I'm not really impressed or outraged by anything in this morning's New York Times. The word to describe today's paper is "pedistrian."
Anytime the Times front pages one of their own polls, there's a problem. (And I'm sure if time were given to exploring the poll, many problems with it would be found. But we've done that in the past so hopefully community members know better than to take a poll at face value.)
Alan Greenspan's still treated like the Lord Jesus in all Times' coverage. A shoddy career that now finds him reliving the eighties is ignored by Edmun L. Andrews (or by the article bearing Andrews byline). Greenspan's luster faded long ago but you won't get that from the Times today. Nor will you get any sort of perspective on his "call to action." (Here's a hint, the payroll tax was sold, by Greenspan, in the eighties, as just the thing to "save" social security. The paper sees no need to examine Greenspan's record. Today it comes off like many balding, male singer-songwriters still writing & singing songs of "I just fell in love for the very first time." Translation, no perspective, no sense of history. It's sad.)
Warren Hoge's "United States Drops Anti-Abortion Demand at U.N. Equality Form" is a sort of printed yawn on what should be an important topic.
"BBC Gets New Lease on Life, but Government Calls for Overhaul" bears Alan Cowell's name, but whomever's responsible appears to have no strong grip on the realities in England these days. Lord Hutton's review was questionable in England when it was issued. Recent revelations (which come to think of it, the Times hasn't really reported on) have led to a strong sense that the Hutton review is an embarrassment. (Hint to the Times, Tony Blair's charges pre-war look more and more precarious. Though the paper ignores Clare Short, they also ignore the furor over Blair's attorney general's finding on the legality of war. And the stir that's greeted the attorney general issuing a finding on Prince Charles' wedding has served to underscore the fact that there's no strong legal reason preventing the release of the attorney general's findings in the run up to the war.) One would hate to think that the Times has an axe to grind with the BBC but then after mocking the BBC's findings re: Jessica Lynch in print, the Times hasn't really done a strong job of pointing out to readers that the BBC was right.
"World Briefing" tells you that Bill Gates can't use the title "sir" but he got an honorary knighthood from the Queen of England. Also lists others who've received the "honor" in the past. Wonder what the founding fathers would say? Funny how the ones arguing "original intent!" over and over (re: the framers) never seem interested in touching that issue.
Jodi Wilgoren actually has another strong article. It's the strongest thing in the paper and would probably be the strongest or among the strongest even if this was a solid edition (which it's not).
We'll link to it: "White Supremacit's Relatives Are Questioned in Killings:"
The police released composite sketches Wednesday night of two men they want to question in connection with this week's execution-style slayings of a federal judge's mother and husband, in an investigation that has included interviews with relatives, friends and sympathizers of a white-supremacist imprisoned for soliciting the judge's assassination.
The authorities would not say where or when the two men, one in his mid-20's and the other age 50 to 60, were seen or whether they were suspects or witnesses. The younger man, described as 5-foot-8 to 6 feet with a medium build, is shown in the sketch to have narrow eyes, heavy brows, a flat nose and close-cropped strawberry-blond hair; the elder, 5-foot-10 to 6 feet with hazel eyes, has a large build and was last seen wearing a black watch cap, dark green coveralls and a grayish/green coat, the police said.
The police refused to discuss whether the two men might be connected to the hate groups that have been a prime focus of the investigation. The mother and brother of Matthew Hale, the man convicted last year of plotting the murder of the judge, Joan Humphrey Lefkow, said Wednesday that federal agents had asked them whether Mr. Hale might have communicated something from prison in code. In addition, a white-supremacist radio host who said in 2003 that it would be illegal but not wrong to kill Judge Lefkow, said Wednesday that federal agents had also questioned him about his whereabouts at the time of the Monday killings.
Jeff Gerth would already be screaming for a knoose. Wilgoren is very clear in her article about what is known and what isn't. It really is a strong article. Yes, this is the third time we've had praise for Wilgoren's writing in seven days, but (my opinion) she's earned it.
