Just have to share…

… this great post from David Sirota:

A new poll out tells us what we already know: though 56 percent of Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, more voters have positive feelings about Republicans than Democrats. As pollster Stan Greenberg notes, “Republicans weakened in this poll… but it shows Democrats weakening more” and that decline by Democrats is because people believe Democrats have “no core set of convictions or point of view.”

Most likely, the entrenched Democratic elites in Washington are shocked at this, especially with all the scandals surrounding top Republicans. But then again, these same elites are the ones who have helped run the party into the ground over the last decade – we shouldn’t expect them to understand much more than how to protect their own careers in the Establishment.

So in the interest in boiling it down for these people, let’s make it very clear as to why America still thinks Democrats stand for nothing:

- When you vote with Republicans for an energy bill that showers huge oil/gas companies with massive tax breaks at a time of record deficits, and that energy bill won’t lower the cost of gasoline, Americans will believe you stand for nothing.

- When you ignore public demands for a withdrawal/exit strategy from Iraq, and instead vote against legislation requesting the President explain an exit strategy from the war, Americans will believe you stand for nothing.

- When you say you are for economic fairness, and then your top leaders start negotiating the elimination of the Estate Tax that falls on the wealthiest 2 percent of citizens, Americans will believe you stand for nothing.

- When you deride the fact that the Bush administration lied to the country about the war and about its behavior before 9/11, and then vote to confirm chief liar Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State, Americans will believe you stand for nothing.

- When you claim to care about protecting ordinary citizens’ economic rights, and then corral corporate lobbyists to help pass a bill allowing credit card companies to gouge those same ordinary citizens, Americans will believe you stand for nothing.

- When you say you want workers to be protected in their workplace, and then vote to limit workers’ ability to fight for their rights in court, Americans will believe you stand for nothing.

- When you say you oppose unfair trade deals that sell workers out, and then refuse to voice any opposition to the latest corporate-written trade deal that sells workers out, Americans will believe you stand for nothing.

Please read the whole terrific post.

The anesthesia is wearing off…

I spotted snippets of this on Daily Kos and Eschaton, but wanted to read all the gory details. Here’s a good part:

In a more significant sign of the weakness of the President’s numbers, more “Red State” voters—that is, voters living in the states that cast their ballots for the Bush-Cheney ticket in 2004—now rate his job performance unfavorably, with 50% holding a negative impression of the President’s handling of his duties, and 48% holding a favorable view. The President also gets negative marks from one-in-four (25%) Republicans—as well as 86% of Democrats and 58% of independents. (Bush nets favorable marks from 75% of Republicans, 13% of Democrats and 40% of independents.)

Impeachment Question Shows Bitterness of Divide

In a sign of the continuing partisan division of the nation, more than two-in-five (42%) voters say that, if it is found that President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should hold him accountable through impeachment. While half (50%) of respondents do not hold this view, supporters of impeachment outweigh opponents in some parts of the country.

Among those living in the Western states, a 52% majority favors Congress using the impeachment mechanism while just 41% are opposed; in Eastern states, 49% are in favor and 45% opposed. In the South, meanwhile, impeachment is opposed by three-in-five voters (60%) and supported by just one-in-three (34%); in the Central/Great Lakes region, 52% are opposed and 38% in favor.

Impeachment is overwhelmingly rejected in the Red States—just 36% say they agree Congress should use it if the President is found to have lied on Iraq, while 55% reject this view; in the “Blue States” that voted for Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry in 2004, meanwhile, a plurality of 48% favors such proceedings while 45% are opposed.

A large majority of Democrats (59%) say they agree that the President should be impeached if he lied about Iraq, while just three-in-ten (30%) disagree. Among President Bush’s fellow Republicans, a full one-in-four (25%) indicate they would favor impeaching the President under these circumstances, while seven-in-ten (70%) do not. Independents are more closely divided, with 43% favoring impeachment and 49% opposed.

Which reminds me that, despite the administration’s best efforts, the Downing Street Memo won’t die. It was on the front page of the Washington Post Monday. The analysis makes a nice two-fer with news of a general’s admission of the secret air war waged a bit ahead of schedule, to soften resistance for the invasion no one had decided on yet.

Same old same old

As you all know by now, the president who doesn’t make policies based on polls was trotted out in primetime to make his believers feel better and to stanch the plummeting approval and opinion ratings. Of course, I could not bear to watch or listen to him, so I read the transcript (thus missing out on the fake applause that even Fox noticed). It sounded, I don’t know, vaguely familiar? The NYT found the nerve to be less than effusive for a change:

The speech offered no new policies or course corrections, and for the most part was a restatement of the ideas and language that he has been employing for two and a half years to explain the war and assert that it is an integral part of a broader struggle to protect the United States from terrorism.

Using language that infuriates his opponents who say there is no link between the Iraq war and Al Qaeda, he specifically cast the battle in Iraq as part of the bigger conflict that began with the Sept. 11 attacks, which he mentioned explicitly five times and alluded to at others, and invoked the specter of Osama bin Laden.

“We fight today, because Iraq now carries the hope of freedom in a vital region of the world, and the rise of democracy will be the ultimate triumph over radicalism and terror,” he said. “And we fight today because terrorists want to attack our
country and kill our citizens, and Iraq is where they are making their stand.”

