the only thing I see that urgently needs to be reformed!

And that line about Dems being in control of Congress for the last 2 years is total bull. We need to do away with that tripe: Republicans have controlled Congress for 10 of the last 12 years. Dems don't even control congress, since we only have a majority of 1 and that person is Joe Lieberman (a Democrat in Name Only)

This appearance on The View was a preview of the debates to come. The GOP is oh-so-good at distracting and dividing America, but when it comes to policy guess what? That's right, they are just MORE OF THE SAME.

Why all the Tough Talk on Russia? Easy.

2008-09-12T08:38:00.001-07:00

Ever wonder why John "The Same" McCain, Sarah "Loony Tunes" Palin, and the rest of the far-right politicos on their team keep talking so tough about Russia?

For me, there are two rather simple answers. Why haven't we seen anyone talking about this?

#1. Iraq is old news, the GOP knows that over 70% of America wants out. Therefore they cannot use the fear of Iraq to win this election, so they need a new bogeyman and Russia's problems with Georgia present the perfect opportunity!

Once again, the GOP is playing politics with world events in the hope of scaring people into voting for them.

#2. A conflict with Russia would not only distract us from Iraq, it would also serve the purpose of making use forget about it. Make no mistake, John McCain and George Bush want a PERMANENT OCCUPATION OF IRAQ. That talk about 50 years? John McCain means it! So let's not allow the media to buy into this farce that he will change course in Iraq. John McCain will continue the Bush policy in Iraq, because he wants us to STAY PERMANENTLY.

This is the message we need to repeat: We need to focus on John McCain, not so much on the mass distraction of Sarah Palin - she is only on the ticket in an attempt to divide our country and to buy John McCain time.

John McCain knows he can't win on the issues, so his Rovian campaign managers want to distract you and divide you until election day. We cannot allow this to happen!

Its time to focus on the issues, because if we do the Republican Party is doomed: the American People know very well that the GOP has failed to secure our country both militarily and economically. We just need to remind them about it every chance we get.

And we also need to call John McCain out on this Iraq policy: HOW is it different from president Bush? John McCain wants us to stay in Iraq permanently. He wants to stoke fears about Russia so we will forget about Iraq!

My Ritual on 9-11

2008-09-11T14:45:00.001-07:00

As I walk through the streets of New york today, an air of melancholy hangs overhead like gray clouds, diminishing the sunlight and dimming one's vision.

Here, at the epicenter of the attacks the mood is somber. Faces are drawn. No one is smiling.

No doubt, people are in mourning - not just in New York - but throughout the country; for - as George Lakoff so eloquently put it in his groundbreaking work Don't Think of An Elephant - when those planes hit the Towers, it was experienced collectively as a bullet going through our heads.

We are in mourning. But politics still permeate this day.

Hand written signs at my local bagel shop proclaim the now common adage: "We will never forget."

I wonder at this phrase sometimes: we will never forget what? Those who were killed? Or those who committed this crime?

7 years later, it seems painfully clear someone in our government has forgotten both.

What they remember instead is their self-appointed heroism. Their self-aggrandizing and self-proclaimed status as our "Fiercest protectors."

Yes, while we mourn Sept 11, there are those who have reason to celebrate it: Rudy Giuliani, for example who was perhaps days from losing his job as mayor due to an adultery & corruption scandal. 9-11 saved his career, and allowed him to reinvent himself in a new image. And all his flaws faded away into the distant memory of what life used to be like before 9-11.

Yes, while we collectively mourn, some in the halls of government privately give thanks. For example, those in the Bush administration who allowed the attacks to happen on their watch despite the warnings. They are thankful for being allowed to keep their jobs despite their failures to protect us.

Bush himself must be grateful he kept his job, despite the fact he was so involved in his own vacation that he turned away federal agents who came to him with the dire warning "Bin Laden Determined to Strike US." He must be grateful the American People have not decided to hold him accountable for his delinquency.

How did those responsible for allowing this to happen, escape responsibility for their failure to protect us?

It could only happen one way: point the finger the other way, capitalize on people's fears, and distract, distract, distract. Act aggressively. Be macho. Obscure your own faults with bold pronouncements of "Wanted, dead or alive."

Today I ride the subway to my office like any other day.

I could be afraid to leave the house on a day like this. I make my own hours, so I could stay home. I ask myself why not? And the answer always comes back: because I refuse to let Fear win.

And yet, as Rudy Giuliani stood on stage at the GOP convention, in front of an image of the NY skyline - minus the Twin Towers - I can't help but think how easily the party in power has given in to that Fear. They wave a big stick and talk aggressively about how they are the only ones you can trust to keep us safe, but they failed once already and they have let Fear win the day....

... but then I realize something else: they have not given in to Fear, they have embraced it as a political weapon.

If there ever was a time as dangerous as the day of the attack itself, it is on the anniversary day itself, when fear clouds our vision, when depression casts out hope, and when anger overshadows our dreams of a better future.

It is in this psychically dangerous moment that we are the most vulnerable, that we risk losing our common vision, and instead retreat into the confines of depression and fear.

Fear is Retreat. "We will never forget"

Let me share with you my ritual, my means of "never forgetting." Every year at this time, I choose to remember Sept 12th. I go to this link and look at the pictures of people around the world standing with us; mourning with us; and being willing to fight with us.

As the GOP hammered over and over again "Never Forget," THIS is what they forgot: our moral imperatives and our our shared responsibility.

Instead of leading us through the wilderness of despair and depression, they retreated into the darkness of Fear.

Some reading this will undoubtedly say "How can you be so political on a day like today?" I would ask in return "How can you hide from it?"

We cannot allow fear to stifle our American spirit. For the last 7 years we have allowed a single political party to beat us into submission with the fear and sadness of the 9-11 attacks.

We have allowed these politicians to wrap themselves in the flag, and to divide and scare us into voting for them.

These same people allowed the attacks to happen.

Remember: Terrorism is defined as "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes." Therefore the Republican manipulation of 9-11 is actually a recognition of the basic truth that terrorism is at its root a political tool.

Thus the pattern of politicizing 9-11 in order to profit from it in elections, is one example where the GOP does understand terrorism somewhat better than anyone else; however, it also reveals a weakness in that by definition terrorism can only be defeated politically, not militarily.

You do not fight politics with conventional weapons, you fight it with ideas. That is why liberals, while not the best at manipulating terror for political ends, are nevertheless better suited to fight terrorism: because we understand that not every conflict can be solved with military force. We must use diplomacy, persuasion, and - yes - market economics.

In order to defeat the threat of terrorism, we must win hearts and minds, not stop them from beating and thinking.

Picture this: you are under attack from an unseen enemy. To swing blindly at everything around you - as if aggression alone can defeat your enemy - shows weakness.

It is an act of fear.

To fear is to surrender.

To surrender is to retreat.

Thus, invading Iraq was an act of retreat; and fighting them "over there" so we don't have to face them "over here" is an act of fear.

This is how we must redefine the debate.

Peace,
D. Tree

Karl Rove's Version of Feminism?

2008-09-11T10:43:00.001-07:00

I'm curious if anyone else finds something disturbing about this picture?

Is this an empowering image, or something else? Are we looking at feminism, or is this thinly disguised sexism?

I'm curious what others - especially self affirming feminists - think about this image, and what it means to be picked for "Second in Command?"

From CNN's Political Ticker today.

7 Lobbyists Run McCain's Campaign

2008-09-10T12:07:00.001-07:00

The McCain camp can talk all it wants about being a "maverick" or an "agent of change," but in the end, when it comes to the proverbial "facts on the ground," one thing is abundantly clear: John McCain's campaign is run and financed by lobbyists.

I'm glad to see Barack pushing back hard against the lies and swiftboat tactics of the Republicans. Here's what Obama said recently in Flint, MI:

"John McCain says that he is going to tell all those lobbyists in Washington that their days of running Washington are over, which sounds pretty good until you discover that seven of his top campaign managers and officials are -- guess what? -- former corporate lobbyists,"

CNN picked up on this story by listing the lobbyists running McCain's campaign one-by-one. You might want to make a note of these names, because it will be useful in the days to come.

The top seven lobbyists running John McCain's campaign (link)

One: Campaign manager Rick Davis is a major telecommunications lobbyist.
Two: Senior foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann recently faced scrutiny over his foreign lobbying on behalf of the Republic of Georgia, which has been embroiled in a military conflict with Russia.
Three: Senior adviser Charlie Black was a foreign lobbyist for dictators in Zaire and Angola in the 1980s.
Four: Frank Donatelli, the Republican National Committee's liaison to the McCain campaign, has had clients including Exxon Mobil.
Five: Economic adviser Nancy Pfotenhauer has lobbied for corporate giants like Koch Industries.
Six and Seven: McCain's congressional liaison, John Green, and national finance Co-chairman Wayne Berman. They both lobbied for Fannie Mae, the troubled mortgage giant.

Whew! That's a lot of lobbyists!

Take note people, these lobbyists take money from oil companies, foreign dictators, and failed wall street giants.

And John McCain and Sarah Palin want to talk about government waste? They want to talk about spending problems?

These two are with the party responsible for running our country into bankruptcy. They are also with the party who has indebted us to foreign governments!

The Republican candidate for president has been selling our country's future to foreign governments, and he has people on his campaign who make money lobbying on behalf of dictators.

If John McCain wants to show America he is the "maverick" he claims, he need to put his money where his mouth is. He can show his goodwill and honesty to the American People, by getting rid of the lobbyists who run his campaign.

It's one thing to say you are "going to" shake things up in Washington, or that you "will bring change," but you can't make those claims and expect people to believe them if you are not practicing them now, Mr. McCain.

I have a challenge for you Senator McCain: Show the American people your word is good. Show us you are not just another greedy politician being run by lobbyists. Show us this by getting rid of the lobbyists who are running your campaign.

Lesson #1 for Dems: Dont' take advice from the GOP

2008-09-09T15:22:00.001-07:00

I always find it interesting when Republicans offer Democrats election advice. I'm reminded of Karl Rove predicting "landslide wins" for the GOP congress in 2006, unless Dems followed his advice.

I find it amazing that people actually take his fork-tongued advice seriously, since it's clear he is only advising us on how to lose.

Similarly, Huckabee's campaign manager Ed Rollins published an "advice" piece for Democrats on CNN, advising us that we "should have picked Hillary for VP."
However, despite the fact that I actually kinda like funny ol' Huck, Rollins advice stunk of Rovian spin.