Eric Lipton's "Offical Leaving Security Dept. Shifts to Advising Contractors" calls for front paging and also calls for a longer article than what's offered. It's so scanty (which is probably not Lipton's fault) that it might as well be in national briefs: "Asa Hutchinson leaves Homeland Security to go to work for a private law firm representing contractors."
American company (California based -- despite the Bully Boy's falsehoods in the debate when he tried to infer it was a foreign company) Chiron will be allowed another attempt at manufacturing the flu vaccine. We learn that in an article by Andrew Pollack and Lawrence K. Altman. You have to wade through to paragraph eight to find the CDC's Dr. Jeanne M. Santoli raising some doubts: "We absolutely cannont count on Chiron being able to supply vaccine for the U.S. based on the news today, although it is good news."
No one's mentioned Philp Shenon's "Testimony at Texas Trial Focuses on Use of Donations." I'll read it later and if it's worthy of comment, we'll note it tonight. But by the time I made it to A21 of the paper, I was yawning.
Praise for Wilgoren and that's really about all.
By the way, we reached 1500 in the official count of U.S. troops in Iraq who've died.
The Times doesn't tell you that today.
But then 49 of 57 towns in Vermont calling for the "withdrawal of troops from Iraq" is reduced to a national briefing (on A21).
[Note: "Founding," not "funding!" Founding fathers! Another bone head typo from me. Thanks to Shirley for catching that. Ditto "company" and "country." Post also corrected for italics.]
Thursday, March 03, 2005
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
Kaylynne Highlights Dorothy Pitman Hughes for Women's History Month
Kaylynne: I was so glad to see Dorothy Pitman Hughes mentioned yesterday. She's been one of my favorites ever since I heard her speak.
Dorothy Pitman Hughes hailed from Lumpkin, Georgia. She founded and ran the NYC Agency for Child Development. She formed the Women's Action Alliance with Gloria Steinem. And she started the first women's shelter in New York.
That's only the beginning for Hughes, who is not only a lifelong community activist, but someone highlighted by Oprah Winfrey as one of the "Great Moms."
Traveling the country and speaking with Gloria Steinem, Hughes Pitman found herself being asked civil rights questions by reporters who asked Steinem feminism questions. The reporters didn't get it, but the audiences did. Her straight talk inspired the audience when I saw her speak.
And straight talk is at the heart of her wonderful book Wake Up and Smell the Dollars -- Whose Inner City Is It Anyway! Dorothy Hughes Pitman is very concerned about the state of the inner cities. She started up Harlem Office Supply and is now the CEO.
A lifelong activist, Dorothy Hughes Pitman continues to demonstrate concern and committment.
To quote from her book Wake Up and Smell the Dollars –Whose Inner City is it Anyway!:
We are now having to contend with a different kind of power -- not just racism, classism and sexism, but something new in our communities; this corporate fever that has hit all over the country. The idea of "compete, compete, compete" without regard for the context in which we are supposed to be competing. Any societal structure -- government, business, education -- exists to serve humanity. This philosophy of competition for the sake of competition and open-ended growth is killing America. We, as African-Americans and other people of color in this country can ill afford to take it on. We are the last people in the position to buy this false, empty sense of power and think we can survive it.
Dorothy Pitman Hughes hailed from Lumpkin, Georgia. She founded and ran the NYC Agency for Child Development. She formed the Women's Action Alliance with Gloria Steinem. And she started the first women's shelter in New York.
That's only the beginning for Hughes, who is not only a lifelong community activist, but someone highlighted by Oprah Winfrey as one of the "Great Moms."
Traveling the country and speaking with Gloria Steinem, Hughes Pitman found herself being asked civil rights questions by reporters who asked Steinem feminism questions. The reporters didn't get it, but the audiences did. Her straight talk inspired the audience when I saw her speak.
And straight talk is at the heart of her wonderful book Wake Up and Smell the Dollars -- Whose Inner City Is It Anyway! Dorothy Hughes Pitman is very concerned about the state of the inner cities. She started up Harlem Office Supply and is now the CEO.
