State of the Union

Just one simple observation, followed by one simple question, about the State of the Union:

The observation is: When Republicans are down in the polls, and want to appeal to the American people, they start talking like Democrats, pretending to care about things like universal health coverage, education, alternative energy, and even (this made me gag) people's right to make health care decisions privately, consulting with their doctors and without the government interfering (Roe v. Wade? Terri Schiavo?). The best example of this was Colin Powell's speech at the 2000 Republican Convention, which could have been delivered to a standing ovation at the Democratic Convention without changing a word -- and none of which had anything to do with the actual Republican platform.

The question is: Why haven't more Democrats realized the same thing: that talking like a Democrat APPEALS to We the People, and talking like a Republican (supporting the war, introducing flag burning amendments) merely adopts the Republicans' weak points? (Note: Virginia's Webb was on the right side of this equation in his response last night, calling Bush to task for everything from the war to the economy and demanding that he lead or be led.)

BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME

Lanny Davis in the WaPo: Yet Another Lousy Idea

Here's yet another idea from a former Bill Clintonite that, like welfare reform and free trade, looks appealingly moderate on its face, but would be disastrous in reality: Lanny Davis' suggestion that whoever wins the Presidency in 2008 appoint an opposite-party Vice-President, preferably the losing nominee of the other party (and, to top it off, appoint a 50-50 bipartisan cabinet).

What a fascinating idea! What ingenuity! What great election strategy! What typically impractical Dem-centrist garbage!

There are at least seven reasons why this is a God-awful idea:

1. Unless Hillary wins the nomination (which admittedly is a real if unfortunate possibility that would make the race more of a toss-up), the Dems have the better chance of winning the Presidency in 2008 than the Republicans do. I base that prediction on the example of the 2006 midterms, public dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq, and increasing public awareness of and sympathy for Democratic core issues like health care, climate change and "Main Street" (as opposed to Wall Street) economics. So what Davis is suggesting is for our party, once again, to reach across the aisle and hand the opposition a big, unearned gift when there's not a snowball's chance in hell any Republican would do the same. We need to stop giving freebies (or even lip service) to the Republicans and start acting like a party again -- i.e., to start acting just a little bit partisan, to take our victories and run with them to advance OUR agenda, which the country so desperately needs. (Nancy Pelosi's "hundred hour" strategy, which forcibly blocked Republicans from adding "poison pills" to important Democratic legislative initiatives, was a great example of this kind of muscular Democratic politics that the entire party would do well to emulate.)

2. I said above that a Republican President-elect wouldn't ever name a Democratic Vice-President. Actually, that's only technically true. A Republican President-elect might well select as Vice President an independent who nevertheless is deeply associated in the public mind with the Democratic Party: Joe Lieberman, whom Davis praises in his piece. McCain-Lieberman: now that's a scary, albeit possibly winning, proposition. Lieberman is an aberration, a Republican in Democrats' clothing; his run as an independent after losing the Democratic nomination to a better man was not an act of courage but one of egotism and partisan disloyalty. We should not open the door to a Lieberman Vice-Presidency that could lead to a serious Lieberman shot at the Presidency in 8 years (or sooner if the Republican President croaked).

3. Presidents frequently die or resign. Nine, count 'em, nine Vice Presidents have become President through the death or resignation of the President. That's 9/43, or 21% of ALL U.S. PRESIDENTS. More than one in five. Do Democrats believe so little in their own ideas that they're willing to take a 1:5 chance of those ideas being jettisoned by a Vice President who believes in none of them?

4. Underscoring point 3, above: Davis points to Abraham Lincoln's selection of Andrew Johnson, a highly partisan Southern Democrat, as his Vice-Presidential running mate in the 1864 election. He notes in passing that this experiment was "tragically cut short when he was assassinated six weeks after his 1865 inauguration." What he doesn't point out is that Johnson failed miserably at overseeing Lincoln's plan for Southern Reconstruction, especially when it came to civil rights: under him, Black Freedmen were denied many civil rights, and he vetoed implementation of a government agency to help the Freedmen or to grant them civil rights. He also lobbied vigorously against passage of the Fourteenth Amendment and succeeded in delaying its enactment.

By doing so, Johnson betrayed Lincoln's legacy, handed the next Presidency to the Radical Republicans (forebears of today's Republican Party), and set the stage for a century of discrimination, disempowerment and betrayal of African-Americans and, indirectly, prolonged the North-South divide that was profitably manipulated by Nixon's "Southern Strategy," kept the Vietnam War going longer than it should have, was copied (successfully) by Reagan (who launched modern neoconservatism and made the Bush II Presidency and the Iraq War possible), and still informs the red state-blue state political map today. That's a lot of blame to heap on one man's head, but it's true -- yet the man I really blame isn't Johnson, who in many ways WAS a moderate (for his times), but Lincoln, for abandoning his party in favor of a speculative "Unity" government that proved disastrous in ways that haunt us even today. Let's not make the same mistake.

5. The Senate is only narrowly in Democratic hands right now. One Democratic senator is still hospitalized and may not be able to return; if he resigns, he will be replaced by a Republican appointed by the Republican governor of his state. And while Joe Lieberman is, for now, caucusing with the Democrats, he won't continue doing so if his best interests -- for instance, if a shot at the Vice Presidency is dangled before him -- make it more advantageous for him to switch caucuses. If he does so, we lose the Senate, committee chairmanships, control of the agenda, and possibly the ability to reject poor Republican judicial nominees (remember, 7/9 of the Supreme Court was appointed by Republican Presidents, and Justice Stevens is getting very, very old). And, of course, if the Senate deadlocks, the Vice President casts the deciding vote. Do we really want to give a Republican that power?