Among Rollins claims,

"If Obama had done the smart thing, he would have picked Sen. Hillary Clinton for vice president. If he had, he would have united his party for sure and energized his base."

Hillary would have been a controversial choice either way you look at it, but with Hillary set to testify in the Clinton's upcoming civil trial and with herlow "trustworthy" ratings, there's a lot of good reasons for her *not* to be on the ticket with Barack.

I'm sure GOP Strategists would have loved to have her on the ticket - she would have fired up their base at least as much as our own, if not more.

Rollins further claims that McCain would never have picked Palin if the Dems had Hillary on the ticket. In doing so, Rollins slips up a bit: he's acknolwedging that the ONLY reason he picked Palin was to divide Democrats.

In other words, the McCain campaign didn't pick Palin because of who she is and what she's done, but rather because she was the best female they could find to divide Democrats.

I think Hillary Clinton is a great leader and orator, but Ed Rollins "advice" comes at a suspicious time: the GOP is trying to drive a wedge into the Democratic Party with the selection of Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate.

Rollins' "advice" is timed perfectly to drive this wedge deeper by instilling doubt in our party over the pick of Biden, and by reminding people once again about Hillary.

It's all about divide and conquer for them.

We should expect the Republicans to continue to cite Hillary and remind use about our heated primary in-fighting; for, without a divided democratic party the GOP will not stand a chance in this election.

In Her Own Words: Palin's Support for Bridge to Nowhere

2008-09-08T13:44:00.001-07:00

By now, most of you know about the new ad from the McCain/Palin campaign anointing themselves as "Original Mavericks."

The ad, widely ridiculed for its false claims, states that as governor, Sarah Palin stopped the "Bridge to Nowhere."

The Obama campaign says the ad is a blatant "lie," and FactCheck.org agrees.

So here - in her own words - is the truth about Sarah Palin's support for the Bridge To Nowhere.

Example #1:

In 2006, the Ketchikan Daily News quoted [Palin] expressing optimism and support for the bridge at a Ketchikan campaign stop.

Palin, 2006:
"People across the nation struggle with the idea of building a bridge
because they’ve been under these misperceptions about the bridge and
the purpose,” said Palin, who described the link as the Ketchikan
area’s potential for expansion and growth. … Palin said Alaska’s
congressional delegation worked hard to obtain funding for the bridge
as part of a package deal and that she “would not stand in the way of
the progress toward that bridge.”

Example #2 (from Factcheck.org):

Palin answered "yes" to an Anchorage Daily News poll question about whether she would continue to support state funding for the Gravina Island bridge if elected governor. "The window is now," she wrote, "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist." It was only after she won the governorship that Palin shifted her
position. And even then, it’s inaccurate to say that she “told the
Congress ‘thanks, but no thanks.’” Palin accepted non-earmarked money
from Congress that could have been used for the bridge if she so
desired. That she opted to use it for other state transportation
purposes doesn’t qualify as standing up to Congress.

The Factcheck.org article continues, noting that the bridge flip-flop is not the only case where Sarah Palin's claims to be a government waste reformer do not match up with reality. Taxpayers for Common Sense reported that when she was mayor of the small town of Wasilia, AK, the town received more earmarks than ever before, hauling in$27 million under her leadership. What makes this all the more ironic, is the fact that John McCain has previously criticized several of those earmarks. This voter wants to know if the media will ask John McCain about his criticism of wasteful earmarks while Palin was mayor of Wasilia. Does he still think they were wasteful? If he says "yes," then how can he claim his running mate is the reformer she claims to be? If he says "no," then we must rightly ask, "Why then, Senator McCain, did you claim wasteful spending? Was it a political ploy, or is this another flip-flop?"

Wait, it doesn't stop there (link):

To help obtain these
earmarks, Palin had hired Steven Silver, the former chief of staff for
recently indicted Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, as Wasilla’s lobbyist.

And Palin continued to solicit federal funds as governor. A request form
on Stevens’ Web site shows that she requested $160.5 million in
earmarks for the state in 2008, and almost $198 million for 2009.

If you ask me, this whole thing is a political ploy. John McCain and Sarah Palin are in the pocket of lobbyists and "corporate suprematists."

They think reform is just a "brand," and its insulting for them to dress themselves up as reformers while at the same time promising a continuation of the corrupt, wasteful, and arrogant policies of the Bush & Cheney administration.

Palin & McCain: Lying about Ebay Jet Sale

2008-09-07T07:05:00.001-07:00

I know I'm not the only one who finds the two Republican candidates to resemble characters out of an episode of South Park - and as if that wasn't bad enough - their words and deeds just keep getting more cartoonish every day.

Sarah Palin, squinting like Clint Eastwood into the camera, made a claim about selling her state's luxury jet on Ebay:

"That luxury jet was over the top," she told Republican National Convention delegates when she accepted the party's vice presidential nomination Wednesday night. "I put it on eBay."

As intended, that little story line got a raucous round of applause. You could practically hear every Republican in the audience patting themselves on the back and thinking "we are so much better with money than those liberals!"

The former beauty queen is clearly comfortable in front of a crowd, and enjoys being center stage. The only problem is she misled the crowd with a story that was not entirely true.

CNN reports today, the jet didn't sell on Ebay. Palin did indeed "put" the jet on Ebay, but was unable to sell it. I guess giving her audience the whole truth wouldn't have made for such a good soundbite, huh?

Of course that hasn't stopped the kool-aid drinkers in the republican party from gleefully repeating the story everywhere they go. Even John McCain is getting in on the action, saying at a campaign stop,

"How many saw her speech a couple of nights ago? Wasn't it fabulous?" McCain said Friday during a campaign stop in Cedarburg, Wisconsin. "You know what I enjoyed the most? She took the luxury jet that was purchased by her predecessor and sold it on eBay — and made a profit."

Not so fast, Mr. McCain. The jet was sold by a private broker... for a loss!

Let's review: Palin claims to sell the plane on Ebay to the roaring approval of her audience (she will later claim she didn't lie because she never actually said she "sold" it). Faithful followers repeat the story everywhere they go as evidence of how much smarter they are, and how much better they are with money than Democrats. And finally, senile old John McCain repeats the lines given to him by his staff and swallows the lie himself hook line and sinker.

The truth never stood in the way of a good republican talking point.

This whole story is emblematic of the last 8 years of Republican rule. They make promises to bring us economic success, but bring us losses instead; they claim to be strong on security, but they've made the world a more dangerous place with their reckless foreign policy. They cast themselves as ethical, but have presided over the most corrupt government in our history. Simply put, they cast themselves as reformers, but bring us more of the same.

There's more to this issue than misleading the convention about an Ebay sale.

The real story here is about credibility and confidence. John McCain's repeating of the fake story give us a glimpse of the kind of president he will be: a man with no knowledge of the facts on his own, and who will rely on flunkies for information instead.

Echoes of Reagan and the Iran/Contra Scandal.

Reagan was so out of touch with what was going on around him, he allowed illegal arms sales to Iran on his watch. Under a president McCain, we risk another leader so clueless of his surroundings, that he would allow the worst to happen right under his nose.

We cannot afford 4 more years of people who would lie so easily about an Ebay sale; even worse, in these dangerous and complex times, we cannot afford a clueless president who will drive us ignorantly down a road to international and economic disaster.

To put it simply once again, we need a president who will be sharp as a tack, not one who is as dull as ditchwater.

As a Democrat I'm Happy with Palin's Speech

2008-09-05T08:29:00.001-07:00

You heard me right.

Because despite the cheap shots - which were to be expected - There's something people are over looking: in the end she attempted to make the speech about "Change."

And that's great for Democrats, because even if you dislike both parties equally - as many independents and "swing voters" do - there is only one party responsible for the state our country is in now, and that party has the problem of being responsible for 8 years of pathetic leadership, dwindling prosperity, and a world more volatile and dangerous than it was before.

The GOP has made America less safe.

That's right, i'm challenging the GOP on securing America, and I would gladly challenge the GOP on our economy. They've left it in shambles, and all they seem to think about is power - accumulating it and consolidating it. Can the country really afford 4 more years of this? They are ruining us.

The GOP has not only made us less safe, they have made us poorer, without health care, and they have allowed our vital infrastructure like roads, bridges, and levees to fall into shambles.

They are like bad rental tenants who trash the place they live in. And yet they stand on a stage draped in flags with signs that say "Country First."

Does the Republican Party truly put "Country First?"

Doesn't look like it to me. In the last 8 years, we've seen them lie, cheat, and steal their way through our government. A record number have been arrested and jailed for their corruption. Does that sound like "Country First?"

Democrats, on the other hand, have been fighting for ethics reform and an end to this culture of corruption. We have sought to bring the truth of Bush & Cheney's lies and abuses of the Constitution to light - even as right wing operatives sought to strip all power from Congress, in the form of record filibusters and abuses of executive power.

Its truly amazing that the Republican Party is wrapping itself in slogans of "Country First," and "Change." Their record speaks for itself: They put themselves first, and to hell with the rest of the country. Its amazing, but not really surprising. The GOP has always put "branding" before substance, slogans before content. And now they are doing more of the same.

Well, this time around I'm a bit glad, because there is no chance in hell the party that's in power will be able to run on a slogan of "Change." They adopted the Brand from us Democrats, but we are the party who came up with the idea, and we are the party who has actually made progress in ending corruption in Washington.

If the GOP wants to run on a "Change" platform, they are going to have to learn that Change is more than a brand or a slogan. There's a difference between words and actions, and the abysmal record of the GOP putting themselves first, and country last, show they still have a long way to go before they even understand that distinction.

Fred Thompson "Skewers" Himself

2008-09-03T09:13:00.001-07:00

CNN's Political Ticker reported today on Fred Thompson's speech against Barack Obama at the Republican National Convention as a Skewering of Barack Obama.

But being thoroughly wrong on History - even his own - the only person Thompson skewered was himself.

When have facts ever gotten in the way of a republican delivering their talking points?

The Republican Party just loves to invoke history, but they almost never get it right.

Thompson's mistakes one by one:

#1) Old Fred said Democrats are running "the most liberal, most inexperienced nominee ever to run for president."

Freddy boy, you got it all wrong: Barack Obama has exactly the same experience that Abraham Lincoln had when he ran for president, do you think Abe Lincoln was not a good president?

#2) Old Fred said our Democrat-led congress is "the least accomplished and most unpopular congress in our nation's history."