A lifelong activist, Dorothy Hughes Pitman continues to demonstrate concern and committment.
To quote from her book Wake Up and Smell the Dollars –Whose Inner City is it Anyway!:
We are now having to contend with a different kind of power -- not just racism, classism and sexism, but something new in our communities; this corporate fever that has hit all over the country. The idea of "compete, compete, compete" without regard for the context in which we are supposed to be competing. Any societal structure -- government, business, education -- exists to serve humanity. This philosophy of competition for the sake of competition and open-ended growth is killing America. We, as African-Americans and other people of color in this country can ill afford to take it on. We are the last people in the position to buy this false, empty sense of power and think we can survive it.
When the weasel pushes bull, mock loudly and mock freely
I'm going through the e-mails and find one from Ben about a weasel posing as a moose and pushing bull. I was so angry (not at Ben), I went to the kitchen, grabbed a knife and popped the last blister so I could type up a little item on the Weasel.
Ben brings to our attention a creature called "the Moose." And Ben's not the only one writing on this, just the first e-mail I find on the topic.
The Moose is a weasel. He was a weasel before he came to the fringes of the Democratic party and he's a weasel now. Victoria Hopper, on the other hand, is someone we need to be defending and someone I'll vouch for.
The Moose is on a war path about the "babies" in Hollywood. That would include Victoria Hopper (who if I'm remembering correctly fund raised for Tom Daschle last summer -- not the only thing she did for the 2004 election, not the only thing she's ever done for the party.) But the Moose knows best and the Moose says it's time to send Hollywood packing.
Maybe it's time someone went hunting weasel? Time someone made it clear what the Weasel is exactly.
The Moose, just so everyone knows, loves to stir the sh*t. He learned how while working the other side until the other side couldn't provide for him anymore. Like an old hooker in search of a new pimp, he stumbled into the welcoming arms of the DLC.
So who is the Ferret Weasel: "Marshall Wittmann is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and director of the Project for Conservative Reform." Sweet Marshall, fresh from the Heritage Foundation and the Christian Coalition and now he wants to claim our side -- lucky us.
Here's an online bio on the Weasel:
Marshall Wittmann is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute . . .
Prior to joining the Institute, Wittmann held notable positions in government and private institutions. In the private sector, he served as the Heritage Foundation's director of congressional relations both for the U.S. House and Senate. Wittmann also served as the Christian Coalition's director of legislative affairs. In the Bush Administration, he served as the deputy assistant secretary for the Department of Health and Human Services.
Note the date on that entry if you click (if you don't, it's "04/10").
The Center for American Progress, in an article from June 10, 2004, identifies him this way:
Marshall Wittman, an analyst with the conservative Hudson Institute . . .
Here's Dana Milibank of the Washington Post noting the departure of Wittman from the Hudson Institute (courtesy of NOtesOnline):
Wittmann, late of the conservative Hudson Institute, will be leaving the Senate staff of John McCain (R-AZ), where he has been lately. Wittmann's move to the Democratic side may be awkward, but he's familiar with strange bedfellows; a practicing Jew, he once worked as a top official at the Christian Coalition. Wittmann becomes the second key McCain adviser, after John Weaver, to decamp to the Democratic side. The DLC's Bruce Reed welcomed Wittmann by saying, "the Democratic Party is the only place centrists and independents can call home."
The date on that NOtesOnline piece? October 2004. Why does it matter who the Weasel was working for until right before the election? I mean it's not like he was working for Heritage until recently, right?
Uh, it kind of is. Do you know about the Hudson Institute?
From Source Watch:
The Hudson Institute, is a hard-right activist think tank that advocates the abolition of government-backed Social Security and an end to corporate income taxes. It also campaigns heavily on environmental issues (pro-GM, anti-organic).
