The Stimulus Plan

Ambinder has the summary.

Planet Republican

Maybe it's Mars? Either way, one of its physical laws seems to be that you can only talk about Republican issues:

Not only did they allow Keith Kerr's question, they invited him to the debate. Had they bothered to research, they would have discovered his connection to Hillary Clinton's campaign. He's a member of the LGBT Americans for Hillary Steering Committee and co-chair on Hillary's National Military Veterans group. He also was an active John Kerry supporter in 2004. And last night Anderson Cooper willingly gave Mr. Kerr the Democratic activist a soapbox. Anderson has yet to apologize for either his willing participation or incompetent handling of the situation and failure to research.

Consider the other Democratic plants. Mary LeeAnn Anderson is a known Edwards supporter and union activist. She asked the protectionist question disguised as a lead paint question. Consider "Journey" the abortion questioner who, if CNN had paid attention to her YouTube profile, is a huge John Edwards supporter. And consider David Cerone, who asked the Log Cabin Republicans question -- his YouTube profile lists him as an Obama supporter.

It's disgusting to see these people open their mouths. They're taking issue with a question. Think for a moment about how insidiously pathetic that is. It's almost like a child who sticks both fingers in his ears and starts screaming when his parents ask him why there's mud on the kitchen floor, except it's even more fucked up than that because a better analogy is to a child who sticks both fingers in his ears and starts screaming when his parents ask him about the weather. It makes no sense.

Can they fucking understand this? These people's affiliations don't impact the validity of their questions. They are real Americans with real concerns about issues that not only affect them but also other Americans. But that gets at the heart of why these Republicans are so fucking twisted. To Republicans, these people and their concerns don't matter. They might as well not exist, and they will do everything they can to stamp them out. Wednesday's debate took place on Planet Republican, where only Republicans are allowed to talk to only Republicans about only things that they want to talk about. I'm sure they'd have no problem throwing everyone else who differs in a concentration camp or waterboarding the dissidents.

Imagine the outcry if this was turned on its head: Democrats went apeshit because CNN let a question through about gun control, abortion, Iraq, or one of the other contentious issues within the party at their YouTube debate. Oh wait, that fucking happened. Was a jihad - or crusade, take your pick - called to hunt down the people who asked the questions? Did Democrats call for CNN's producers' scalps? Obviously not.

The difference between the two parties has never been more staggeringly clear than since the days of the Civil Rights movement. The Democratic party stands for every American, while the Republican party only cares about things that they feel comfortable talking about. It's not like Republicans don't have stances on gay marriage or abortion, but so much of their basis for those stances is predicated on their own racism and xenophobia - meaning that they preach their creed from far away and never interacting with the people they hate - that it's a completely different ballgame when they have to look such person in the eye - literally, in Keith Kerr's case - and tell them that they don't exist. That they don't matter. That they're inferior and irrelevant to themselves.

This is why Republicans and the right wing are losing their shit over these questions. I can't possibly believe for a second that CNN had these goals in mind when they picked their questions, but those questions accomplished two things very well. First, they gave us a clear look at how disgusting and psychotic Republicans and their candidates are. Second, they showed us how uncomfortable they are with even acknowledging these people exist. This tells us all we need to know about how they would govern. We don't need to be ruled by assfucks who treat people who disagree with them as sub-human, we need to be governed by responsible people who can handle everyone's concerns. They don't have to agree with them, but they have to acknowledge that these people and their concerns are real.

Democrats have proven that they're mature to stand up and govern everyone in this country. Republicans are on the floor kicking and screaming because someone asked a question that they don't want to talk about.

You've Had Your Chance

I disagreed with Congressional Democrats decision to give Bush another chance. Bush has been wrong about everything all the time and has never acted in good faith towards his opponents, so there was no reason to believe he would do so now.

It looks like Dems are finally wising up:

In the last several months, however, the administration has been stalling progress on Democratic appointments.

This problem existed before the August break.

In an effort to solve it, I worked hard to confirm over 40 administration nominees in exchange for a commitment by the President to make progress on a number of important commissions.

When we reconvened after August break, I also worked to quickly move on the President’s new Attorney General.

I did this despite my own opposition to that nominee.

Even with all this hard work on our side, the commitments the administration made to me before August break were not met.

In the almost three months since that break, we have received no Democratic nominees to full-time commission positions.