Oh Freddy boy, don't you know that the Democrat-led congress inherited your party's failed track record? The low approval ratings for Congress come as a result of the corruption in the GOP and the awful laws they passed.

Here's a fact for you Freddy boy: the Democratic 110th Congress broke the record for most votes on legislation, with over 1,000 votes in the first year. As a comparison, the Republican-controlled congress (also known as the "do-nothing congress") held a meager 543 votes and sabotaged the new Democratic Majority by leaving 9 of 11 appropriations bills un-passed.

Actually, the fact that Democrats broke records in passing legislation is quite amazing if you factor in the additional problem of obstructionist republicans, who filibustered a record 1 in 6 votes last year!

#3) Fred Thompson made a poor attempt at pandering to social conservatives in the audience by attacking Obama's statement that he is not qualified to determine where life begins and ends.

Well guess what Fred? This isn't a movie, this is reality. You are not just playing a part on an elaborate set. In 1994, you yourself said, "The ultimate decision on abortion should be left with the woman and not the government."

RNC just another acting gig for Mr. Thompson.

Never let the truth stand in the way of good talking points, right Freddy boy?

Speaking in hyperbole is nothing new in politics - but the republican party is scraping the bottom of the barrel this time. I don't know what's worse, the fact this actor thought he was qualified to run for president, or the possibility that he actually believes the lines he's delivering.

Fred must think he's just playing a new acting part, on the set of the Republican National Convention. It makes sense for an actor to deliver these lines, because the GOP has always cared about spin more than reality.

RNC Postponed Because Gustav Causes Bad P/R

2008-09-01T06:23:00.001-07:00

The GOP wants you to think they are canceling most of their major activities Monday night because - as John McCain said - it's time to "act as Americans, not Republicans."

But there's something else you won't hear from the GOP or read on CNN: The Republicans have big P/R problems with Gustav. At a time when possible disaster is imminent, the Republican National Convention will be low on the news reporting agenda.

The RNC must be thinking, what a terrible time to grab headlines, we can't compete with a hurricane.

But that's just part of the problem for the McCain campaign. The other part has to do with the candidate himself.

John McCain has a bad P/R image he needs to overcome, because while Katrina ravaged New Orleans in 2005, he chose to eat birthday cake with president Bush.

Now, desperate not to have images of McCain eating cake with Bush as another hurricane hits the Gulf Coast, the RNC has no choice but to tone down the political rhetoric, and to trot McCain out in front of the press with talking points about a selfless "call to action."

So while the Mainstream Media might be slow to pick up on the underlying reasons the RNC has a problem with Gustav, we all know its not just because "America needs us now no matter whether we are Republican or Democrat," it's because - as usual - for the Republican Party everything is about P/R and branding... and right now Mother Nature is raining on both big time.

McCain VP: Attack Dog with Nothing to Lose?

2008-08-31T08:59:00.001-07:00

Conventional wisdom holds that Joe Biden's job as Obama's VP pick will be twofold: to appeal to voters in the base who have not signed on to Obama's candidacy, and to attack John McCain as only another senior member of the Senate can.

In my last post, I looked at the pitfalls of the GOP's choice for McCain. One of the observations I made was that if they are willing to throw out the "too young and inexperienced" line of attack, they must have something else in store. Perhaps they have given up on that angle, and will revert to the dirty character attacks of Republican campaigns past.

That's where Sarah Palin comes in.

Clearly, the GOP still has some fight left in them after Bush destroyed their party. The advantages of having Sarah Palin on the campaign trail are obvious: she's a champion for big oil, and radical right wing base will love her (Gov. Palin opposes choice, even in instances of rape or incest).

By selecting Governor Palin as McCain's VP, the Republican Party is able to suck up to their two most important constituents: Oil companies, and right wing culture warriors.

Looking at Sarah Palin, signs of a dirty general election are ominously clear: The 2 year governor of Alaska, whose only other leadership experience was as mayor of a small town of 8,000, has nothing to lose in attacking Obama at the throat.

If the campaign is going to get personal and dirty, then it makes complete sense for the GOP to select a VP candidate who shamelessly sued the Bush Administration for putting the Polar Bear on the Endangered Species List because it might hinder oil drilling. (BTW, this is an area the Obama campaign should expand upon: Sarah Palin is so far to the right, she thought the Bush/Cheney administration too soft on the environment).

Sarah Palin, a relatively young and obscure political figure literally from out of nowhere, has nothing to lose in attacking Obama at the throat.

Perhaps that is why the GOP did not select an older more experienced candidate for the job: no one is willing to risk their political career playing dirty against the inspiring candidate that Obama is.

Not so with Palin. She has a long political career ahead of her if this works out, and nothing to lose if it doesn't. She appears willing to take the risk to further her personal political fortunes. If she loses, people will just forget about her for a few years, and she will fade in to the background again.

If this politician has no shame in putting oil companies before endangered polar bears, I have a feeling she'll have no reservations about hitting Obama below the belt on character and patriotism.

Watch out. The far-right cabal that has taken over our country knows they will lose it all if we elect Barack Obama president. There is no low they won't stoop to. We've already seen a Swift Boat attack book and commercial, and the general election has not even begun.

If you thought Bush / Kerry in 2004 was ugly, this election is going to make it look like a honeymoon.

McCain Campaign: the Greedy Dog of Aesop's Fables

2008-08-30T14:37:00.001-07:00

Like the fable of old, the GOP decision to select Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate reminds me of The Dog and his Reflection:

A Dog, to whom the butcher had thrown a bone, was hurrying home with his prize as fast as he could go. As he crossed a narrow footbridge, he happened to look down and saw himself reflected in the quiet water as if in a mirror. But the greedy Dog thought he saw a real Dog carrying a bone much bigger than his own.

If he had stopped to think he would have known better. But instead of thinking, he dropped his bone and sprang at the Dog in the river, only to find himself swimming for dear life to reach the shore. At last he managed to scramble out, and as he stood sadly thinking about the good bone he had lost, he realized what a stupid Dog he had been.

The GOP sees disaffected female Hillary supporters, and practically drools at the prospect of poaching them from the Democratic party. At the same time the GOP needs to steal as much thunder as possible from Obama's nomination, so naturally, they stage the VP announcement for the day after Obamas historic acceptance speech to 75,000 people, an event which got higher ratings than the Oscars and the Olympics.

The GOP had to do something spectacular, right? But will it hurt them in the end?

The problem for the GOP is they are focusing on short term gains, and losing track of the long view. Though they play a good game at appearing confident (remember, Karl Rove predicted the GOP would win by a landslide in 2004), the decision to select Palin as McCains running mate shows some mortal weaknesses:

In their dash to outshine Obama, they thought they had a win-win: a controversial candidate, and one who could court disillusioned female Clinton supporters at the the same time. In their haste, they didn't stop to think how Palin might play out for their strategy of attacking Obama's level of experience.

McCain campaign believes Sarah Palin is ready to be commander in chief.

The GOP's primary argument against Obama is that he is not old enough, nor has he spent enough time in Washington to be "ready to lead." That argument looks quite silly now.

One has to wonder: is the GOP is plagued by division and ineptitude, since their smartest have been arrested or left the party? Don't they realize what they are doing to their central argument?

Or, are they trying to divert our attention? Maybe they have given up on the "too young and inexperienced" argument, and plan to revert to the character attacks and whisper campaigns accusing Barack of being a secret radical.

Only time will tell, but one thing is for sure: the gloves are about to come off, and if we thought the primary was exciting, wait until the next act begins. The General election is about to start, and I think its going to get rowdy.

McCain Airs Second Ad Targeting Angry Clinton Voters

2008-08-25T07:50:00.001-07:00

Trying to capitalize on the anger of some Hillary Clinton supporters, the McCain campaign released its second ad in two days targeting Hillary voters for conversion to the Republican Party.

The ad is filled with images if Hillary Clinton herself, and features Debra Bartoshevich, a former Clinton Delegate who is now actively campaigning for the Republican Party:

"I'm a proud Hillary Clinton Democrat," says Bartoshevich, a nurse,
in the 30-second spot. "She had the experience and judgment to be
president. Now, in a first for me, I'm supporting a Republican, John
McCain.
"A lot of Democrats will vote McCain. It's okay, really!"

What Bartoshevich doesn't explain is why it will be "okay." Why would it be "okay" for someone who supports the life and cause of Hillary Clinton, to back a party that has attacked her more unfairly than even the worst democrats? Would it be "okay" to go from opposing the Iraq War to supporting it? Would it be "okay" to fight for choice, then give up and support the candidate who promises he will have a "pro life" administration? Why would it be "okay" to go from standing up for the struggles of working people, to supporting the richest and most corrupt few? How can a person be a nurse, and support the party that doesn't want to reform health care?

A Moral Quandary

No, Ms. Bartoshovich does not give any of these explanations because she has become nothing more than a sad pawn in the republican game; one has to wonder if she realizes they would sacrifice her well-being and values the minute they had a chance. Now the Republican vultures are circling over our convention, looking for easy prey:

...the campaign's "Citizens for McCain" outreach initiative to former
Clinton supporters, are being joined this week by efforts on the
ground, as senior advisor Carly Fiorina and other top McCain officials
head to Denver to recruit these disaffected Democrats.

The GOP does not stand for anything Hillary Clinton stands for. How any Democrat could be enticed to go on TV and support McCain is beyond me.

One also has to wonder at the ethics involved in being a party delegate to the Convention, who then deserts the party when the election doesn't turn out the way they wanted it. Clearly there is an ethical problem with this kind of conditional democracy, because Ms. Bartoshevich was stripped of her delegate status for supporting the opposing party.

Democracy is about cooperation toward a common cause, such that if you don't end up on the winning side you accept that fact because more people voted the other way. No such morality seems to be defining former delegates like Ms. Bartoshevich, not to mention the conflict in values a person like this must feel as they shift their support from a liberal, pro-choice Hillary Clinton to a Republican who opposes the Fair Pay Act, and claims he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Swift Boat ad against Obama could spell disaster for McCain

2008-08-23T11:09:00.001-07:00

John McCain has said time and time again that he wants to run a respectable campaign, which is why he should denounce the new - and possibly illegal - Swift Boat attack ad against Obama,

Obama's campaign responded to the ad by sending a letter to the Justice Department charging that the backers are violating criminal law and urging an investigation.... "We urge and expect the Department of Justice to fulfill its commitment to take prompt, vigorous action to enforce against criminal violations of the campaign finance laws," [Obama attorney] Bauer wrote in his letter.