(Wonder now why Joe Lieberman -- DLC to the core -- isn't offering any leadership on Social Security? Well, obviously Lieberman and the Weasel have much in common that they can shoot the sh*t about in the DLC club house.)
Who funds Hudson?
Funding
Between 1987 and 2001, the Institute received $12,041,203 in 183 separate grants from only -- foundations:[2] (http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?160)
Castle Rock Foundation
Earhart Foundation
JM Foundation
Koch Family Foundations (David H. Koch Foundation)
John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
Scaife Foundations (Scaife Family, Sarah Mellon Scaife, Carthage)
Smith Richardson Foundation
Hollywood money "bad." Scaife money "good." Is that the story?
Who else is a Hudson "fellow?" Why little Frankie Luntz!
Again, we're letting this man attack Victoria Hooper and other real Democrats? This man who self-describes "independent" and until recently was on the Scaife/Olin/Koch/Bradley/et al dole?
Here's Matt Taibbi on The Bull Moose/Marshall Wittmann:
Marshall Wittmann, the former legislative director for the Christian Coalition and also a veteran talking head of such excellent organizations as the Heritage Foundation and the Hudson Institute (which hypes him as "one of the nation's most quoted analysts"), offers himself as a candidate for the chair of the Democratic Party. Wittmann, you see, is now an operative at the Democratic Leadership Council -- he got the policy operative spot that opened up when Al From and Bruce Reed were tipped off that their initial choice, Mobutu Sese Seko, had been dead for years. So they brought in Wittmann, whose chief credentials were that he used to stand guard for Ralph Reed at church rest rooms whenever the latter ducked out of evening mass to jerk off to Ranger Rick centerfolds.
Wittmann calls himself the "Bull Moose," and his blog, bullmooseblog.com, is one of two blogs funded and maintained by the Democratic Leadership Council. The other, as previously noted in this space, is the no-less-loathsome newdonkey.com, maintained by the noted corporate whore and windbag, Will Marshall.
A moose, and a donkey. The Democratic Leadership Council, it seems, is a place where soulless 50-year-old men can dress up in Garanimals and e-gloat about shooting our votes into space. It is really too bad the guillotine has gone out of style.
So let me get this right, Hollywood "bad": **** head who spent the better part of his life declaring war on the rights of women and others "good."
Is that what the story will be?
No, I don't think so.
And I don't think we find common ground with refugees from the Christian Coalition who are still practicing the same tar and feather the left only now they're pretending to be Democrats.
(Wasn't Weasel claiming "independent" not that long ago? October 4th, in fact? Why would an "independent" be trusted over a real Democrat?)
How disgusting do you have to be that the Heritage Foundation turns on you?
The Weasel's no David Brock. David Brock had an awakening. I don't trash Brock here and don't intend to. People can change. But the Weasel hasn't changed. He still holds dearly to the same ideas he used to. Sure he works it for the DLC now, but hey, they waive the dollar bills that pad out his g-string now, don't they?
And the DLC is the fringe of the Democratic party, the fringe that just won't go away. (Maybe they think they'll catch some of that Joe-mentum? Didn't work for Lieberman, won't work for them. Unless we're too stupid to realize who and what they are.)
Now Bull Moose/Weasel tries to cover his tracks these days. But who and what he is remains in the public record. And if someone else wants to argue that we should attempt to all get along and not knock or mock him (while he's arguing -- in racist terms -- that a Sister Souljah needs to be pulled on Victoria and the others involved), they're sadly mistaken.
If someone wants to chat up the Weasel, that's their issue. Make sure you're prepared with the truth about the Weasel.
Victoria Hopper has given her time, her energy and her money to progressive causes.
If it's too much for you to come to her defense, then maybe you better pack it in because this isn't Sophie's Choice here, this is fairly straight forward: you support progressives or you support rejects from the Heritage Foundation who spent most of 2004 on the right wing echo chamber dole.
You support people who've given their all to the party or you support someone who slinks in on the fringes, begging for an invite, and then doesn't have the good manners to wait until he's finished devouring the meal before he starts in how bad he thinks it is -- talking with his mouth full.