6. Davis pretends that bipartisan cooperation is the only way to find a solution to the Iraq quagmire or to enacting sensible budgets. Bushwah. A Democratic House, a Democratic Senate and a Democratic President and Vice President can enact any legislation they want; the Republicans' only tool to stop them will be the filibuster, a maneuver they've so thoroughly discredited that many Republicans would consistently vote to override filibusters even by their own party. In other words, if we ignore Davis' advice, we can resolve Iraq and balance the budget again on our own terms. The only reason for seeking Republican advice or cooperation on these issues are (a) because we don't believe our ideas are as good as theirs, and need their advice, or (b) because we can't control our own Vichys and Blue Dogs, and need crossover Republicans to consistently pass legislation. I don't think either proposition is true, and even if they are, they're problems that we need to resolve ourselves, within our own party.

7. Sitting Vice Presidents have an automatic boost if they wish to later run for the Presidency. Why would either party's President want to confer that advantage on a member of the opposing party? Better to give that name recognition to one of our own.

If the past six years have proved anything, it's the depth of Republican ineptitude, especially on Iraq and the budget. Put shortly: we don't need them. By and large, today's Democrats have better ethics, ideas and sense of responsibility than today's Republicans. Our nation needs us, and needs us undiluted by the bad ideas of a party that's rightly on the decline. Let's not sell America short: if we can win the Presidency in 2008, let's govern with vigor and a sense that our ideas are right, not immediately compromise them with harmful and ultimately illusory nods towards "bipartisanship."

UPDATE, 2:03 PM PACIFIC: The Kenosha Kid over at Atrios' pad had a nice comment explaining Lanny-boy's connection to Bush (and showing what little wipes many of the Clintonites are). Not sure what his source is, but I like the info From U.S. News.com:

Everything you need to know about Lanny Davis!

"Three letters explain how former Clinton attack dog Lanny Davis scored an Air Force One ride to Washington after President Bush's recent Yale University commencement speech: DKE (Delta Kappa Epsilon), the fraternity Davis and Bush joined as Yale undergrads. The duo chatted for a long time on the ride home, mostly about the old days, like the time Bush hazed DKE recruit Davis. The lawyer tells us that he faced the normal five-hour hazing, ending with him standing beside a DKE brand shoved in a vat of hot coals. At this point, Bush and the others blindfolded Davis and asked him to lift his shirt. He did. Then Davis felt it: the hot sizzle of skin. But it was only a cigarette. "They really psyched me out," he says."

BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME

New Email Address

After upwards of 100 Viagra and similar spams a day, I've finally had to abandon the old VichyDems email address and replace it with a new one (without the link). The new general VichyDems contact email addy is:

Vichy (at) Safe-Mail.net

Thanks for keeping current!
BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME

For Lieberman, The Center Isn't Right Enough

There's a Senate Centrist Coalition. Uber- Vichy Joe Lieberman quits it, forming a new center-er group with Republicans and fellow Vichys like Mary Landrieu (V-LA)(she who did whatever Bush asked her to in exchange for false promises to seriously rebuild New Orleans. Fool.)

Jeez, I wish Lamont had won! At least Kos and crowd are on the story. But now definitely is the time to stand up for true Dems and stand against the Vichys; as the new Congress forms, the soul of the party is being reshaped, and hopefully in the right way.

While we're on it, anyone else have the thought that the current Newsweek cover (Hillary v. Obama 2008) actually is displaying the centrists' dream ticket (Hillary-Obama '08)? I don't think Barack is making a serious bid for the Presidency; he's just trying to prove to Hillary that he's electable in the no. 2 spot, and will make his big move in '16.

BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME

More On Backcountry Rescue Costs

Following up on my post about backcountry rescue costs: Now noted athlete and outdoorswoman Rosie O'Donnell sounds off about rescue costs, getting every single fact, as well as the overarching principle, wrong. Aaaargh. And personally, I'm not aware of any significant mountains where my skills would be useful in New Orleans, even though I'd love to go there.

Kudos to KATU for raising the right counterarguments.

UPDATE Dec. 23: A nice opinion piece in the Chicago Tribune also gets it right.

UPDATE Jan. 11, 2007: As does this Salon.com article, quoting my friend Steve Rollins.

BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME

Troop Increases: I Told You So.

I both hate and love to say it: I told you so.

NeoProgBlog (my other blog), Nov. 27, 2005: This Administration, in particular, had no and still has no intention of withdrawing substantial numbers of troops from Iraq [as they are promising]. They are still building 14 permanent bases on Iraq's sandy soil, and a permanent presence in Iraq -- to replace the airmen and other soldiers we pulled out of Saudi Arabia in capitulation to Osama bin Laden's demands and to secure a backup oil source in the event the Saudi royal family is overthrown -- is a key part of the neocon foreign policy and energy strategy. They will, of necessity, rotate exhausted, three-tour units home, but they will not willingly do more. If they do do more, it will be a capitulation to Congressional Republicans worried about their seats, and is not likely to last past next November. (Post: Bush Administration Claims Credit for Troop Reduction Plans.)

VichyDems, Mar. 14, 2006: “President Bush vowed for the first time yesterday to turn over most of Iraq to newly trained Iraqi troops by the end of this year, setting a specific benchmark as he kicked off a fresh drive to reassure Americans alarmed by the recent burst of sectarian violence. Bush, who until now has resisted concrete timelines as the Iraq war dragged on longer than he expected, outlined the target in the first of a series of speeches intended to lay out his strategy for victory. While acknowledging grim developments on the ground, Bush declared "real progress" in standing up Iraqi forces capable of defending their nation.” [Quoting from and linking to the Washington Post] I call bullshit. This is Nixonian politicking of the crassest, cruellest kind. The only troops coming home are those already due to do, some after two or three tours in-country. And after the election, forces “beyond his control” will force Bush to ramp troop levels back up.... [N]o serious, well-informed person actually believes that Iraq is anywhere close to self-sufficiency, or that Bush plans to bring our troops home soon. The only reason Bush is raising our soldiers’ and their families’ hopes is to bolster Republican chances in November. And raising false hope based on self-serving propaganda is a damnable thing to do, even for a Republican politician.... (Post: Nixon Bush Promises Troop Withdrawals Just After the Next Election.)