Separately, Obama's attorneys are demanding that television stations spike the spot. They say the ad is "demonstrably false" and labeled it a "crude, disreputable and malicious attempt to link Sen. Obama to domestic terrorist activities."

By now we should realize that John McCain didn't mean it when he said he wants to run a respectable campaign: if that was truly the case, he wouldn't be allowing surrogates like Texas billionaire Harold Simmons (yes, the same guy who helped pay for the Swift Boat ads that attacked Kerry's military record), to pour millions of dollars into a smear campaign like this.

But John McCain has already run ads trying to portray Obama as the anti-christ, and hired second Swift-boater to his campaign team, so why stop there?

Attack ad commits typical fallacies

Typical of such attacks, the ad focuses more on Ayers than Obama, as if by tearing down the straw man of Ayers, they could do the same with Obama.

But truth in advertising - or lack thereof - never stopped ads like this from being effective, and clearly that's what his group is counting on.

Furthermore, if Simmons has such a beef against Ayers, one has to wonder why he bothers including Obama in the message at all; Obama was a mere 6 years old when these crimes were committed by Ayers. Desperate for an attack? They must be if this is all they can find.

The ad tries to claim that because Ayers committed crimes, and Obama knows Ayers, that Obama is somehow tied to these crimes. This is a type of formal fallacy : Ayers is guilty of x. Obama knows Ayers. Therefore Obama is guilty of x.

But being illogical never stopped a smear campaign from running. It never stopped the Swift Boat attacks on John Kerry's record.

One could just as easily make an ad attacking McCain for being friends with Ralph Reed, who was caught scamming money from evangelical Christians with Jack Abramhoff. Should McCain be considered guilty because of his association with Reed? Actually if McCain continues to allow ads like this to run, he may find himself having to answer uncomfortable questions like this.

How it could come back to bite McCain

Barack Obama has shown he is not afraid to hit back hard if he is attacked. He won't be the one starting the fight, but he's certainly will not be afraid to finish it.

This is dangerous area for John McCain, because he's got real skeletons in his closet. McCain benefits at least as much as Obama from a smear-free campaign, but apparently McCain's republican masters don't know how to run any other kind of campaign: they only know how to run a dirty one.

Its too bad for John McCain, because when Obama hits back he might hit back hard. That means all John McCain's past sins are fair game, and John should be really worried about that because unlike Barack Obama, McCain's sins are well documented and real, not the kind of innuendo being used in the Ayers spot.

Does McCain's campaign team really want to see TV ads recounting episodes like his cheating on his wife, or being investigated by the Senate ethics committee for corruption as one of the Keating Five? American taxpayers lost billions, while the millionaire John McCain reaped the rewards. Does McCain really want America to be reminded of this shameful past?

McCain's shady past makes it all the more bizarre they would "go there" with Swift boat style attacks: do they think Obama won't hit back? If there is one thing Democrats learned since Kerry lost and Howard Dean took over the DNC, its that we won't back down from a fight.

The alternative is that McCain's campaign truly didn't know about the Simmons swift boat attack against Obama - in which case, if John McCain wants to avoid a can of whoop-ass being opened on him by Obama, he should be the gentleman he portrays himself as and condemn both Simmons and the vile ad he created.

Can McCain's performance at Saddleback Church hurt him?

2008-08-18T12:34:00.000-07:00

The mainstream media seem to agree the major difference between Barack Obama and John McCain at Rick Warren's Leadership and Compassion Forum was a difference of style, Obama cast as the more meditative and nuanced candidate, and John McCain ans the blunt, "straight-talking" candidate.

At first you might think the event was a "no-brainer" for John McCain: he needs to motivate a lackluster Republican base if he wants to win in November. But the problem with that, has has to do with the fact the GOP base today does not look the same as it did 4 years ago.

A Friendly Crowd for McCain

In general, its true: this was John McCain's audience before he even walked into the room. Most in this group already support his candidacy by virtue of the fact he is a Republican; however, there are many evangelicals who have cast doubt McCain, Dr. James Doson being one of them.

John McCain did what he thought he must: provide the prerequisite answers to issues of social conservatism that he has been wishy-washy about in the past.

McCain treated it like an easy pop-quiz, but is it really that simple?

John McCain has often tried to cast himself as a moderate - and I don't doubt he'll continue to do that as the election draws near - but at this forum, John McCain chose to cast himself emphatically as a social conservative. How long will it take for the press to remember that in 2001, he thought about switching to the Democratic Party, and in 2004 even considered running with John Kerry as VP?

Fluffing his conservative credentials isn't the only problem for John McCain.

John McCain is not the 100% social conservative he is trying to make himself out to be. His quasi-liberal tendencies is one reason that the Republican base is still not enthusiastic about him as a candidate. But McCain needs this base demographic, so its not surprising that he did his best to pander to the crowd as much as possible, going so far as to say he would support a constitutional amendment to keep same sex couples from wedding.

Sound like the "Maverick" "Bi-Partisan" or "Moderate" John McCain that people like Joe Lieberman like to praise? Hardly.

And that leads to the other problem John McCain created for himself by embracing his answers too enthusiastically: all those moderate voters and swing voters who could go either way hear "I will be just like Bush on your Social Conservative issues." In other words, this socially conservative audience is the only one that matters to McCain... the rest of the country can take a hike?

The problems don't end there for McCain

The GOP base has veered off course since Bush's second term, and is disenchanted after republican cronies like Ralph Reed and Jack Ambramhoff were caught scamming them. At the same time, global climate change was fast becoming an important issue for the younger evangelicals. The result for the the GOP: evangelical voters either dropped out of the political process all together or - worse - they converted to the Democrat side.

So when John McCain walked into that room of evangelical values voters thinking "I've got this in the bag, the script is practically written for me," is ignoring the fact this crowd is not the same as 4 years ago: they are no longer as loyal to the GOP and a great many of them are even backing a Democrat.

Who listened closely to Jeff Warren's introduction?

Pastor Rick affirmed a shift in political evangelicalism by saying "We believe in the separation of church and state, but we do not believe in the separation of faith and politics." He continued,

"We've got to learn to disagree without demonizing each other and we need to restore civility in our civil discourse and that's the goal of the Saddleback Civil Forum."

And here is where we get to one of McCain's biggest problems: he didn't listen to Rick Warren's introduction. People are tired of "my way or the highway" one sided politics. Don't be mistaken by the enthusiasm of the audience, Obama's inroads into this demographic is a good reason for the GOP to worry.

If the objective of the forum was to restore a sense of civility to politics, and a sense of collaboration and compromise toward solving our biggest problems together, then Barack Obama succeeded in doing just that: he showed the audience that he will bring them to the table and include them in the debate.

And judging by the cheers Barack got from the crowd, a great many liked his message. In an election cycle where even top republicans won't be attending their party convention , it behooves McCain not to be overly confident about getting the party base support the same way Bush did.

Mr. Rove's dirty little fingerprints

2008-08-15T20:44:00.001-07:00

Where is Rove? Is he secretly pulling the strings behind McCain's campaign?

Close observers of John McCain's behavior might have noticed some changes in his demeanor recently: his outpouring of humor and his self-deprecating so what if I like Abba, I don't like all that popular music like Mr. Celebrity over there, manner.

Recall what Mr. Rove is good at: personality molding. Remember that he took a wealthy, Connecticut-born son of a former president and turned him into a "texas cowboy." Recall the debates in which we all thought John Kerry kicked George Bush's butt, and recall how georgie boy just shrugged and smirked his way thought the entire thing: almost belittling the process. The funny alpha male.

And now John McCain answers questions about the Iraq surplus, by changing the subject to his bad taste in music. Sound familiar?

They say Rove is "out the the country," - hiding from his subpoena? Why isn't that front-page news, BTW?

We know that Karl Rove admits he works "informally" for the McCain campaign. We are beginning to see the telltale signs of his hand at work: questioning Barack's patriotism, blind accusations about how "far left" liberals are out to destroy your way of life.

Yep, it seems like Karl Rove is back behind the scenes, coaching McCain on his demeanor, giving him some jokes... and telling him to indulge the vicious whisper campaigns by people like Jerome Corsi, and his new book, which CNN says "included several documented falshoods":

Asked by the Associated Press earlier Friday what he though of author Jerome Corsi's new book, "The Obama Nation," McCain said, "gotta keep your sense of humor."

Later on, McCain's campaign claimed the old man "didn't hear" the question, which makes me think "Then why did he answer, and what did he think he was talking about?"

Now, the McCain campaign says they have "no comment" on the book.
The symmetry to the Bush campaign is all too familiar, but I will give all that I am able to help Democrats open up a can of whoop-ass on Karle Rove, the RNC and John McCain.

Where oh where, are you Karl - come out, come out, wherever you are!

:D

Firefighters Back Obama, Criticize McCain

2008-08-14T20:46:00.000-07:00

In case you missed it this morning, the Firefighters Union endorsement of Barack Obama for president is great news, and a significant challenge to John McCain.

CNN reports today that the Union endorsed Obama because of his support of collective bargaining:

The union chose to back Obama over John McCain because of the presumptive Democratic nominee’s support of collective bargaining, which gives workers the right to jointly work with their employers to negotiate hours, salaries, benefits and overall working conditions, IAFF spokesman Scott Treibitz said.

In the coming days, I believe it won't only be firefighters who come out endorsing Obama, but other first responders as well. Our nation's first responders like EMT's, Firemen, and Police Officers are our nation's most significant protection: In an emergency they arrive first to help, and as we saw in 9/11 they sacrifice life and limb to do so. And yet, with all their fear-mongering about Sept 11th what who really stands up for our first responders?

"On every issue important to fire fighters Senator Obama is and has been in our corner," [IAFF president] Schaitberger said. "We can't overlook Senator McCain's service to our country, but we also can't overlook his poor record on issues critical to the financial security of our 290,000 members."

It is unconscionable the way the Republican Party has treated our first responders, standing in the way of bargaining rights, better health benefits, and other basic necessities. While GOP candidate John McCain likes to talk tough about war and sacrifice, his actions and those of his party have shown us they are hollow words, unsupported by reality.

A New Tea Party

2008-08-08T20:48:00.000-07:00

"No Taxation Without Representation!" patriots yelled, as they dumped valuable imported tea into the harbor to protest paying taxes to an elitist government that ceased to represent them.

In my mind, the idea of a New Tea Party has resonance today: we are once again at a point in our history where the divide between rich and poor has grown, and our government no longer represents us.