It was, in essence, a repeat of a speech he delivered 13 months ago, when he assured the nation during an appearance at the Army War College that while the job of achieving stability in Iraq would be hard, he had a plan - and the United States had
the will - to see it through.

So he certainly didn’t give the speech John Kerry said he should give. And his repeated opposition to setting a time table for withdrawal is amusing, given his conviction while running for president. The five references to 9/11 are desperate and shameful, but RoboScottie McClellan - ever on message - began warming up the audience at his Monday press briefing. So we knew it was coming. In fact, the minions are all over it, everyone apparently forgetting that their boss already admitted there was no connection between Hussein and 9/11 (via Buzzflash). Even John McCain, a Republican I’ve actually been able to respect from time to time, stuck to the playbook:

Republican Sen. John McCain defended Bush’s call to stop terrorism abroad before it reaches the US shore in an appearance on CNN’s “Larry King Live” program. He said those spreading violence in Iraq “are the same guys who would be in New York if we don’t win in Iraq.”

More to come, in bits and pieces. My stored up notes and links are starting to overwhelm me, but I injured my “mousing” hand during the move, which makes internet perusing a little unpleasant. (A friend wrote to say he was glad to see the blog “humming” again; not sure I would call this “humming,” but we’re at least lurching along.)

They’re really, really, really opposed to gay marriage

The Revealer liked the well-done-but-tough-to-stomach Russell Shorto NYT Magazine feature on gay marriage opponents. One of our frequent commenters (thanks, ‘B’) recommended it to me, too, and I did finally read it. I had the same thought I always have when I contemplate this issue for long: “Can’t these people turn some of their energy and commitment toward fixing the things that are really wrong with this world?” But to the people opposed to it, gay marriage is emblematic of what’s wrong with this world.

(T)he Christian activists aren’t vague in their opposition. For them, the issue isn’t one of civil rights, because the term implies something inherent in the individual — being black, say, or a woman — and they deny that homosexuality is inherent. It can’t be, because that would mean God had created some people who are damned from birth, morally blackened. This really is the inescapable root of the whole issue, the key to understanding those working against gay marriage as well as the engine driving their vehicle in the larger culture war: the commitment, on the part of a growing number of people, to a variety of religious belief that is so thoroughgoing it permeates every facet of life and thought, that rejects the secular, pluralistic grounding of society and that answers all questions internally.

Worth reading the whole long feature (with a roll of Tums nearby), if nothing else, for the cultural enlightenment.

Will there be books in it?

I’m having a very hard time getting my head around the concept of a Bush Library.

In case you don’t know where you stand…

Via stranger fruit I came across the Political Compass which takes your answers to a series of questions and situates you on a quadrant of Authoritarianism/Libertarianism and Leftism/Rightism. My coordinates were -8.5 on the economic scale and -6.15 on the social scale. So that establishes it, then. I am liberal. Have you read what “the most despicable man on the American political scene” said yesterday about liberals? You can just click through and read it; I don’t want to give him the space. When things are going badly for Bush count on Rove to ramp up the 9/11 rhetoric.

Settling in

I really intended for postings to be a bit more regular after school ended and the move was completed, but there’s all this unpacking to do! And after things are unpacked, they must find places to live. Various friends who helped with the move have told us that it inspired them to go home and purge. Well, we aim to inspire. It has inspired me to purge, too, but this is a democratic household and votes must be taken on the dispersion of many items, so the going is slow. Anyway, thank you for your ongoing, endless patience, and for checking back in from time to time. Nice to know you’re still reading.

"Lying to Congress is a felony."

The After Downing Street organizers had a terrific editorial in the Baltimore Sun last week (yes, I’m trying to tidy up and post the links I’ve been stashing away, after losing a couple days to jury duty). Here’s just a bit of it:

The evidence suggests that Mr. Bush has lied to Congress and to the American people about the justifications for war. It includes a formal letter and report that he submitted to Congress within 48 hours of launching the invasion in which he explained the need for the war in terms that appear to have been intentionally falsified, not mistaken.

Lying to Congress is a felony. Either lying to Congress about the need to go to war is a high crime, or nothing is.

AfterDowningStreet.org, a coalition of veterans groups, peace groups and other activist organizations, is urging Congress to introduce a Resolution of Inquiry that would require the House Judiciary Committee to hold formal investigations with the power of subpoena. The result would be a determination as to whether the president has committed impeachable offenses.

The NYT’s Scott Shane (is this a new guy?) provided fair and decent coverage of Conyer’s hearings on Thursday, unlike the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank.

Paul Krugman reads the Toledo Blade, too

Krugman on Coingate:

The Toledo Blade’s reports on Coingate - the unfolding tale of how Ohio’s Bureau of Workers’ Compensation misused funds - deserve much more national attention than they have received so far. For one thing, it’s an entertaining story that seems to get weirder by the week. More important, it’s an object lesson in what happens when you have one-party rule untrammeled by any quaint notions of independent oversight.

Read the whole column. And speaking of Coingate… Call me a cynic, but isn’t it convenient that a fellow who is under investigation in the the rapidly growing Ohio Coingate scandal returned from vacation to find that his home had been burglarized and all his expensive, confiscatible collectibles are gone!

Ah ha…

I suppose Biden’s announcement explains his shameless pandering to the right-of-center. But the news makes this scathing recent David Sirota post all the more relevant.