Washington Post, December 19, 2006: "President Bush said today that he plans to expand the size of the U.S. military to meet the challenges of a long-term global war against terrorists, a response to warnings that sustained deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan have stretched the armed forces to near the breaking point. In an interview with The Washington Post, Bush said he has instructed newly sworn-in Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates to report back to him with a plan to increase ground forces. The president gave no estimates about how many troops may be added but indicated that he agreed with suggestions in the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill that the current military is stretched too thin...."

Frankly, I wish I had been wrong a year ago, and that Bush had kept his promise. And I'm shocked, shocked that the MSM isn't pointing out Bush's "reduce troops by end of 2006" pledge... could it be they're not fair and balanced?
BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME

Refuting O'Reilly, Defending Backcountry Use

(Photo: an unpaid mountain rescue volunteer battles the elements on the way to a successful, and cost-free, rescue at 9,000' on Mt. Hood, Oregon.)

(Caveat: the following post is purely my own opinion; I'm not speaking for any official rescue unit, the Mountain Rescue Association of America, or anyone else. Just me. Okay?)

I'm shocked, shocked to report that Bill O'Reilly might be about to fudge the truth tonight. As some of you know, in addition to my full-time job (hah!) writing VichyDems, I also am a mountain rescue volunteer in the Pacific Northwest. According to an email I just got from a colleague, O'Reilly's Fox News Channel program tonight will debate the question, "Shouldn't the federal government close all trails and backcountry areas on Federal land in winter, so that the government doesn't have to pay for expensive rescues?"

This is a recurrent conservative meme, unfortunately believed by most of the public: that rescues, especially of mountaineers, incur huge costs to the federal government. And it's flat-ass wrong. Here's why:

In the last month, I've searched (unsuccessfully, I'm sad to say) for a lost child at Crater Lake National Park (who wandered away from his father as they played near a public, not "backcountry", road). I've also searched for James Kim, the online editor who was trying to find help for his family after their Saab got stuck on an Oregon logging road after they accidentally turned off a regular road in a wild but not "backcountry" area (we found him too late). Other members of my two mountain rescue units have been searching for three climbers who are currently stranded on Mt. Hood (we're holding out hope, and praying the weather will break so we can search higher up), and for two snowmobilers near Mt. Bachelor (a private ski resort leased from the federal government; they found one dead, one alive, and rescued him successfully).

Of these four incidents, only one involved mountaineers. Only one involved truly backcountry federal land (the others were either not on federal land, or were on federal land leased to private enterprises like a ski resort, and/or were accessed by regular, mapped highways). Although many people blame "mountain climbers" for racking up rescue costs, only one of these incidents involved mountaineers -- but mountaineers were called in as volunteers to assist in all four; in other words, the mountaineering community more than pulls its weight.

Ignored by folks like O'Reilly is the fact that the federal government normally isn't involved in mountain rescues even on federal land (each county sheriff has that responsibility). Most rescues are of people in cars, snowmobilers, lost hunters and mushroom pickers, and other non-mountaineers -- sometimes even of O'Reilly viewers!

Most importantly, almost all the legwork is done by volunteers. The main "federal cost" is the occasional helicopter from the Air National Guard or the Air Force Reserve -- and those folks tell me that assisting in civilian rescues, especially in inclement weather at high elevations, is a huge part of their training. There's no way that the 1042nd air rescue wing based at Salem, OR could do mountain rescues and evacuations of soldiers in Afghanistan (as they've done) if they hadn't "practiced" in civilian rescues in the Oregon Cascades in conjunction with the local sheriffs and innumerable volunteers, from dog trackers to snowmobile clubs to mountain rescue units.

So the "rescue costs" question is a red herring, and I hope Media Matters, Atrios or someone else more prominent than me refutes O'Reilly if he blows this one, as they do so well when he tells fibs about more political matters.

There. I feel better now having prebutted the myths I'm sure will be told on Fox tonight.

12.14.20006 P.S.: There are some good photos showing the route the climbers took (Cooper Spur) here, here, here, and here. Check the comments for more discussion of this. Thanks to everyone who's visiting and worrying about the climbers on Hood!!

12.19.2006 update: My condolences to the families, following the discovery of Kelly James' body and evidence suggesting the other two climbers may have fallen to their deaths. Climbing is a wonderful, but sometimes dangerous, sport, and I can only trust that the adventurous lives these men lived were so full of challenge and beauty that, even cut short, they were fuller than the lives of the Barc-a-lounger crowd. In that regard, I'll quote former Supreme Court justice William O. Douglas, who answers the critics who ask, why do people climb mountains?

"[T]he spirit of adventure... is a measure of the vitality of both nations and men. A people who climb the ridges and sleep under the stars in high mountain meadows, who enter the forest and scale the peaks, who explore glaciers and walk ridges buried deep in snow -- these people will give their country some of the indomitable spirit of the mountains." Douglas, Of Men and Mountains, p. 328.

Also, for those who are interested, here's a nice post containing an audioclip of Bill O'Reilly's idiocy on this topic.

BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME

Ciro Rodriguez Is Going to the House!!

Here's the cherry on top of the "Democrats take back both houses" sundae: Ciro Rodriguez appears to have won his "second chance" race for a House seat!

Ciro's is a long story. He initially was a good Democratic representative from a relatively liberal district in Texas (yes, they do exist), and a chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. But his district was eliminated in Tom Delay's illegal gerrymandering of Texas' House districts. (You remember this movie of the week: Texas' Democratic state legislators boycotted the redistricting hearing so that the Republicans wouldn't have a quorum to pass the law creating the illegal new districts; Texas Republicans ordered the Texas troopers to arrest any Democratic legislators they could find and bring them to the leg to forcibly create a quorum; the Dems fled to Oklahoma to avoid arrest; Delay ordered Homeland Security to track the Dems' plane, claiming it was a national emergency; the Dems finally had to cave in order to get any other business done, since they couldn't stay out of the building forever.)