Our taxes are supposed to earn us a seat at the table. Our taxes are also the lifeblood of our economy, in that they sustain the infrastructure we use to make money. Our roads, our schools, our military, our colleges, our communities themselves are the means we use to earn wealth and achieve the American Dream.

The justification for Fair Taxes for rich and poor alike is simple: the more you use the resources of our country to earn your wealth, the more you pay to use those resources: things like roads, staff, buildings, ports, etc...

Republican talking heads say Fair Taxes somehow hurt our economy and run against free markets, but isn't it a simple law of economics that you can't get something for nothing? Would you buy a membership to a country club, and not expect to have some of it go toward maintaining the pool you use?

At this period in time, The American Dream is an impossibility for most of us. A small cabal of the wealthiest people in this country have effectively purchased our government right out from under us. The economic foundation of our unique American Promise is eroding. We are rapidly becoming colonists in a land we no longer own, and under a government that no longer represents us.

So when someone tells you Democrats are going to raise your taxes, you can always tell them this: It's time for the rest to pay their Fair Share.

If they don't, we have a proud tradition in this country of throwing off tyranny. We've done it before and we'll do it again. This time, it will be a Tea Party for the new Millennium, as we re-evaluate our citizen status and our role in a global community: not as colonists, but as full participants.

Best,
D. Tree

What Does the GOP Fear Most? Confident Dems

2008-07-30T20:52:00.000-07:00

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

2008-07-27T20:54:00.000-07:00

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

2008-07-26T21:08:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-07-26T20:57:00.000-07:00

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

2008-07-22T20:58:00.000-07:00

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

2008-07-19T21:01:00.000-07:00

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

2008-07-18T21:02:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-07-17T21:02:00.000-07:00

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 :-)

2008-07-03T21:19:00.000-07:00

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!

Why Does McCain Have a Problem with (Real) "Straight Talk?"

2008-06-30T21:18:00.000-07:00

In case you missed my post earlier today noting how John McCain's new "Truth Squad" has a member of Swiftboat Veteran's For Truth on it, it looks like John McCain's relationship to the "truth" is growing more strained by the minute.

As Thinkprogress reports today, McCain's new "Straight Talk Express" campaign plane will have a "special" area for a group of reporters to interview him. The only requirement to get access to this "special area?" Write nice things about John McCain:

John McCain is now traveling in a new "Straight Talk Express" campaign airplane.

It "features a special area" with "a couch and two captain's chairs" where "McCain will conduct group interviews with the press."

But not all reporters covering McCain can enjoy this new lap of luxury. Top McCain aide Mark Salter said "only the good reporters' would get to sit in the specially-configured section for interviews."

"You'll have to earn it," he said. So how can these reporters "earn" a seat? Never challenge the Senator, as McCain biographer Matt Welch explained in a recent interview with the Los Angeles Times:
[McCain is] very open to people. You can come on the bus, everything is great but if he knows or if his team knows that you have a hostile line of questioning or you have a long and well documented critique, they're not going to talk to you.

As a human, he's haunted by the notion of honesty and about honor and truth. He wishes that he could speak the truth all the time. He doesn't. I don't think he speaks the truth any more than any other politician really, no more, no less .

True to form, John McCain is following in the footsteps of George Bush and Dick Cheney.

Want more "free speech zones?" How about audiences in town hall meetings picked for their loyalty?

Want more politicization of our government like DOJ hiring only "loyal bushies?" How about firing US Attorneys who aren't being partisan enough?

My friends, with John McCain we can expect more of the Same.

McCain's "Truth Squad" Has Swiftboater as Member

2008-06-30T21:17:00.000-07:00

Thinkprogress reports today that John McCain's new "Truth Squad" has a former Swift Boat Veterans for Truth as a Member:

One of the members of McCain's new Truth Squad - Bud Day - was a member of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and appeared in an attack ad for the group in 2004. Day said of John Kerry’s military service: "My view is he basically will go down in history sometime as the Benedict Arnold of 1971."

So far John McCain is following in Bush & Cheney's footsteps true to form by using terms like "truth" in the name of a group whose purpose may after all be set up to disseminate lies.

Why else would he hire a former Swift Boat Veterns for Truth member as part of his own "Truth" group? Might at well call McCain's "Truth Squad" by a more accurate name: how about "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Part II?"

Lastly, and true to form, John McCain seems to lack any sense of the irony that he formed this group to respond to those who might call into question his military career... by retaining the services of someone who ran one of the most famous and widely condemned attacks on military service we've seen in modern political history.

2 Great Books by 2 Great Rappers

2008-06-27T21:12:00.001-07:00

I would like to recommend to completely different books with wildly different perspectives. What makes me pair them together? They are written by two of the most prolific and seminal rappers of our time: Fight the Power, Rap, Race and Reality, by Chuck D from Public Enemy - and Ruminations by KRS-One.

Each book goes into the very personal and interesting background stories of each of these artists, but while their individual experiences may be similar in ways, their prescriptions for the future could not be more different.

For example, Chuck D devotes a chapter to the notion of reparations and comes out in favor of the idea (and even provides some math to illustrate how much such a thing might cost), while KRS-One also devotes a chapter to reparations but speaks out against the idea - and you might be surprised at the reasons why.... (but I can't give that part away, you have to read it yourself to see why).

I highly recommend both these books for anyone interested in the topic of race, politics, and our cultural landscape in america. I especially recommend reading these two books as a way of informing yourselves about the very different perspectives, and the debate on the issue of reparations from within the black community.

The Hip-Hop Generation

2008-06-27T21:11:00.000-07:00

Like the saying goes, never discuss politics at the dinner table, the same could be said of discussing race in politics.

But today is about breaking those taboos and - I hope - creating a safe environment where people can express their views frankly, and in a spirit of unity. We need to be sure that we are on the same page when discussing these issues.

That said, the books I am going to recommend I have read myself and found both illuminating and surprising. If the topic of race and politics in America is interesting to you - for negative OR positive reasons - then I believe you owe it to yourself and to the people you engage with to be informed in as many ways as you can about the topic.

The first book I would like to recommend is The Hip-hop Generation: Young Blacks and the Crisis in African American Culture, by Bakari Kitwana.

In recent debates here on Partybuilder, I have often seen references to "young blacks" and "hip-hoppers." This book delves into the public policies and cultural psychologies of those born between 1965 and 1985.

In this book, author Bakari Kitwana does a brilliant job of laying out compelling and well-researched evidence of racially biased laws, as well as looking frankly at cultural issues like misogyny and self-perception.

Kitwana has also done extensive research on underground economies, and generational differences between those who grew up under the banner of Civil Rights, and those people who grew up in a post civil rights generation.

The book concludes with an eye-opening discussion on the changing forms of activism in a post-civil rights era, and devotes the final chapter to showcasing Hip-hop generation activists and the novel approaches they are using to help our culture progress.

This is en eye-opening book, and may change the way you look at everything from republicans to crack cocaine. It is a must-read for anyone interested in how youth culture - and hip-hop culture in particular - factor into larger cultural issues of economics, class, gender, and race.

U.S. Major General: Bush Admin "Committed War Crimes"

2008-06-18T21:07:00.000-07:00

As if it wasn't bad enough that Bush & Cheney have committed multiple crimes against our constitution, a new report released by Physicians for Human Rights found "clear" evidence of torture on terrorism suspects:

Former terrorist suspects detained by the United States were tortured, according to medical examinations detailed in a report released Wednesday by a human rights group.
...
The detainees were never charged with crimes.

In a 121-page report, the doctors' group said that it uncovered medical evidence of torture, including beatings, electric shock, sleep deprivation, sexual humiliation, sodomy and scores of other abuses.

The report is prefaced by retired U.S. Major Gen. Antonio Taguba, who led the Army's investigation into the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal in 2003.

"There is no longer any doubt that the current administration committed war crimes," Taguba says. "The only question is whether those who ordered torture will be held to account."

George Bush and Dick Cheney have perverted our constitution, and have soiled America's reputation as a beacon for liberty and human rights.

Today, I mourn for my country.

How dare you Mr. Bush. How dare you take these innocent people and torture them for years on end without charging them with a crime.

You have made our country less safe with your irresponsible and reprehensible actions. It will take us years to undo the damage you have caused to our nation; but even if it takes years to convict you of the crimes you are surely guilty of, Mr. President, rest assured justice WILL find you.

That these men were released without ever being charged with a crime is perhaps the most condemning thing of all, Mr. Bush. You are a disgrace to the office of the president.

I am speechless, except to say this to you Mr. President. In the words of Bob Dylan:

But there's one thing I know
Though I'm younger than you
Even Jesus would never
Forgive what you do

(Click "Read More" for the complete lyrics)

Barack Obama, Father of the Year

2008-06-15T18:16:00.000-07:00

As a Democrat who grew up without a father, I usually spend Father's Day giving a second tribute to my mom - who raised me, my two brothers and my sister by herself.

At the same time, being raised in a single parent family, helps me identify with Barack Obama, who was also raised by a single mother.

But throughout my life I have still sought out male role-models and father figures; to learn from, and to rely on when I needed some "fatherly" advice.

It could be teachers, bosses, or friend's fathers. So even as being raised by a single mother gave me the strongest regard for the strength and equality of women, I was still able to find male role models - even of my own father was not one of them.

But this Father's Day is a little different. While walking through my neighborhood, I picked up the current copy of Rolling Out magazine, which gave this tribute to Barack Obama, "Father of the Year":

The junior senator form Illinois is now head of the Democratic house, and thereby shoulders the burdens, responsibilities, and aspirations for the entire political family - And for a large segment of the American populace.

Like a good and competent father, Obama exemplifies leadership and positive paternal attributes by giving Americans a reason to hope and a promise that things will change for the better.

As he continues to traverse the nation, receiving rock-star treatment wherever he goes, Obama has given stern lectures about a wayward government and what he plans to do to turn it around.

He has admonished his contemporaries and adversaries to eschew the politics of divisiveness in place of the spirit of cooperation and inclusiveness. He has implored his fellow citizens to actively participate in the country's campaign to reverse its perilous course. And, as we have seen thus far, the country has responded with unadulterated enthusiasm.

So on this Father's Day I will for the first time in my life give tribute to a father: our Democrat nominee for president Barack Obama, who throughout the tortuous primary never missed a single birthday or parent-teacher conference for his two daughters.