Bull Weasel's a bad dinner guest with bad manners and bad breath.
Polite is not saying immediately, "Get the hell out of here." Polite isn't saying, "Don't mock him."
Don't knock the mock.
Humorists, satirists, comedians have long realized the power of a well timed joke.
Don't knock the mock.
One of the most successful campaign "materials" in 2004 was the animated series Republican Survivor. People signed up to watch that and to vote in it. It was nothing but mockery (with a point) and it was well received. (It was also noted by many members that the animated cartoon was the only time they were contacted by any Democratic organization with something other than "send money." Dems would do well to develop other such tools. They also should have offered the series on a DVD after it was over because 25 members noted they would have paid as much as $35 to own that.) It got people talking, it got people involved.
Weasel's slamming a 2-by-4 into Victoria Hopper's face. Is that surprising? Considering what you know of the DLC? Considering what you now know of the Weasel? Here at The Common Ills, we aren't going to worry about the use of humor and mockery. We'll fret over a real issue.
We'll mock and we'll live in the reality-based world. We won't be a Weasel pretending to be helpful. We won't be the DLC aping Blanche Du Bois as they go on and on about their glory days.
(One longs for a Stanley to come along and rip open their trunk to expose the reality of their so-called glory days.)
The DLC pushes their tired (and damaging) "triangulation" while they claim that it's the thing that got Clinton elected in 1992. Triangulation isn't calling for an end to the ban on gays serving in the military. (Something Clinton called for in 1992.) Triangulation had nothing to do with Bill Clinton's call for universal health care.
The DLC loves to claim credit for any victory and loves to shift the blame for any loss. The reality is that they've had very little success. (Take Simon Rosenberg's recent ill fated run for DNC chair.) Yeah, they raised a little money. And yeah, they've got enough money to run their propaganda mill.
But reality on the campaign trail bore out that the DLC was worthless in the 1992 presidential election. (It can be argued, however, that they were effective in the 1992 Democratic primary where they slashed and burned like crazy.)
Victoria Hopper's concerns for the state of the Democratic party aren't strange offshoots. They reflect the base of the party. (Something the DLC never has done -- some would say, never wanted to do.)
In her most recent column, Ruth Conniff ("Standing Their Ground") wonders of Joe Lieberman, "Why is this man even a Democrat?" Good question. She also (rightly) notes:
American Prospect Editor Paul Starr, in a January 26 op-ed in The New York Times, put forward the theory that the Democrats are now paying the price for having made the great liberal gains of the last century through the courts and executive fiat. Roe v. Wade, civil rights laws, and other federal triumphs of liberalism were ahead of the curve, Starr writes. Imposed by the Supreme Court and the executive branch from above, they were always vulnerable to overthrow by an unconvinced populace. Fair enough. But instead of arguing that the Democrats should build a stronger grassroots movement, Starr goes on to assert that what the Democrats should do is compromise and agree to chip away at abortion rights and affirmative action, in order to appease Red State voters.
This sort of thinking is why Hillary Clinton extended an olive branch to the anti-abortion crowd. But it is a grave mistake. The Republicans have made their grassroots gains in the states and nationally by taking exactly the opposite tack. They have fired up their base by appeals to their party's most cherished principles. Especially on the issue of abortion, the Democrats actually enjoy the advantage of a majority pro-choice consensus in public opinion polls. It's absurd to capitulate to a minority of aggressive rightwingers. Worse, it is the seeming shiftlessness of Democratic candidates that makes them so unappealing.
The Weasel's trying to score points off Victoria Hopper being "of Hollywood." Earlier the same creeps tried to make "values" a deciding factor in the election (Frank Rich rightly refuted that lie). This is about shifting the party to the right. Now you either stand up against this or you don't. It's not that difficult.
Either you believe the party needs to reflect the base or you don't.