Ciro then ran in a different Democratic district to unseat a Democrat In Name Only (and lifetime member of the Vichy Hall of Shame), Henry Cuellar, who sat on the Republican side of the aisle during one of Bush's State of the Union addresses and apparently had a quiet orgasm when Bush lovingly caressed his face with his baby-soft hands. VichyDems supported Ciro, and a number of our friends donated to him via VichyDems' ActBlue site, but Rahm Emanuel's Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee gave Ciro no help (they only, and always, support Democratic incumbents no matter how bad), and while Ciro came close he didn't manage to unseat Cuellar -- a very disappointing loss to everyone, including his campaign staff, who worked their asses off for him.

But then Delay was arrested, and much of his nefarious work was undone. Among other things, the unravelling of Delay's machinations resulted in the judicial creation of a new district in Texas: TX-23. In November, Ciro ran again, this time as the Democratic nominee in TX-23, against Henry Bonilla. Early returns showed him losing -- but now, as numbers keep trickling in, he appears to have won, and the Associated Press has now declared him the winner!

Let's hope it sticks. Ciro will be one of the best we've got in the House (especially since he, more than most, has personally been spanked by a Vichy and knows their foul stench when he smells it).

Kudos to Kos and Atrios for catching this. And congratulations, Congressman Rodriguez and everyone associated with his campaign!

BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME

Silly Monkey Invents a New Vichy Test

This blog began with a simple Vichy/nonVichy test: were Dem senators for or against filibustering Alito? But, of course, that's old news now, and things are more complicated with our newfound control of both houses.

But I just stumbled across a couple of nice, albeit pre-election, posts by SillyMonkey with a nice new acid test: whether the Dem in question voted for one of the bills (House or Senate) suspending habeas corpus. (Read the top two posts there.)

Shows how out of it I've been not to have seized on that obvious and excellent test of "our side", and how glad I am to have others out there who are more on the ball of late!

Now that we've won control of one branch, of course, identifying and gutting Vichys is more important than ever, so thanks be to anyone who helps us see clearly who to target.

And congrats on the Monkey's upcoming nuptials!!

BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME

More On Obama

I like this, from The Stygian Times.

Also noted that, in an interview on Franken's show last week, Obama refused to diss Hillary (a prospective 2008 Presidential competitor) in any way whatsoever, not even to simply distinguish his positions from hers. Nuthin but "she's a lovely woman with firm perky breasts and great policies who would make a great President" or something like that. Anyone care to second-guess my opinion that Obama is gunning for the #2 spot behind Hillary, and not seriously seeking the Presidency himself (yet)?

BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME

Utterly Off-Topic: Ski Bear Poster?

UPDATE: Thanks to Wunder, the poster has been found! The version I had read "Ski Bare" or "Ski Bear" (don't remember which), but this is the famous pic. It's available at www.bearvalleysportshop.com.

ORIGINAL POST: Couldn't be more off topic, but when I was a lusty teenager I had a famous (at least for Northern California) poster in my bedroom for Bear Valley ski resort. It showed an attractive woman (incidentally, the wife of the then-general manager), nude, from the rear, on skis, with a tree branch conveniently covering her heinie. The logo simply said, "Ski Bear" (a play on "Ski Bare"). It was a quintissential 70s poster, representing the wonderful naive iconoclasm of the age, and I would expect someone would have reproduced it, have an old one for sale on eBay, or at least have posted an image somewhere on the Internets -- but I can't find hide nor hair of the fabulous bear.

Anyone remember this one? Not that I want to own it necessarily -- it just crossed my memory and when I googled, nothing showed, which got me wondering. And who better to ask than the most erudite group on the planet?

Obsessively yours (once he starts wondering about a thing) --

Thersites

BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME

"A Genuinely Different Democratic Party"

It's frustrating that the Democrat most worthy to be President is so worthy that he has decided not to run. From a release by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI):

Dear Friends and Supporters,

On Sunday, November 12^th in Racine, I will hold my 1000^th Listening Session with the people of Wisconsin. Before reaching that milestone, I want you to know that I've decided to continue my role as Wisconsin's Junior Senator in the U.S. Senate and not to seek the Democratic nomination for President in 2008.

Like many Americans, I am excited by the results of the November 7^th election. My fourteen years in the Senate have been the greatest privilege of my life and I am extremely pleased with what we have accomplished. During so much of that time, however, we Democrats have not only been in the minority but have often been so deeply mired there that my role has often been to block bad ideas or to simply dissent. That is a very important role but I relish the thought that in this new Congress we can start, not only to undo much of the damage that one-party rule has done to America, we can actually advance progressive solutions to such major issues as guaranteed healthcare, dependence on oil, and our unbalanced trade policies. The Senate of the 110^th Congress could also well be a place of greater bi-partisan opportunities for change; something I am very proud to have been effective at in both Republican and Democratic Senates. ***

I have traveled to seventeen states trying to promote the election of progressive Democrats in all states. At every stop from Birmingham, Alabama to Burlington, Vermont, to Ft. Dodge, Iowa, to Las Vegas, Nevada, people have agreed with my view that we need to stand up for a strong, principled Democratic party that is willing to replace timidity with taking the risks of promoting a platform of bold solutions to our nation's problems. Unfailingly, people responded well to my positions: opposition to the Iraq war; calling for a timeline to redeploy our troops from Iraq so we can focus on those who attacked us on September 11^th, 2001; my opposition to the flawed provisions of the USA Patriot Act that threaten the freedoms of law-abiding Americans; my call for accountability for the Administration's arrogant disregard for the law especially with regard to illegal wiretapping; fighting for fiscal responsibility including tough common sense budget rules that will help end the reckless policies that have heaped a mountain of debt on our children and grandchildren; as well as my strong belief in guaranteed healthcare for all Americans and substantial investment in alternative energy sources and technologies.