Wish I had a dad like you Barack! But through your example, may we see more good dads in the future. I hope you enjoy this day with your 2 wonderful children.

Best,
D. Tree

Obama Delivers Powerful Father's Day Message

2008-06-15T18:14:00.000-07:00

The Obama family celebrated Father's Day together, attending services at Chicago's Apostolic Church of God.

Obama delivered a speech on fatherhood from the pulpit, and he didn't shy away from confronting difficult issues

"Too many fathers are also missing. Too many fathers are MIA. Too many fathers are AWOL. Missing from too many lives and too many homes. They've abandoned their responsibilities, they're acting like boys instead of men, and the foundations of our family have suffered because of it. You know and I know this is true everywhere, but nowhere is it more true than in the African American community," he said, delivering his straight-talking message to the African American congregation.

Obama continued, showing his commitment to confronting problems directly with honest solutions

"We can't simply write these problems off to past injustices. Those injustices are real. There's a reason why our families are just in disrepair, and some of it has to do with a tragic history, but we can't keep on using that as an excuse."

We need to be honest with ourselves if we are to rally together around the common causes of our time. Showing himself as the unconventional democrat that he is, Obama said it's not just government that we need to look toward to solve our problems, we must also look to ourselves

He recognized that the government has to change in order to improve the economy and schools, which is why he's running for president. But, he added, "The change we need is not just gonna come from government. It's not just gonna come from a president. It's gonna come from us. It's gonna come from each and every one of us. We need families to raise our children. We need fathers to recognize that responsibility just doesn't end at conception. That doesn't just make you a father. What makes you a man is not the ability to have a child. Any fool can have a child. That doesn't make you a father. It's the courage to raise a child that makes you a father."

A powerful Father's Day message indeed.

Best,
D. Tree

(and in case you missed my morning post about Barack Obama being named "Father of the Year" click here to check it out).

Obama's Plan Would Create 5 Million New Green Energy Jobs

2008-06-14T18:21:00.000-07:00

Before helping to fill sandbags in a part of Illinois hit by flooding, Barack Obama travelled to Wayne, Pennsylvania where he layed out his energy and tax plans:

According to his campaign, Obama wants to invest $150 billion over the next 10 years to establish a green energy sector; create a national low-carbon fuel standard to ensure that the fuel is more efficient, and invest in clean energies like solar, wind and biodiesel.

That, according to the campaign, would create up to 5 million new green energy jobs.

Barack Obama's economic plans will also make taxes more fair, so CEO's aren't paying less than working families and seniors.

And on taxes, Obama blasted the McCain campaign for painting him as a tax-and-spend liberal.
...
Obama said his tax plan would give "every middle-class family a $1,000 tax cut." In addition, his plan aims to eliminate income taxes for seniors who make less than $50,000 a year.

Barack Obama plans to reinvest in America by putting our resources into new green energy industries. In doing so we'll help break our addiction to foreign oil, *and* we'll create millions of new jobs right here in America.

We have an opportunity to become leaders in this new industry. Starting a new green economy in America has the potential to reverse the threat of everything from terrorism to job outsourcing and trade deficits - and if we make this modest start now, we can eventually achieve so much!

And remember, when someone says we are trying to raise taxes, you might consider saying no, we want to make them fair again. CEO's should not pay less taxes than their secretaries. If you love America, you'll agree we must all contribute, not just the working class.

McCain: "Hell, yeah" Cheney would be good in my administration

2008-06-14T18:18:00.000-07:00

John McCain digs himself deeper into third Bush/Cheney term.

This was reported a few days ago, but it keeps echoing in my mind as I see John McCain try to present himself as an independent Republican.

Thinkprogress reported that John McCain would've considered Dick Cheney for a post in his administration:

Asked whether he’d be interested in Cheney had the vice president not already have served under Bush for two terms, McCain said: "I don’t know if I would want him as vice president. He and I have the same strengths. But to serve in other capacities? Hell, yeah."

In other words, when John McCain says "He and I have the same strengths," we should understand that to mean electing John McCain president would be like electing Dick Cheney president

Just. Like. Cheney.

Can America handle a Dick Cheney as president, after nearly 8 years of misery under this one? My fellow Democrats, we must do everything we can to keep this man from winning the Whitehouse in November.

We need to unite around this common cause: defeating the Republicans and electing a Democrat president.

McCain is tricky, he tries to show independence from his Republican masters. But he voted with Bush 100% of the time, and now that he's the GOP nominee we can expect him to tow the party line - no matter how much he makes America suffer in the process.

Our country cannot afford 4 more years of Bush/Cheney policies, in the guise of John McCain.

This year the American people have presented us with an unprecedented mandate for change. Let us take this gift and use it together to win our government back for the American people, so we can enact our progressive vision for the future.

Thank you,
D. Tree

Barack Obama: Stronger Foreign Policy

2008-06-13T18:25:00.000-07:00

As several major news organizations have reported today, the policies of Democratic Presidential Nominee Barack Obama inspire more confidence around the world than those of Republican John McCain.

Thinkprogress even published this handy graph comparing approval ratings from the U.S. and 23 of our major allies:

The Pew Report also noted there is "a widespread belief that U.S. foreign policy 'will change for the better' after the inauguration of a new American president next year"

After almost 8 years of disastrous foreign policy from neoconservative Republicans, it is time for us to repair our broken alliances around the world. Clearly, the global community trusts a Democrat more than a Republican.

Do we want more of the same failed Bush/Cheney policies, or do we want to return to the intelligent policies of Democrats - policies that reduced international terrorism and increased prosperity both in the U.S. and around the world?

This November, our choices will be distinctly clear: Vote for John McCain if you want more of the same; however, if you are tired of the dishonesty and failures of the Republican party, Barack Obama is ready to turn the page and begin a new chapter in American and international prosperity.

Why Do Women Give McCain a "Zero?"

2008-06-11T18:28:00.000-07:00

John McCain was never a defender of women's rights.

After all, year after year both NARAL and Planned Parenthood have consistently given him a zero rating when it comes to women's rights.

But now that he's is the republican nominee for president, McCain's going a step further and enthusiastically embracing the medieval gender policies of George W. Bush.

For example, McCain has flip-flopped on Roe v. Wade, and now supports the immediate overturning of the landmark women's rights case..

But it doesn't end there. Check out The Real McCain, a new website devoted to exposing the lies and half-truths in John McCain's campaign.

These short videos titled "McCain Women's Clinic" by Brave New Films, imagine how the future might look for women in America, should John McCain be elected president (click the images to watch parts 1, 2, and 3):

On one hand, we have the Democrat nominee, who has received a 100% rating from NARAL. And on the other hand, we have the Republican nominee, who not only received a big fat ZERO, he also wants to overturn Roe v. Wade.

One wants us to move forward together in common purpose, while the other wants to divide us and drag us back to the dark ages.

As citizens, the choice is in our hands. In a year when candidates like Hillary Clinton opened so many doors and broke down so many barriers, let us not turn away from this progress. Let us honor Hillary's sacrifices and accomplishments by making sure the doors she opened will never be closed again.

And the way to do that to do that, my friends, is to elect a Democrat for president in November!

Top Republican: McCain will be "Extension" of Bush

2008-06-09T18:30:00.000-07:00

In a widely-ridiculed speech last Tuesday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) noted that "you will hear from my opponent's campaign in every speech, every interview, every press release that I'm running for President Bush's third term."

As Thinkprogress reports, those in McCain's inner circle have no confusion that McCain will indeed represent third term of Bush:

Today on ABC's This Week, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) stated unequivocally that McCain's tax and health care policies were not only an extension of Bush's polices but also an "enhancement":

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me bring Senator Graham back in on this because you brought up two. You said the tax policy and the health care policy were essentially, Senator Graham, John McCain is calling for an extension or maybe enhancement of the Bush policies.

GRAHAM: Yeah, absolutely.

Click Here to watch it.

As the general election campaign begins, it will be increasingly clear that John McCain is the choice for those few Americans who actually thrived under Bush and Cheney, and for Americans who want more of the same failed Republican ideas.

Republicans may tell it differently in order to persuade voters, but amongst themselves, and in their closed door fundraisers, GOP operatives are clear: they want to continue more of the same failed policies.

Change in Action: DNC Returns $$

2008-06-07T18:33:00.000-07:00

Putting Change into action, our first example: campaign finance reform.

The DNC took an historic step this week in adopting Barack Obama's fundraising rules for the 2008 election. It was a big risk never taken on by a major political organization before. We realize that we can't wait for Washington to do it for us, we need to lead by setting an example now.

Putting words immediately into action, CNN reported that the new Obama edict requires DNC to return $100,000

The Democratic National Committee is now operating under Barack Obama's fundraising rules.

The DNC today returned about $100,000 in money from lobbyists and political action committees.
...
Obama imposed the rules to avoid a conflict with his own ban on money from federal lobbyists and PACs.

Republican John McCain does accept money from lobbyists and PACs as does the Republican National Committee and other party committees.

With almost 2 million individual donors, and now adding supporters of Hillary Clinton, we can prove that when we are focused on a common cause there is no problem we can't solve.

That is the basis of this change everyone has been talking about: We have known the solutions needed for years - but we have simply lacked the political will until now.

We are witnessing the emancipation of the American voter - by banding together with small contributions, we are competing and winning.

Look out Washington, there's a wave coming your way, and it's gonna sweep the slate clean and usher in a new era of prosperity!

"The Speech" Against the Iraq War

2008-05-26T18:35:00.000-07:00

This is a speech that is often referred to, but seldom quoted. If you were one of the millions protesting against the invasion of Iraq, you probably remember how it felt to have someone stand with you against the war.

I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

October 2, 2002 - a mere year since 9/11. Under the shroud of mourning, our country was going through a dark period in which dissent was quashed and criticism was shouted down.

We watched our government march into an illegal war against our wishes, with a sense of hopelessness many can never forget. Who was standing up for us? Where were our elected leaders?

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression

A power-mad president, and a Republican majority in Congress - and many of our own Democrats *not * fighting for us, *not* standing up for us. Most not even trying.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

Millions of citizens knew it was wrong, why couldn't they see it to? Only a few did - (23 Senators opposed the war.)

Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

And, at noon on Wednesday, October 2, 2002 - the same day and hour President Bush announced his agreement with Congress on a joint resolution authorizing the Iraq War - Illinois Senator Barack Obama stood up for us and fought Against Going to War with Iraq

You want a fight, President Bush?

Please click HERE to read the whole speech.