These aren't difficult decisions. And with 2006 coming up, you better decide what you stand for because the 1992 gender quake happened for a reason. Just as the gender quake benefitted Dems in 1992, if the actions of leadership continue down this push-to-the-right road, we can see the Democratic party lose their strongest base. Read Ruth Conniff's column. Read Matt Taibbi's article. Avoid the Weasel and should he come up in a conversation, mock and mock freely.
[Note: This post has been corrected to include a link to Ruth Conniff's column which appears in The Progressive. And to clear up one of my usual badly worded sentences. Thanks to Kara and Shirley for their catches on this post.]
Ben brings to our attention a creature called "the Moose." And Ben's not the only one writing on this, just the first e-mail I find on the topic.
The Moose is a weasel. He was a weasel before he came to the fringes of the Democratic party and he's a weasel now. Victoria Hopper, on the other hand, is someone we need to be defending and someone I'll vouch for.
The Moose is on a war path about the "babies" in Hollywood. That would include Victoria Hopper (who if I'm remembering correctly fund raised for Tom Daschle last summer -- not the only thing she did for the 2004 election, not the only thing she's ever done for the party.) But the Moose knows best and the Moose says it's time to send Hollywood packing.
Maybe it's time someone went hunting weasel? Time someone made it clear what the Weasel is exactly.
The Moose, just so everyone knows, loves to stir the sh*t. He learned how while working the other side until the other side couldn't provide for him anymore. Like an old hooker in search of a new pimp, he stumbled into the welcoming arms of the DLC.
So who is the Ferret Weasel: "Marshall Wittmann is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and director of the Project for Conservative Reform." Sweet Marshall, fresh from the Heritage Foundation and the Christian Coalition and now he wants to claim our side -- lucky us.
Here's an online bio on the Weasel:
Marshall Wittmann is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute . . .
Prior to joining the Institute, Wittmann held notable positions in government and private institutions. In the private sector, he served as the Heritage Foundation's director of congressional relations both for the U.S. House and Senate. Wittmann also served as the Christian Coalition's director of legislative affairs. In the Bush Administration, he served as the deputy assistant secretary for the Department of Health and Human Services.
Note the date on that entry if you click (if you don't, it's "04/10").
The Center for American Progress, in an article from June 10, 2004, identifies him this way:
Marshall Wittman, an analyst with the conservative Hudson Institute . . .
Here's Dana Milibank of the Washington Post noting the departure of Wittman from the Hudson Institute (courtesy of NOtesOnline):
Wittmann, late of the conservative Hudson Institute, will be leaving the Senate staff of John McCain (R-AZ), where he has been lately. Wittmann's move to the Democratic side may be awkward, but he's familiar with strange bedfellows; a practicing Jew, he once worked as a top official at the Christian Coalition. Wittmann becomes the second key McCain adviser, after John Weaver, to decamp to the Democratic side. The DLC's Bruce Reed welcomed Wittmann by saying, "the Democratic Party is the only place centrists and independents can call home."
The date on that NOtesOnline piece? October 2004. Why does it matter who the Weasel was working for until right before the election? I mean it's not like he was working for Heritage until recently, right?
Uh, it kind of is. Do you know about the Hudson Institute?
From Source Watch:
The Hudson Institute, is a hard-right activist think tank that advocates the abolition of government-backed Social Security and an end to corporate income taxes. It also campaigns heavily on environmental issues (pro-GM, anti-organic).
(Wonder now why Joe Lieberman -- DLC to the core -- isn't offering any leadership on Social Security? Well, obviously Lieberman and the Weasel have much in common that they can shoot the sh*t about in the DLC club house.)
Who funds Hudson?
Funding
Between 1987 and 2001, the Institute received $12,041,203 in 183 separate grants from only -- foundations:[2] (http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?160)
Castle Rock Foundation
Earhart Foundation
JM Foundation
Koch Family Foundations (David H. Koch Foundation)
John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
Scaife Foundations (Scaife Family, Sarah Mellon Scaife, Carthage)
Smith Richardson Foundation
Hollywood money "bad." Scaife money "good." Is that the story?