Yet, while I've certainly enjoyed the repeated comments or buttons saying, "Run Russ Run", or "Russ in '08", I often felt that if a piece of Wisconsin swiss cheese had taken the same positions I've taken, it would have elicited the same standing ovations. This is because the hunger for progressive change we feel is obviously not about me but about the desire for a genuinely different Democratic Party that is ready to begin to reverse the 25 years of growing extremism we have endured. ***

At this time ... I believe I can best advance that progressive agenda as a Senator with significant seniority in the new Senate serving on the Foreign Relations, Intelligence, Judiciary and Budget Committees. *** while I would strongly prefer that our nominee in 2008 be someone who had the judgment to oppose the Iraq war from the beginning, I am prepared to work as hard as I can ... to maintain or increase our gains from November 7 in the Congress and, of course, to elect a Democrat as President in 2008.


From most pols, this would just be playing coy. From Feingold, it's a conclusive and honest statement of his intention not to run. And, reluctantly, I think he's right. Here's why: he probably couldn't have won the Democratic nomination, given the way power currently is allocated and the sorry state of our campaign finance laws. Plus, he's perceived as too liberal for "mainstream" America (meaning: he's about as liberal as Dwight Eisenhower, only five decades too late). So the best reason to see him run would be to push the discussion to the left -- to raise progressive issues and positions during the Presidential debates and force the other candidates to address them. And that would have been a very good thing.

But Presidential primaries are ephemeral things, with little lasting impact on the trajectory of the overall political culture. To change the trajectory of a thing as massive -- in physics terms -- as our nation's current, too-conservative political culture requires repeated, consistent work, someone shoving it again and again and again until slo-o-o-o-o-wly it curves a little bit from its original direction. And the best way for our nation's truest Progressive is as a leader in the majority party in the (usually) more sensible and influential house of Congress, the Senate.

In addition, Feingold is expressly recognizing that the Democratic Party, as currently constituted, is not prepared to govern well. He recognizes that what voters REALLY want is what he calls above "a genuinely different Democratic party." And there, of course, he's right as right can be. We need brave Progressives like Feingold -- who was the only one with the courage to introduce a resolution to censure President Bush -- to help the party in Congress govern the way it should, and to show that principled progressivism is not a political death knell, even in what until last week looked like a pre-fascist America.

So Feingold is right. He'll do more good as a key senator than as a failed Presidential nominee. Hell, he'll do more good there than Hillary would as a successful Presidential nominee!

So I say, sadly: sit, Russ, sit. Retain your seat in the Senate, and fight, like Mr. Smith, for the things that -- were you able to become President -- might save our nation from its current downward path. Fight so that the next Russ Feingold -- maybe even you yourself, four or eight years from now -- will actually have a chance to win.


BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME

But Are We Prepared to Govern?

Me to my kids this morning: “The Democrats have taken control of the House of Representatives, and probably the Senate. So we control the Congress, and if we want to hold hearings into what Bush is doing, the Republicans can’t stop us.”

My 12 year old daughter: “Now it just depends on whether they’re chicken or not chicken.”

******
My daughter, unlike 99.99999% of the folks inside the Beltway (specifically leaving only Howard Dean), gets the real issue: are the “Democrats” we just elected chicken, or not?

I’m not celebrating much today; I’m gearing up for the real battle, which is over the soul (and electoral future) of the Democratic Party, a battle that will culminate in 2008. Since the inception of this site, I’ve said that I want the Dems to regain control of the Congress if, and only if, they’re prepared to govern in an assertive, cohesive, ideologically sound, progressive manner. To regain the majority then govern like a bunch of finger-in-the-wind, triangulating, poll-watching pols will just convince the voters that we haven’t changed, and could cost us the whole shebang in 2008 -- setting us back another 12 years. But to regain the majority and govern like adults (or like my 12 year old daughter), why, that might actually be good for both the party and the country as a whole.

There’s no chicken in Vichyssoise, but there is chicken stock. And there is plenty of chicken stock in this Congress, from the undead Joe Lieberman to the Bush-loving Henry Cuellar to the triangulator-in-chief, Hillary Clinton, and her acolytes, like Rahm Emanuel. And, of course, no one can stop the 2008 Presidential wannabes from watching the polls, officially starting today. So what we’re all watching is whether the rest of this Congress has learned its lesson and actually governs, instead of triangulating.

Let me say that again: do these people understand that we elected them to GOVERN, not to TRIANGULATE? If they get it, they’ll be respected (and reelected). If they don’t get it, then we’ll have a few hearings -- God bless John Conyers! -- but the corporations will continue to run the show, and there won’t be much difference in the end. Or: if they govern, they’ll be allowed to continue to govern. If they stick their index fingers into the wind, on the other hand, the voters in 2008 are likely to reply like the English archers at Agincourt: by sticking their middle fingers into the wind right back at them.

Put still differently: we were elected only because we’re NOT Republicans. But starting today, the test is different. Being “not a Republican” isn’t a governing philosophy. We’ll only be respected, and reelected, if we govern like Democrats.

More analysis later, especially of “winners and losers.”

BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME

Everything OldBama is Newt Again

Yeah, yeah, terrible title. I'm out of practice.

The topic under discussion really is this: Obama is now "not ruling out" a run for the Presidency in 2008. My take? If he lucked out and won the nomination, he'd go for the gold -- and might not not be half bad, either as a candidate or even as President. But the scenario he's probably shooting for is less ambitious: to increase his visibility in the primaries as a way of landing a VP spot on the D ticket, setting himself up for a more serious Presidential run in 4 years (if his ticket loses) or 8 (if it wins).

The question is, whose wagon does he want to ride all the way to the Naval Observatory? What Presidential wannabe's coattails has he been tying himself to?

Hillary.

Damn.

I don't want to see a Hillary-Obama ticket, largely because I like Obama too much to see him screw himself that way. But that's my prediction. He certainly hasn't tried to curry any favor with Feingold or any of the other, more progressive potential POTUSes. No: he's a F.O.H.