This Memorial Day I would like to reaffirm this commitment: that for each soldier who enlists their life to defend our liberty, we civilians bear a solemn responsibility to keep them from being sent into harm's way unless it is absolutely necessary.

Thank you, and support the troops: bring them home.
D. Tree

Embrace the Base

2008-04-21T18:38:00.000-07:00

WHO

OUR

BASE?

Click "READ MORE" to find out why its important to embrace the base....

"Strength" and "Weakness"

2008-04-17T18:41:00.000-07:00

There is a difference of opinion in our country about what constitutes "Winning," and what constitutes "Losing" - about what we see as "Strength," and how we view "Weakness."

We seem to have a disagreement in our culture about this. The disagreement tends to come out a lot in our politics: how we view "Liberals," and how we think of "Conservatives."

Certainly, we tend to value "The Fighter" over "The Peacemaker" - this is something our party of Democrats has had to contend with for some time; a characterization that is not really accurate - we have always been called "weak", but it only depends on which value system you use to weigh "Strength" or "Weakness."
For me, war is fear, and fear is weakness.

Is the answer for liberals simply that we act "Tougher?" Is it true to our values that we emulate the very traits we are supposed to stand against?

Not for me. Not my value system. My values are based in what the great orator Martin Luther King Jr. called The Strength To Love.

King reminds us:

Fear is mastered through love. The New Testament affirms, There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear. This kind of love is not soft, anemic, and sentimental. Such love confronts evil without flinching and shows in our popular parlance an infinite capacity "to take it." Such love overcomes the world even from a rough-hewn cross against the skyline.
(p120 Antidotes for Fear)

President Bush is a coward

2008-04-09T18:45:00.000-07:00

President Bush is a coward for sending Gen. Peteraeus to congress.

The president cannot defend his own decisions - so he sends s soldier to deliver a scripted progress report.

A soldier follows orders - and by all indications, Petraeus is a good soldier.

But a good soldier will not offer criticism, nor will a soldier question their mission objective.

Its not the soldier's fault that he had to read from a script, its not the soldier's fault that our progress remains as it was a year ago.

No, it is the fault of the president - who sent these soldiers on a flawed and fatal mission. They will continue to attempt to succeed against great odds, but it's not a failure of our soldiers when they can't complete an impossible mission: it is the fault of their commanders.

And there is one commander who set this all in motion: that is president Bush - the "Commander in Chief" - who hides his decisions behind his "Commanders on the ground."

And who sent a soldier to congress to defend his fatally prideful objective: forcing a country you have bombed to oblivion to become your friend; pointing a gun at religious sects that have been historical enemies and expecting them to get along. Killing over a million civilians and asking their relatives to like you. Folks, that's just not gonna happen.

Iraqis don't want Al Qaeda in Iraq - but as long as we stay in Iraq attracting foreign fighters we are only making it more difficult for real Iraqis to come together.

No one is saying we should recklessly retreat. But the only way to stop the inflow of foreign fighters is by redeploying to the border areas and by asking the Saudis to do more to stop them; and the only way to make Iraqis come to a consensus about how to run their country is by getting out of the way and letting them run their country.

But unfortunately there is another untold story here - a mission objective of the President's that doesn't get talked about enough: his friends at KBR and Halliburton and the billions of tax dollars they have pilfered in this war. They are addicted to our tax dollars and perhaps that is the real reason the president makes us stay: is he using our military as glorified security guards for his rich friends?

Its a depressing thought, but at this point nothing this coward with a fake Texan accent does would surprise me.

Most Suicide Bombers in Iraq Come from Saudi Arabia

2008-04-09T18:43:00.000-07:00

(note, this was originally posted here; my friends, we must be vigilant always: already the news media is repeating the fraudulent Iran-insurgency connection. We cannot allow president Bush to continue to spread this lie)

-----

Today's L.A. Times confirms that most foreign fighters and suicide bombers in Iraq are actually from Saudi Arabia, NOT Syria or Iran:

Although Bush administration officials have frequently lashed out at Syria and Iran, accusing it of helping insurgents and militias here, the largest number of foreign fighters and suicide bombers in Iraq come from a third neighbor, Saudi Arabia, according to a senior U.S. military officer and Iraqi lawmakers.

White House Press Corps, are you listening? Personally, I would like to see the White House Press Corps do its job and ask the president to explain why he supports military action against Iran, when Saudi Arabia is responsible for more suicide bombers than anyone else.

Since we can't contact the press corps directly, this is a perfect opportunity to Write a letter to the editor of your local paper. Clicking on this link will take you to the Partybuilder Letter-writing Tool. Simply enter your zip-code, select the paper you wish to write to, and send your letter. Simple as that!

Click "Read More" to see what I wrote, and feel free to copy & paste for your own letter!

McCain's God Problem

2008-04-07T20:18:00.000-07:00

For those of you who don't know him, Deepak Chopra is a medical doctor and widely published author on Spirituality.

I came across this great article Chopra wrote on John McCain and his islamophobic preacher Rod Parsley, who calls Islam a "false religion" that should be "destroyed."

I recommend this short article to any voter interested in spirituality, and in changing course of our "war on terror."

Deepak Chopra: McCain's Islamic Problem Isn't a Preacher Problem

But McCain does have an Islamic problem, because Rev. Parsley's view that Islam is a false religion is a view that millions of Americans agree with.
...
Our avid warmakers would be outraged if told that "shock and awe" is a sanitized way of describing terrorism, yet anyone on the ground in Baghdad was certainly terrorized. There's no doubt that an innocent Iraqi citizen is just as dead whether killed by American shrapnel or abducted in the dead of night and murdered by Shiite thugs who drill holes in his head.
...
Which brings us to McCain's central problem, which is that he shows signs of false consciousness born of ideology when it comes to the war. It's a distressing symptom in someone who otherwise seems to be guided by a steady moral compass. Without stooping to the dishonesty and misinformation that the Bush administration used to launch the war, McCain has arrived at the same doomed conclusion: this is a war of honor. Unfortunately, it isn't. It's a war of atavistic vengeance and tribalism on one side and militaristic nationalism and arrogance on the other. It would be easier if McCain only had a preacher problem when in actuality he has a God problem, specifically, an all-too-common American tendency to want to play God around the world.

I am a peace democrat who marched against the war with millions of other Americans. 133 members of Congress voted against this war. Other courageous leaders spoke out against it.

Just as I mourn the 3,000 people killed on 9/11 and the more than 4,000 soldiers killed in Iraq, my conscience also requires that I mourn the more than 1,000,000 Iraqis killed as a result of our invasion.

How ironic is it that the American Invasion of Iraq will have killed more Iraqis than Saddam himself in his acts of "Genocide." It is an irony worthy of a Greek tragedy, but it is not over yet - we will continue down this disastrous course as long as we have leaders who refuse to talk with our enemies; leaders who choose preemptive war over investigation and international law.

For those leaders who continue to gamble with the lives of our troops and the lives of countless innocents who will die from our bombs; leaders who refused to condemn this war - who refused to speak out against this immoral invasion: The blood of innocents is on your hands, and as Bob Dylan once sung in Masters of War, "Even Jesus would never forgive what you do."

"Warmonger" comment upsets McCain

2008-04-06T20:23:00.000-07:00

war·mon·ger: -noun a person who advocates, endorses, or tries to precipitate war.

The Arizona Senator's feelings were hurt when radio talk show host Ed Schultz referred to him as a "Warmonger" at North Dakota Democratic Party event.

Obama campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki responded to the flap by saying,

"John McCain is not a warmonger and should not be described as such. He's a supporter of a war that Senator Obama believes should have never been authorized and never been waged,"

If McCain is so sensitive about people thinking of him as a warmonger, maybe he should re-think his association with the Republican Party; after all, its not too hard to figure out why people think of him that way: John McCain is a member of a party that has actively endorsed war as a means for solving problems. He supports the platform of an administration that has precipitated war. John McCain voted for the Iraq War, and has been a member of a political party that continually seeks to profit financially from war.

Indeed, the "Warmonger" comment was technically accurate if we look at the definition of the word. John McCain's association with the GOP is an endorsement of those values. Since John McCain is so upset about being thought of this way, maybe he should think about the people and ideologies he represents in his run for the presidency.

Maybe he should leave the GOP and just drop out of the race now, if he can't handle being associated with the warmongering Republican Party.

Rumors have circulated that he considered switching the the Democratic Party - well, if he changes his tune about 100 years in Iraq, he might be welcome - but take note John, us Democrats are plenty used to being called much worse. If you can't take the heat, get out of the fire.

Power to the People

2008-04-03T20:24:00.000-07:00

Normal people like you and I are taking back our country. We're tired of lobbyists and special interests who think they own our government. The Founders were clear: we shall not be taxed unless we are represented.

Barack Obama's campaign is a shining example of what happens when normal people take on the special interests. Today, it was reported that Obama raised over $40 million from more than 442,000 individual donors.

Barack Obama's campaign announced a March haul of more than $40 million, raised from more than 442,000 donors. There were more than 218,000 first-time donors, and the average contribution level was $96.

Meanwhile, CNN reports the Clinton campaign is staying silent about their fundraising, waiting until the official deadline to post their earnings - two days before the Pennsylvania primary

What is the Clinton campaign afraid of releasing? Clearly, they think this information might hurt them in the Pennsylvania primary. Otherwise, you'd think they want the information out there.

Maybe its because Hillary Clinton accepts so much money from Washington Lobbyists - in fact, Clinton has received more money from the Drug Industry than any of her Senate colleagues, including republicans.

Or maybe it's must that she doesn't have so many individual donors - and relies more on large, corporate donations.

One thing that this election has shown is that ordinary Americans are sick of politics as usual, and when we come together and pool our resources we can compete with the big-money special interests that have dominated Washington for too long!

Bonus information on the highly anticipated Clinton tax returns:

Wolfson also said he expected Clinton's tax returns to be released soon. Clinton pledged on March 25 that she would release her returns within a week.

Note: it has been 8 days. Ahem. We wait.

Pragmatic Visionary and Tough

2008-04-02T20:25:00.000-07:00

These are words Foreign Policy expert Lee Hamilton - top Democrat on the Sept. 11th Commission and co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group - used to describe the leadership of Senator Barack Obama.