For some, in fact, absolutely no discernable progress has been made.

With Thanksgiving break looming, the administration informed me that they would make several recess appointments.

I indicated I would be willing to confirm various appointments if the administration would agree to move on Democratic appointments.

They would not make that commitment.

As a result, I am keeping the Senate in pro-forma to prevent recess appointments until we get this process back on track.

Republicans and their cohorts will go on the news and complain about how the big, bad Democrats are preventing ordinary Americans from spending time with their families, but we know that's a ton of crap. We pay their salaries and they can damn well earn them.

Less Kumbaya, More Do the Right Thing

Surprised?

President Bush, escalating his budget battle with Congress, on Tuesday vetoed a spending measure for health and education programs prized by congressional Democrats.

He also signed a big increase in the Pentagon's non-war budget although the White House complained it contained "some unnecessary spending."

The president's action was announced on Air Force One as Bush flew to New Albany, Ind., on the Ohio River across from Louisville, Ky., for a speech criticizing the Democratic-led Congress on its budget priorities.

In excerpts of his remarks released in advance by the White House, Bush hammered Democrats for what he called a tax-and-spend philosophy:

You are the Congress, he is one man. Congress legislates and the President executes. I learned this when I was 8, yet our lawmakers and chattering classes in Washington still can't come to grips with this.

I'm not even going to get into the irony of Bush pooh-poohing a tax-and-spend philosophy. Today, at least, irony is back in the grave.

Not Good Enough

Now you're playing politics with the troops' lives so you - and a Democratic president - can claim victory.

President George W. Bush's request for nearly $200 billion more to fund the Iraq war will not be approved unless it is linked to a plan to bring home U.S. combat troops by January 2009, the head of the House appropriations committee said on Tuesday.

Rep. David Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat, told a news conference his panel would not even consider the war funding request until early 2008, by which time he estimates funding for military operations will have run out. Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently outlined the request to Congress.

Obey said he and other Democrats also would introduce a surtax to pay for the war in Iraq, although he acknowledged he did not expect the House Democratic leaders to support a war surtax plan.

Indeed, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, said she is "opposed to a war surtax," adding, "The choice is between a Democratic plan for responsible redeployment of our troops and the president's plan for a 10-year war in Iraq. We must end this war."

Stop being weak and ineffectual. Out now.

Stupid Democrats

Still don't understand PR:

Nancy Pelosi admits no legislation passed in the House will end the occupation because the Republican minority in the Senate will block it. Bi-partisanship won't work.

Nancy Pelosi admits re-deployment is the only answer, but has stopped trying to achieve it. She has stopped trying to send bills to the Presidents desk.

Nancy Pelosi admits she can defund the occupation. But she won't.

Nancy Pelosi has given up on ending the Iraq War.

Can Republicans filibuster? Yes. SO MAKE THEM DO IT! Do everything you can to put them on the spot, in the spotlight, and show the country who is holding this up. Don't drop the ball and let the Republicans fill the vacuum - it makes you look weak and ineffectual, which, to date, you have been. The Republicans filibustered civil rights and look what that got them. Seriously, how stupid are our leaders?

Funding the Troops

To take a slightly different tack on what Kagro X says, the Democrats keep dropping the ball and falling into Republican frames. There has never been any argument over funding the troops, it has always been about funding Bush's war.

Bush and Republicans have been using this bait and switch since the start of the war. As Atrios put it,

Any criticism of the president's policies is instantly redirected at "the troops." If you praise the military, you're actually praising Bush! If you bash Bush, you're actually bashing the military!

It's quite sick, it's been going on for a long time, and all decent people should find it revolting.

Well, at least I now know what that says about our Very Serious People who keep repeating that line.

Very Stupid People

"Centrist" Democrats:

With President Bush and the Republican Party on the rocks, many Democrats think the 2008 election will be, to borrow a favorite GOP phrase, a cakewalk. Some liberals are so confident about Democratic prospects that they contend the centrism that vaulted Democrats to victory in the 1990s no longer matters.

The temptation to ignore the vital center is nothing new. Every four years, in the heat of the nominating process, liberals and conservatives alike dream of a world in which swing voters don't exist. Some on the left would love to pretend that groups such as the Democratic Leadership Council, the party's leading centrist voice, aren't needed anymore.

But for Democrats, taking the center for granted next year would be a greater mistake than ever before. George W. Bush is handing us Democrats our Hoover moment. Independents, swing voters and even some Republicans who haven't voted our way in more than a decade are willing to hear us out. With an ambitious common-sense agenda, the progressive center has a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to win back the White House, expand its margins in Congress and build a political and governing majority that could last a generation.

These people should be driven out of any positions of power and no one should listen to anything they have to say. The idea of appealing to the "center" is inherently flawed. The "center" is so named because it is presumed that it lies in between progressive and conservative positions. This is incorrect for the following reasons:

1. All evidence indicates that the country has become increasingly divided. There is no broad, silent, centrist majority to appeal to. However, since most people like to view themselves in the "center" and not too radical on any issue, using the term reflects an attempt to normalize, aggrandize and over-inflate whatever position one is staking out.
2. The "center" stands for nothing. It stands for a complete and utter vacuum of values, ideas and policies. Instead, the word is used as a stand-in for "things that appeal to a majority of people." This represents a total failure of branding on the part of "centrist" Democrats.

People who vote Democratic do not do so because it is in the "center", but because they are Democrats and identify with progressive values and policies. People who prefer to brand Democrats as "centrists" - which, as discussed above, means nothing and furthermore gives conservatives a foothold in the tug of war - as opposed to Democrats or progressives are morons. Democrats should be pushing progressive ideals, narratives and policies instead of retreating to some fictional center. We win people over by standing for attractive, morally upright and responsibly pragmatic values.

To point, even though Hoover was completely out of touch with the country, FDR did not win because he tacked to some mushy center in between progressives and conservatives, he won because he advocated for progressive things that were wildly popular with people. Social security, the NLRB and consumer and worker protections are all proudly progressive positions and represent America at its best. 70 years later, leaving Iraq, universal healthcare, balancing our budget are all progressive - and markedly unconservative - things that a majority of this country wants. To win, and continue winning, Democrats need to embrace and identify with these popular progressive positions and values.

Progressivism is a healthy and much more viable alternative for this country than conservatism is, and our leaders and spokespeople should be making strong pitches for it, not shying away from it.

LithiumCola, who alerted me to this article, over at dkos has more to add.

Grow a Pair

Greg Sargent.

Oooooooooooooo, scary! If we didn't give Bush his way, the White Housewould have criticized us!

Seriously, the Times account dovetails with what we've heard from multiple Dem staffers. And it has to be said that this is, like, soooooooooo June 2006. Recall that last spring many Dems were terrified of taking on the GOP and the White House over Iraq because they worried that the Republicans would tell the electorate an irresistable story: Dems are weak, and Republicans are strong. When Dems finally realized that Republicans would tell this story no matter what they did, they started telling the story their way: The war in Iraq is a disaster; it has made us weaker; Dems want to end it, and Republicans don't. The rest is history. Dems won the argument.

A Good Sign?

If your opponent bring a knife, you bring a gun.

Four years ago, Congress passed legislation authorizing President Bush to
go to war in Iraq. Now Senate Democrats want to take it back.
Key lawmakers, backed by party leaders, are drafting legislation that would effectively revoke the broad authority granted to the president in the days Saddam Hussein was in power, and leave U.S. troops with a limited mission as they prepare to withdraw.
Officials said Thursday the precise wording of the measure remains unsettled. One version would restrict American troops in Iraq to fighting al-Qaida, training Iraqi army and police forces, maintaining Iraq's territorial integrity and otherwise proceeding with the withdrawal of combat forces.
Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., intends to present the proposal to fellow Democrats next week, and he is expected to try to add the measure to anti-terrorism legislation scheduled to be debated later this month. Officials who described the strategy spoke only on condition of anonymity, noting that rank-and-file senators had not yet been briefed on the details.

It's time to use the overwhelming mandate that the American people voted to give Congress last fall. Enough with non-binding - we need this action and soon.

Guess Who?

"Some people may be running who may tell you that we don't face a real threat
from terrorism," ... "I am not one of those."

Bush? Wrong!

Hillary. Yes, she's referring to Democrats. Way to go.

Heavy Day

Light blogging. But this summation of Condi's testimony both gives a lot of hope for the Democrats and is very damning to Bush.

It's January

This is what I call a mandate, Bush.