I've written a lot about how Obama is a potentially great Dem who unfortunately keeps currying favor with the old-guard centrists who are responsible for the party's sorry state today, who aren't prepared to govern seriously on November 8, and who would either lose, or win only to reconvince voters that we Dems have nothing to offer, in the '08 Presidential campaign. If Obama sheds his allegiance to Hillary, Lieberman, the DSCC, et al., and instead stands tall as a real progressive, he could be great. But if he continues to triangulate, and especially if he doesn't stand up to Hillary as the most prominent representative of those pro-corporate interests, then he's likely to join Colin Powell as just another man who could have been the first African-American President if he hadn't blown it by picking the wrong team to side with.

If you're interested, feel free to punch "obama" into the search box above and cruise through some old posts. And I'll add to the mix this older, but pithy and salient, contribution to the pro/con/huh?-Obama discussion: DownWithTyranny.

As to the VichyDems site itself: I've been AWOL for personal reasons for quite a while, but I'll be back, in full fettle if possible, the day after the election -- the official First Day of the 2008 Presidential Campaign Season. This election, vote D no matter how Vichy the candidate is. The day after the election, start working to unseat the exact same Vichies in the '08 primaries. That's the plan.

See you after the election, if not sooner, and let's keep our fingers crossed that John Conyers soon has subpoena power...

BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME

Counterpoint: Rahm, You Ignorant Slut...

Proving I'm a Democrat, I'm airing a semi-counterpoint to my last post.

I'm clearly on the side of Democratic National Committee (i.e., the Democratic Party itself) chair Howard Dean, the party-builder who stays out of primary endorsements because he knows that a spirited primary energizes party voters and informs the general electorate, over Rahm Emanuel, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (i.e., the "protect the incumbent Dems and increase their margin") chair who's been tasked, with backing from the Democratic Leadership Council (another "not the Party" group formerly headed by Joe Lieberman) and Hillary Clinton, with triangulating a narrow House victory in November.

Not that I'm against a narrow House victory: as I've stolen from someone on Air America before (DNR who), the only thing better than John Conyers is John Conyers with subpoena power. But in the long run, given the American people's positions on the issues when they're presented neutrally, Dems should have a permanent majority in both Houses and should elect the next fifteen Presidents, and the only thing holding us back, IMNSHO, are the triangulators who keep aiming for a seat here and a seat there instead of adhering to a coherent, intellectually honest, ideologically consistent (not rigid) platform that would, over time, demonstrate to voters that we actually stand for something, and -- surprise, surprise -- that it's the same thing they stand for. So, yeah, win elections narrowly if that's the best that we can do, especially in the Age of Bush -- but that, as "Seven Habits" author Stephen Covey would put it, merely the urgent; the important thing, and the thing we need to salvage all possible resources for, is to really reclaim and build the Democratic Party as a bastion of populist progressivism.

Anyway, in my last post, I laughed at Rahm Emanuel. But for some balance, here's a decent read from E.J. Dionne, who talks about "the polemics over the past few months between Howard Dean, the Democratic National Committee chairman, and Rep. Rahm Emanuel, the leader of the party's campaign committee for this fall's House elections." Anyone struggling to sort out DLC from DNC from DCCC etc., and why I care so much about the distinctions, should read this. Dionne continues:

Emanuel has expressed frustration over how much DNC money Dean has spent in his effort to create strong party organizations in all 50 states -- money that congressional Democrats believe should be saved for this fall's key contests.

Dean argues, correctly, that Democrats will not be truly competitive if they are strong in only 18 or 20 "blue" states. Emanuel argues, also correctly, that this year offers Democrats their best chance in 12 at winning one or both houses of Congress. The party, he says, can't afford to fritter money away on long-term dreams.

There are many underlying issues here, including whether Dean's spending will actually be effective in achieving his goal and whether the national party is demanding enough accountability for the money it is sending the states. Dean defenders, in turn, note that he has directed more money to states with competitive races this year, and that Dean needs to worry about governorships and state legislative contests, not just Congress.

But Dean and Emanuel are both struggling against the same overlapping realities: Democrats have chronically underinvested in building state parties....

Rest of the article here.

BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME

Rahm Emanuel Runs to the Front of the Parade

... and pretends to lead it, as all marginal pols do.

(Photo, left: Rahm Emanuel, head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, tries to thumb a ride on the VichyDems Express.)

Check out this hilarious nugget from an email the DCCC leader just sent out, referencing Lamont's victory over Lieberman:

Dear Thersites,

The recent Connecticut primary election illustrated how incumbents are bearing the brunt of the public's frustration and anger with the status quo. Change is what November is about.

We have the political atmosphere that is ripe for change. Energized Democrats around the nation can capitalize on our shared frustration with the government and build the movement needed to win.

Last week, Senator Barack Obama introduced a few of our candidates that are going help us get this country back on the right track. In November we not only have an opportunity to claim a Democratic majority in the House, we have an opportunity to do it on the strength of a new generation of progressive leaders....

Now, understand, Emanuel is a poster child for the protection of incumbent Vichys. He's a fave of Hillary and the rest of the DLC crowd; he couldn't even manage to oust incumbent Vichy Henry Cuellar in Texas, even though Cuellar's the worst conservative Bush-kissing Democrat in the House and faced a formidable opponent in Ciro Rodrigues. And Obama CAMPAIGNED FOR LIEBERMAN AGAINST LAMONT!

So I call bullshit, and laugh my ass off. If Emanuel had been in the Senate instead of the House, he would have been on his knees doing intimate favors for Connecticut voters to keep Lieberman in office.

But the good news is: OUR MESSAGE IS FINALLY BEING HEARD. The 2008 Dem primaries are shaping up to be a lot like the 1968 Republican primaries, with the centrist Old Guard finally catching on that there's a new, less accommodationist crowd in charge and scrambling to stay ahead. (Except that progressive Democrats, currently represented best by Russ Feingold, want to actually govern the country well, whereas the regressive Republicans of '64 and '68, such as the pre-reformation Barry Goldwater and a young, energetic Ronald Reagan, wanted to gut the government. So: similar dynamic, opposite effect.)


BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME

Same Mission, Updated Slogan

Old VichyDems slogan:

Patriotic Democrats, Doggedly Resisting the Vichys, DINOs, Triangulators and Accommodationists. Starting with Joe Lieberman, of course.

Updated VichyDems slogan:

Patriotic Democrats, Doggedly Resisting the Vichys, DINOs, Triangulators and Accommodationists. Dogging Joe Lieberman Until He's Festering in His Political Grave, of course.

OK, Franklin's "Join or Die" it's not, but I like it, because, of course, JoeNoMentum's independent run -- while just a craven clinging to power and a setup for future office as a Republican on his part -- could spoil Lamont's chances of actually being elected, and conceivably could even have legs, and makes George Bush and Tony Snow all giggly even when they're not in the back of Air Force 1 orange-bowling and huffing nitrous oxide with the traveling press corps, and so we won't quit dogging the s.o.b. until he throws in the towel for good.

Other than that, the focus now will be on

(a) getting all Democrats elected in the midterms, even if they're Vichy, because the only thing better than Russ Feingold and John Conyers in Congress in Russ Feingold and John Conyers in Congress with subpoena power; and even more than that (since zillions of bloggers and the DNC, DLC, DCCC, DSCC, MoveOn, and zillions of better bloggers than me already are working on that)

(b) 2008, meaning:

i. reforming the Democratic primaries to ban DCCC and DSCC aid to Democratic incumbents when they're faced with good-faith challengers in the primaries;

ii. finding new progressive challengers to attack the Vichy incumbents we re-elect this year out of necessity;

iii. driving a stake through the heart of every DLC-associated Presidential candidate, starting with Hillary Clinton; and then

iv. electing whichever Democrat wins the Presidential primary (unless, of course, Lieberman's unholy corpse gnaws its way through the dirt back to moonlight and runs again for President, in which case I'll vote for Jeb Bush first!)

Sound like a good slogan from now till November? And a good plan from now until Nov. 2008?

BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME

Lamont Wins: Day One of the NeoProgressive Era

Lamont won, and Lieberman -- unlike in 2000 -- displays something resembling a cartilaginous proto-spine and vows to fight on as an independent. Lots of analysis on the net (most of it insightful) and on the mainstream news (most of it completely misunderstanding the real point). I won't waste time rehashing what Atrios, Kos, HuffPo, and a host of others already are saying well, but as an early leader in the effort to identify and oust Vichys -- "starting with Joe Lieberman, of course" -- I'm proud, and have some short points to add:

1. THIS WASN'T ABOUT IRAQ. Well, in part it was, but other Democrats, even now, support the war, and while there's some opposition to them, they haven't sunk to the bottom like Lieberman has. It's about Iraq, but also about Iran, the bankruptcy bill, his unflagging support for Israel drunk or sober, etc. He actually has a decent voting record -- something like 90% of the time voting with the Dems, according to Jon Alter -- but that 10% has been on the most important issues. It does no good to be a good Democrat on some appropriations rider giving pork to a blue state but side with the Republicans on preemptive war. And a lot of us still remember he's the one who covered his ass by running simultaneously for VP and for his old Senate seat in 2000, and reportedly persuaded Gore to cave in early on the recount. So this isn't about Iraq; it's about Lieberman.

2. THIS WAS A VICTORY FOR IDEOLOGICAL, PARTISAN POLITICS -- NOT THAT THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT. On the Today show, Lieberman just said that Lamont stood for the "old politics" of partisan division. Well, damn straight!

Look, there are fascists and there are free French, and the fascists are wrong and the free French are right, and the Vichy -- pretending to be the mediators bridging the two -- are nothing but accommodationists without vision or values. I want an America that embraces two parties, each rooted in intellectually honest and fact-based ideologies and values, often in opposition but both committed to the success of our nation, playing by the same fair rules and respectful of the other. And I want each of those parties to play hard, because it's in that isometric tension that America finds its way through hard times. When one party is dominant, the other should act as a brake and a reality check: the two-party system as an unintended part of the "checks and balances" system. That's a major part of what I've labeled "neoProgressivism": an honest, but vigorously argued, political system rather than a tepid, accommodationist one.

The problem with Lieberman and the DLC/DSCC/DCCC crowds are that they are trying to stand in the middle of the tug-of-war and negotiate a compromise, when their role is to stand on one side and haul like hell, trusting that only by doing so will the other side be counterbalanced and something like "neutrality" or "balance" be achieved. Imagine what would happen if, in the middle of a tug-of-war contest, 1/3 of the people on one side suddenly let go and said they were tired of partisanship. The rest of their team would be face-down in the mud, and the quitters would stand there clean as whistles, sweat-free, saying, "see where conflict gets you?" No: that's where dodging the hard work gets you. Lieberman let go of the rope; Lamont grabbed the rope; the rest of the team appreciates Lamont for doing so. Simple as that.

2.5 THE HALF-JOKING, HALF-SERIOUS RELIGIOUS ANALYSIS, SUPPLEMENTAL TO NO. 2 ABOVE: LIEBERMAN LOST PRECISELY BECAUSE GOD DOESN'T LIKE BUCKETS OF LUKEWARM SPIT. Revelations 3:15-16: "I know your works; you are neither cold nor hot. I wish that you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to spit you out of my mouth." Lieberman is neither hot nor cold, and he was spewed out of Connecticut's maw. Good for Connecticut. Lesson: even God wants people to pick a side -- hot or cold -- and stick with it, 'cause lukewarm spit just sucks. Other "centrist" politicians, take note: God's mad at you.