Hamilton, who was chairman of the Foreign Affairs and Intelligence Committee during his 30 year career in the House of Representatives, endorsed Obama for president today:

Lee Hamilton endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for president Wednesday, praising his ability to transcend partisan division and calling his foreign policy outlook "pragmatic, visionary, and tough."
...
"Barack Obama has the best opportunity to create a new sense of national unity and to transcend divisions within this country, not by ignoring them or smoothing them over, but by working together with candor and civility to meet our challenges,"

Barack Obama's foreign policy ideas are indeed a refreshing change from the reckless swaggering of the Bush/Cheney administration. Of all the candidates running for our highest office, Barack Obama is the only one to adopt John F. Kennedy's ideal of never negotiating out of fear, but never fearing to negotiate.

The presidency is not a pulpit of pride, as the other candidates would have us believe; no, the president must be willing to put themselves on the line on behalf of the American People. It is not the other way around - where our troops pay the price for the inability of world leaders to simply talk with each other.

Regardless if we agree with all these foreign leaders, the president must have the courage and humility to put themselves on the line first. Anything else would be prideful and cowardly.

And we've certainly had enough chicken-hawks in Washington these last few years. Its time for a change, and there is only one candidate who offers us a new direction in foreign policy leadership.

Who says young voter's are not informed (about health care)?

2008-03-31T20:27:00.000-07:00

The Topic: Health Care Reform

The Subject: Barack Obama's plan to reform the Health Insurance Industry and to make high-quality and affordable Health Care available to all US Citizens.

The Questions: Which plan has a better chance at passing? Which one works better? Why?

If the answers to these questions matter to you, please click the image below, and listen to young Derrick Ashong's detailed and informed explanation.

(Click the image to watch the video)

This has got to be one of the most detailed and reasonable explanations of why Barack Obama's plan to reform the health insurance industry is the better plan.

When people say it's not possible to change the way we do things in Washington, maybe we should ask ourselves why? Is it because the way Washington works ultimately benefits these people?

Perhaps its because they are beholden to the very special interests they promise to reform? For example, Hillary Clinton and John McCain accept millions of dollars from Washington Lobbyists - in fact, Clinton herself is single largest recipient of Drug Lobby money in the entire Senate.

Barack Obama asks us to think about this: It's not a lack of solutions that prevents positive change in Washington, its a lack of political will.

If that doesn't give you pause about the competing health plans, then it should. Now I'm off to the library to try and get about half as educated as young Derrick.

Best,
D. Tree
(sign the pledge to support our nominee:click here).

P.S. - please watch the video before commenting, thanks!

Fair and Rational People: The Truth About Obama's Church

2008-03-26T20:28:00.000-07:00

Did you know that Trinity United Church of Christ is part of the larger United Church of Christ, a predominantly white denomination? Did you know there are more than 1.2 million members of this church - mostly white?

How is it then, that some people believe this church is somehow "militant black supremacist," and why are people so angry about rev. Wright's sermon - a sermon which was certainly critical of American foreign policy - but was hardly the racist and hateful thing so many reactionaries believe it to be?

Well, the answer is quite simple: those angry critics have neither listened to the complete sermons of rev. Wright, nor have they made an effort to learn the truth about this church and what it represents. And yet, they have the gall to condemn not only rev. Wright as "full of hate," but they also have the audacity to claim the same about Barack Obama and every one of the 1.2 million members of UCC for even being associated with the church.

I'm willing to bet most of these folks have not even taken the time to read or listen to Barack Obama's historic speech on race relations. As one writer put it, "it is truly disingenuous and deceitful to insult someone without even bothering to hear their side of the story."(source)

This is a call for all those who consider themselves rational people: Reverend John H. Thomas, President of United Church of Christ (pictured above) has a message for you:

Those who sifted through hours of sermons searching for a few lurid phrases and those who have aired them repeatedly have only one intention. It is to wound a presidential candidate. In the process a congregation that does exceptional ministry and a pastor who has given his life to shape those ministries is caricatured and demonized.

...

But what was his real crime? He is condemned for using a mild "obscenity" in reference to the United States. This week we mark the fifth anniversary of the war in Iraq, a war conceived in deception and prosecuted in foolish arrogance. Nearly four thousand cherished Americans have been killed, countless more wounded, and tens of thousands of Iraqis slaughtered. Where is the real obscenity here? True patriotism requires a degree of self-criticism, even self-judgment that may not always be easy or genteel.

...

How ironic that a pastor and congregation which, for forty-five years, has cast its lot with a predominantly white denomination, participating fully in its wider church life and contributing generously to it, would be accused of racial exclusion and a failure to reach for racial reconciliation.

...

Today we watch as the gap between the obscenely wealthy and the obscenely poor widens. More and more of our neighbors are relegated to minimal health care or to no health care at all. Foreclosures destroy families while unscrupulous lenders seek bailouts from regulators who turned a blind eye to the impending crisis. Should the preacher today respond to this with only a whisper and a sigh?

...

I pray we will be shrewd enough to name the hypocrisy of those who decry the mixing of religion and politics in order to serve their own political ends.

I beseech every person who considers themselves rational and objective to set aside your anger, and take a minute to learn about UCC and what it really stands for. Please maintain respect when commenting, and at least demonstrate your fairness by reading the excerpts of Rev. Thomas' message before posting your replies. (Click Here to read the full text of Reverend Thomas' message.

Peace,

D. Tree

Obama Inspires Easter Sermons

2008-03-24T20:33:00.000-07:00

Barack Obama's historic speech on race relations seems to be having a significant impact on the religious discourse among devoted Christians. Over the weekend, the New York Times reported on how Obama's call for an open dialogue has made its way into the Easter sermons of Churches across the country

The response to the controversy from the pulpit will vary, of course, depending on a church's denomination, racial composition and political and theological leanings, as well the predilections of the pastor. The Wright controversy is a natural topic for those in the United Church of Christ, a predominantly white denomination that includes Mr. Obama's and Mr. Wright's church, Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago (the largest church in the denomination).

Here are some notable excerpts....

Philip L. Blackwell, senior pastor at the First United Methodist Church at the Chicago Temple:

"The church needs to be a community within which the pain can be shared," said Mr. Blackwell, who is white and leads an urban, racially mixed congregation. "The grievances can be aired, and the power of that can be directed toward the "new creation" that is portrayed in the Resurrection."

The Very Rev. Tracey Lind, dean of Trinity Episcopal Cathedral in Cleveland:

"I'm going to talk about the stones that need to be rolled away from the tombs of lives, that are holding us in places of death and away from God," Ms. Lind said. "One of the main stones in our churches, synagogues, mosques, communities, countries, world is the pervasive stone of racism. What Obama has done is moved the stone a little bit.

"I will ask our congregation to look at the stones in our lives," she said.

The Rev. Dean Snyder, pastor of Foundry United Methodist church, (which was the Clintons' home church during President Bill Clinton 's tenure):

said he noticed the rising awareness among some African-Americans of white Americans, he said, "who don't understand the history of black people in this country and the role of the black church as a prophetic voice, and that in church you can say things that you couldn't in larger society."

The Rev. Kent Millard of St. Luke's United Methodist Church in Indianapolis:

said he felt Mr. Obama had explained the reality of the relationship between a pastor and his congregates.

"Senator Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is member of our congregation, and I would hope he would never be held accountable for everything I have said in the last 15 years," said Dr. Millard, who is white. "Why is there any assumption that a person in church is expected to agree with everything a pastor says?"

So, what do others think about these statements? At the very least, Barack Obama's speech seems to have inspired the religious community as being the words of a man who has thought deeply on this issue, and who has worked his entire life to bring people together. He showed true presidential leadership by transforming something hurtful into something helpful; by challenging us to be the better country we want to be; and by acknowledging our historical differences with honesty, and then setting them aside in an effort to inspire unity, common purpose, and hope for a better future.

Generations of Spiritual Tradition, Reduced to a Soundbite

2008-03-24T20:31:00.000-07:00

Once upon a time in the Democratic Party, we gave our fellow progressives the benefit of the doubt. It seems in this increasingly bitter nomination fight, your fellow dems have become fair game - perhaps to the point of alienating forever, one of our most dedicated voting blocs.

From the New York Times

Some black ministers said that their sermons might address how the reputation of a man many of them revere was reduced to sound bites. They pointed out that sermons in black churches covered a long and circuitous path from crisis to resolution, and it was unfair to judge the entire message on one or two sentences.

"I may not use his exact language," said the Rev. Kenneth L. Samuel, pastor of Victory Church in Stone Mountain, Ga., "but I can tell you that the basic thrust of much of my preaching resonates with Dr. Wright. I don't think I'm necessarily trying to preach people into anger, but I am trying to help people become conscious, become aware, to realize our power to make change in society."

As the angry mob continues to attack and condemn the hardworking and decent people of the United Church of Christ, with the all but explicit call-to-arms of a "Kitchen Sink" strategy, the Democratic Party itself treads a razor's edge.

It is a gamble indeed, to put the importance of one's own career above the good of the Democratic Party, and the traditional voters who have been among our most dedicated supporters.

In the end, I feel it may be one candidate's lack of action in reigning in their more angry and mob-like supporters that will make them lose the nomination.

An Affront to the American People

2008-03-23T20:35:00.000-07:00

In an apparent violation of both the spirit and the letter of the law, the White House disclosed in Federal Court that computer hard drives containing over 10,000,000 e-mails from 2003-2005, "have been destroyed.":

The White House revealed new information about how it handles its computers in an effort to persuade a federal magistrate it would be fruitless to undertake an e-mail recovery plan that the court proposed.
...
The White House says it does not know if any e-mails are missing, but is looking into the matter.

Contempt for the American people; disdain for our Constitutional values; obstruction of justice; and, plain old dishonesty... all in a day's work for the Bush/Cheney White House.

Such gross disregard for the American people is not merely negligence, it is a blatant violation of the Presidential Records Act, which states the Archivist of the United States must be consulted before any White House records are disposed of.

These people knew they were supposed to preserve records, and they knew these records contained important information about the run up to the Iraq War and Plamegate - and they destroyed them to avoid accountability.

What can you do? Click here to contact your senator, and tell them you are concerned the White House is breaking the law in and effort to obstruct a legitimate investigation.

Given the track record of this administration, and it's 1,000 documented lies in the rush to war, we must demand the appointment of an independent council, or at the very least a manual recovery effort on each individual White House computer.

It's never too late to send a signal to the Bush Administration, that the American People are tired of the lies and dishonesty. We are sick of being treated like imbeciles: Mr. President and VP Cheney, you have disrespected America. We will not tolerate your abuse of the law and your contempt for the american people any longer.