Who else is a Hudson "fellow?" Why little Frankie Luntz!
Again, we're letting this man attack Victoria Hooper and other real Democrats? This man who self-describes "independent" and until recently was on the Scaife/Olin/Koch/Bradley/et al dole?
Here's Matt Taibbi on The Bull Moose/Marshall Wittmann:
Marshall Wittmann, the former legislative director for the Christian Coalition and also a veteran talking head of such excellent organizations as the Heritage Foundation and the Hudson Institute (which hypes him as "one of the nation's most quoted analysts"), offers himself as a candidate for the chair of the Democratic Party. Wittmann, you see, is now an operative at the Democratic Leadership Council -- he got the policy operative spot that opened up when Al From and Bruce Reed were tipped off that their initial choice, Mobutu Sese Seko, had been dead for years. So they brought in Wittmann, whose chief credentials were that he used to stand guard for Ralph Reed at church rest rooms whenever the latter ducked out of evening mass to jerk off to Ranger Rick centerfolds.
Wittmann calls himself the "Bull Moose," and his blog, bullmooseblog.com, is one of two blogs funded and maintained by the Democratic Leadership Council. The other, as previously noted in this space, is the no-less-loathsome newdonkey.com, maintained by the noted corporate whore and windbag, Will Marshall.
A moose, and a donkey. The Democratic Leadership Council, it seems, is a place where soulless 50-year-old men can dress up in Garanimals and e-gloat about shooting our votes into space. It is really too bad the guillotine has gone out of style.
So let me get this right, Hollywood "bad": **** head who spent the better part of his life declaring war on the rights of women and others "good."
Is that what the story will be?
No, I don't think so.
And I don't think we find common ground with refugees from the Christian Coalition who are still practicing the same tar and feather the left only now they're pretending to be Democrats.
(Wasn't Weasel claiming "independent" not that long ago? October 4th, in fact? Why would an "independent" be trusted over a real Democrat?)
How disgusting do you have to be that the Heritage Foundation turns on you?
The Weasel's no David Brock. David Brock had an awakening. I don't trash Brock here and don't intend to. People can change. But the Weasel hasn't changed. He still holds dearly to the same ideas he used to. Sure he works it for the DLC now, but hey, they waive the dollar bills that pad out his g-string now, don't they?
And the DLC is the fringe of the Democratic party, the fringe that just won't go away. (Maybe they think they'll catch some of that Joe-mentum? Didn't work for Lieberman, won't work for them. Unless we're too stupid to realize who and what they are.)
Now Bull Moose/Weasel tries to cover his tracks these days. But who and what he is remains in the public record. And if someone else wants to argue that we should attempt to all get along and not knock or mock him (while he's arguing -- in racist terms -- that a Sister Souljah needs to be pulled on Victoria and the others involved), they're sadly mistaken.
If someone wants to chat up the Weasel, that's their issue. Make sure you're prepared with the truth about the Weasel.
Victoria Hopper has given her time, her energy and her money to progressive causes.
If it's too much for you to come to her defense, then maybe you better pack it in because this isn't Sophie's Choice here, this is fairly straight forward: you support progressives or you support rejects from the Heritage Foundation who spent most of 2004 on the right wing echo chamber dole.
You support people who've given their all to the party or you support someone who slinks in on the fringes, begging for an invite, and then doesn't have the good manners to wait until he's finished devouring the meal before he starts in how bad he thinks it is -- talking with his mouth full.
Bull Weasel's a bad dinner guest with bad manners and bad breath.
Polite is not saying immediately, "Get the hell out of here." Polite isn't saying, "Don't mock him."
Don't knock the mock.
Humorists, satirists, comedians have long realized the power of a well timed joke.
Don't knock the mock.
One of the most successful campaign "materials" in 2004 was the animated series Republican Survivor. People signed up to watch that and to vote in it. It was nothing but mockery (with a point) and it was well received. (It was also noted by many members that the animated cartoon was the only time they were contacted by any Democratic organization with something other than "send money." Dems would do well to develop other such tools. They also should have offered the series on a DVD after it was over because 25 members noted they would have paid as much as $35 to own that.) It got people talking, it got people involved.
Weasel's slamming a 2-by-4 into Victoria Hopper's face. Is that surprising? Considering what you know of the DLC? Considering what you now know of the Weasel? Here at The Common Ills, we aren't going to worry about the use of humor and mockery. We'll fret over a real issue.
We'll mock and we'll live in the reality-based world. We won't be a Weasel pretending to be helpful. We won't be the DLC aping Blanche Du Bois as they go on and on about their glory days.
(One longs for a Stanley to come along and rip open their trunk to expose the reality of their so-called glory days.)
The DLC pushes their tired (and damaging) "triangulation" while they claim that it's the thing that got Clinton elected in 1992. Triangulation isn't calling for an end to the ban on gays serving in the military. (Something Clinton called for in 1992.) Triangulation had nothing to do with Bill Clinton's call for universal health care.
The DLC loves to claim credit for any victory and loves to shift the blame for any loss. The reality is that they've had very little success. (Take Simon Rosenberg's recent ill fated run for DNC chair.) Yeah, they raised a little money. And yeah, they've got enough money to run their propaganda mill.
But reality on the campaign trail bore out that the DLC was worthless in the 1992 presidential election. (It can be argued, however, that they were effective in the 1992 Democratic primary where they slashed and burned like crazy.)
Victoria Hopper's concerns for the state of the Democratic party aren't strange offshoots. They reflect the base of the party. (Something the DLC never has done -- some would say, never wanted to do.)
In her most recent column, Ruth Conniff ("Standing Their Ground") wonders of Joe Lieberman, "Why is this man even a Democrat?" Good question. She also (rightly) notes:
American Prospect Editor Paul Starr, in a January 26 op-ed in The New York Times, put forward the theory that the Democrats are now paying the price for having made the great liberal gains of the last century through the courts and executive fiat. Roe v. Wade, civil rights laws, and other federal triumphs of liberalism were ahead of the curve, Starr writes. Imposed by the Supreme Court and the executive branch from above, they were always vulnerable to overthrow by an unconvinced populace. Fair enough. But instead of arguing that the Democrats should build a stronger grassroots movement, Starr goes on to assert that what the Democrats should do is compromise and agree to chip away at abortion rights and affirmative action, in order to appease Red State voters.
This sort of thinking is why Hillary Clinton extended an olive branch to the anti-abortion crowd. But it is a grave mistake. The Republicans have made their grassroots gains in the states and nationally by taking exactly the opposite tack. They have fired up their base by appeals to their party's most cherished principles. Especially on the issue of abortion, the Democrats actually enjoy the advantage of a majority pro-choice consensus in public opinion polls. It's absurd to capitulate to a minority of aggressive rightwingers. Worse, it is the seeming shiftlessness of Democratic candidates that makes them so unappealing.
The Weasel's trying to score points off Victoria Hopper being "of Hollywood." Earlier the same creeps tried to make "values" a deciding factor in the election (Frank Rich rightly refuted that lie). This is about shifting the party to the right. Now you either stand up against this or you don't. It's not that difficult.
Either you believe the party needs to reflect the base or you don't.
These aren't difficult decisions. And with 2006 coming up, you better decide what you stand for because the 1992 gender quake happened for a reason. Just as the gender quake benefitted Dems in 1992, if the actions of leadership continue down this push-to-the-right road, we can see the Democratic party lose their strongest base. Read Ruth Conniff's column. Read Matt Taibbi's article. Avoid the Weasel and should he come up in a conversation, mock and mock freely.
[Note: This post has been corrected to include a link to Ruth Conniff's column which appears in The Progressive. And to clear up one of my usual badly worded sentences. Thanks to Kara and Shirley for their catches on this post.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)