3. LIEBERMAN'S INDEPENDENT BID IS JUST A SETUP FOR HIS FUTURE JOB AS SECRETARY OF DEFENSE. He doesn't have a chance in hell of actually winning election as an independent unless the Rs rig the election against their own guy, which I doubt will happen. Lots of R money Joe's way? Sure, but only enough to help him split the D vote -- just as Rs donated heavily to Nader, not so he'd win but so that Bush would. So why's he acting all sanctimonious about his "independence"? Just as he did when he dissed Clinton's morality over a minor sexual peccadillo that wasn't 1/100th as bad as what King David did with Bathsheba and Uriah, he's portraying himself as the righteous man for political gain (and to stroke his own ego). He lost, but he can claim he lost in the name of noble bipartisanship. And it will help his career: unlike Zell Miller, he's not interested in a one-shot speech at the R convention and some book sales; he's trying to establish nonpartisan credentials so he can (a) ideally, take Don Rumsfeld's job as S.O.D. (he recently gave an interview in which he very guardedly criticized Rumsfeld but said "it's the President's decision" whether to replace him, hint hint); or, if that doesn't pan out, (b) he can work both sides of the aisle as possibly the highest-paid lobbyist (whether by that title or not) in history.

4. IF WE KEEP WORKING, THIS CAN BE DAY ONE OF THE NEOPROGRESSIVE ERA: Pundits are saying that the "liberal bloggers" will cost Democrats elections by driving the party to the left. Stop, think: what Congressional election have we won since the centrists took power in 1992? None. Zippo. Not one. All the DLC ever did was get Clinton elected -- but he's tremendously charismatic, would have won anyway against the lukewarm Bush 41, and in hindsight Clinton did a lot of harm (e.g., passing NAFTA without environmental or labor safeguards). I'll write more on this later, but the evidence is that when Democrats act relatively progressive rather than accommodationist, they win more. Everyone predicts this new direction for the party -- the netroots-driven, ideologically purer, more combative direction -- will lead to disaster. The liberal Republicans in 1964 said the same thing about the neocons who tried to reclaim that party for conservatives. I pray we never become as extreme as the neocons did, but you have to admit: the centrist Republicans of the 1960s were wrong, the "purists" in their party did succeed in taking control, they've succeeded in taking control of all three branches of government -- and, crazy as it sounds, are talking seriously about securing a "permanent majority" (in Rove's words). That's a pretty good forty-year run; not even the Raiders have managed to put together a streak lasting that long.

Now it's our turn. Kris Kristofferson wrote a great song saying, "I ain't sayin' I beat the devil, but I drank his beer for nothing, and then I stole his song." We're going to steal the Republicans' songs in terms of political stratagy by moving left and actually standing for something for a change, and then we (unlike they) are going to use our power for good, to re-establish an America that works better for Main Street than Wall Street, that balances its budgets and spends its money on its own people instead of on transnational corporations and that combats terrorism by building schools and medical clinics in the Middle East the way Hamas and Hizbullah have (earning people's support) instead of just forts and embassies (which generate enmity and have never worked, ever since the Crusader States fell to the Muslims a thousand years ago).

This is a big deal. It's a good sign for the upcoming midterms, it's a wake-up call for the seven dems in the Gang of 14, Landrieu, Feinstein, Ben Nelson and all the other lukewarmers, and more broadly, the start of a new era, not a liberal one but a neoprogressive, fairer one. I'm happy and, for all you who've supported this effort, proud. (And a little proud of myself, too: what was the first site to label this loser as "Lieberman, Joseph (V-CT)"? VichyDems! So let's avoid calling him an "I" and be sure everyone labels him a "V".)

5. KEEP GIVING MONEY TO LAMONT! He'll still need it, all the way up to the general election. I just received my first AdSense check from Google (after half a year!): $100.41. It's mostly going to Lamont (with a little to Menendez, a good first-year Dem from New Jersey who's going to have a tough time in the general election). Please do the same; you can donate here.

And most of all: thanks, gang. The dream of today's result is what started VichyDems in the first place, and it'll keep us going despite my recent hiatus. I'll be fully back in the saddle soon, taking aim not at the general election but at retooling the Democratic political apparatus before the 2008 Congressional and Presidential primaries. As far as I'm concerned, 2006 is now over. Happy New Year. Let's go to work on 2008.

Wow. Bush DID Tell Cheney to Eviscerate Joe Wilson By Leaking Intel

Article here.

My disappointment: it appears he actually told Fitz about it, instead of lying to him. (My prophesies here, here, here, here, here.) But the pesky details (e.g., that he didn't know Plame was involved; yeah, right!) may still bite him in the butt.

BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME

Lieberman's Declaration of Dependence

At least there's one "Democrat" who remains reliable: Joe Lieberman (V-CT), who can be relied upon to let down both the Democratic Party and America's little-d democratic principles. On the day before Independence Day, he's outdone himself: like the WATB he (like all neocons) is, he has announced that he is an egotist first, a Democrat second, and that if he loses in the Dem primary to Ned Lamont, he'll run as an independent. Therefore, even before the primary race is held, Lieberman's out gathering signatures for a run as an independent in case he loses.

In Lieberman's mind, this is good campaign strategy, because he thinks that an independent bid would split Democratic voters in the general election, handing the race to the Republican challenger. He'll try to bully Connecticut's Democratic primary voters into handing him the nomination to prevent the seat from falling into Republican hands.

The truth? Lieberman's such a neocon these days -- simultaneously planted so firmly both in the rear wallet pockets of big campaign contributors and in the pasty white rump of Karl Rove that I get a headache trying to sort out the contortions that posture requires -- that he's as likely to split the conservative vote as the liberal vote; his independent candidacy will be a wash. And as to the primary, if this announcement doesn't unite Connecticut's Democrats behind Lamont, well, we don't deserve to win. (If you need more background or additional reasons to call Joementum the backstabbing Vichy he really is, surf these posts.)

So the title of Big Baldfaced Loser o' the Day goes to Joementum Lieberman, issuing his Declaration of Dependence on corporate money and the Bush White House to retain his nominally Democratic seat. And tomorrow I'll hoist a beer to celebrate the good citizens of Connecticut, whom I expect are independent enough to hand Lieberman his hat on primary day and again in November. Good riddance to bad rubbish. Please DONATE TO NED LAMONT HERE!

Now I'm going to go wash my hands, since I had to type the name "Liberman" so many times.

Happy Fourth, everyone. It's going to be a better second half of the year.
BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME