cross-posted here I ruffled more than a few feathers yesterday when I railed against Russ Feingold's blatant, self-serving political stunt yesterday.  I argued that the domestic spying issue may be intellectually important and all that jazz, but that it really isn't an issue that the American people will ever care about until we are able to prove that it has been used for political or nefarious ends.

Oh how they moaned and groaned yesterday about how I am nothing more than a Republican who is afraid to hold the administration accountable for "trashing" the Constitution.  

more after the flip...  

Cross-posted at www.ornerydem.blogspot.com

Oh snap!

Newsweek:

...special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion.

Of course, the right will still find some way to wiggle around this.  Perhaps they will claim Fitzgerald is some sort of hack.  They have denied reality in the past and they will continue to deny this reality going forward.  The truth does not matter to them.  Until we finally grasp that we will continue to lose.  These people are pathological psychopaths and the truth is not going to be enough to beat them.

Cross-posted at www.ornerydem.blogspot.com
Search isn't working so I apologize if this has been covered.

Here's the thing...the domestic spying story is going nowhere fast. Why? The American people could give a shit and it is not yet clear why they should. Most people rightfully do not believe the government would have a need/reason to spy on them. It doesn't impact them directly. All the noise coming out of Washington about domestic spying goes right over their head because, frankly, most people have real things to worry about. They have to think about working and paying their bills and taking care of their children or their aging parents, etc.

jump...

I know,  I know...everyone loves Michael Moore.  I like the guy, but don't find him especially helpful politically.  So, this is not an invitation to flame me for having a dissenting voice.  Nor is it an invitation to go back and forth regarding his various  pluses and minuses.  But, he said something recently in Hollywood that makes an awful lot of sense and I hope the Dems are listening (at least in private).  This is, however, an invitation for ideas about the idea he espouses here (echoed by Digby and one i fully embrace) and brainstorm about Dem star power.  The Repug convention was packed with superstars like Rudy, McCain, Arnold, etc.  Who are our future big dogs?  And don't say Obama...the man  just got to the Senate and needs to build a record if he is going to be the first Black preznit.

more after the jump

I read some passing mention of this last night, but nothing today.  Apparently, William Pitt (truthout.org) his lit a fire over at DU.  He is predicting significant news from John Kerry within the hour.  I'm not sure what it is all about, but I'd figure I pass it along just in case anything really significant does happen.

What have you guys heard and what do you think?

I've heard so many people on the site and in the media talk about how the Democratic Party is in need of reform.  The Dean people are saying we need to rebuild the party from the grassroots level up.  The DLC contingent is saying we need to jump on the 'moral values' bandwagon.  But, the common, magical word-elixir seems to be 'reform'.  Well, what does it mean to rebuild from the grassroots up?  I am one of the few here think the grassroots people need reform because they keeping whining about this or that issue and fail to appreciate the magnitude of the national security gap.  Yet, almost everyone on this site rails against the DNC and rails against anyone who isn't Dean. Hey, we are all entitled to our opinions.  I'm just trying to get a better understanding of what Dean Reform means?  What does it mean to rebuild the party from the grassroots up?  What do people think is specifically wrong with the DNC and how will grassroots rebuilding address that?

Thanks.

So, I finally may my way over to Beinart's Anti-totalitarian Liberal article.  While I often find him annoying he actually spoke directly to my main concern with the Democratic base: why are we afraid of tough, militaristic language?  I wanted desperately for Kerry to speak in tougher language (i initially supported Clark), but knew he would alienate most of the base.  Why is that?  What is so wrong with hating Islamic extremism and advocating its complete and utter annihilation?  Why is the WOT not front and center to our agenda?  I just don't get it.  I hear so many people talking about how great Howard Dean is and how we need to rebuild the party from the grassroots up.  This leaves me scratching my head because I, like Beinart (ugh), think that the grassroots just don't get it.

more after the break

I wrote the WaPo this morning in response to their article about the blog generated 'conspiracy theories' about the election.  I essentially complained that their article missed the point that these irregularties (especially after the debacle of 2000) have eroded faith in the electoral system. I further complained that their tone only further eroded America's trust in the media.  Finally, I suggested their time would be better spent 'setting the record straight' and offering up confidence building solutions rather than laughing off legitimate concerns about our democracy.

Their response after the fold...

I'm more than a little frustrated that Kos has put his nonsense on the front page lamenting a possible Kerry run in 2008.  Is this the official position of the Daily Kos?  That someone who has previously run should not run again?  That we don't want a true progressive to seek the White House again?  WTF?  I know you all are a bunch of former Deaniacs, but here's a frickin clue:  Kerry is the only electable progressive we have.  You think Hillary is a progressive?  Yeah, right.  How about all those Govs out there that people are talking about (Warner, Richardson, Vilsack, etc)?  They are no progressives, goddammit.  How 'bout Mr. Dean?  I'm sorry, but he is done.

more ...

I live in New York, but seem to have an inordinant amount of Red State minded friends (former Wall Street colleagues).  They had the nerve to say to me today: Hey, love it or leave it.  Mind you these people live in New York City of all places.  

Below the fold was my humorous email response.

Note: These are my friends and their views aren't as extreme as most of the Repugs.  But, it annoys me to no end that they have a delusional impression that they by supporting Bush and cheering the Repug victory they are not, in fact, supporting the nutjob positions of their party.

I think we should boycott the news media until we have our very own Faux News Channel.  I, for one, have never really been too bothered by the bias on Fox.  At least I know what to expect and they are being true to their base viewers.  All the others are bunch of punks and we should NOT support them.  Of course there are exceptions.  I happen to love both Keith Olberman and Aaron Brown.  But, that's it.  The rest of them can kiss my ass.  Chris Matthews is officially off my TIVO Season Pass.  Same for Inside Politics, Meet The Press and the rest.  

more ranting after the break...

We do not have time for too much hang wringing.  We need to pull our shit together because the battle over the Supreme Court is literally right around the corner.

In case we forget, this is the picture of the Supreme Court envisioned by Bush...after the jump.

So, stop crying and let's get our shit together NOW.  The  Supreme Court is so much  more important than this one election right now.

And, btw, we need to be more realistic about the viability of Dean (ruined by the media and the DNC) and Obama (uhh..he's Black people.  the South would be completly out of the question).

A friend of mine is the brother of a Dem Representative and DNC insider.  Sorry i can't divulge more specifics, but...

Kerry +4 in FL
Kerry +4 in OH
Tied in IA
Winning PA, MI

So far so good, but we need to keep up the good fight people.  I've been quite nervous about OH and FL, but this has boosted my spirits quite a bit.

Unfortunately, I have nothing to link to, but I would not post this if I didn't trust it.

GOTV
GOTV
GOTV

The story about Clinton heading the UN under a Kerry presidency is getting out.  I think this is a brilliant on two levels:

1.  People who like Clinton will be even more inclined to get out and vote.  Clinton isn't just a prop.  There is actually a role for him to play that will only happen if Kerry is elected.  The world, that surely hates us now, will rejoice and join us once again.

2.  The role of the UN will be transformed.  Clinton will whip the wimps in to shape.  We will seriously address the problems of poverty in the third world and make some actual headway in the war on terror.  No one could say the UN was irrelevant anymore.  We know we need the UN with us and finally the American people will come to appreciate this fact.

Surpise, its October, baby!

Spread the word.

I'm fairly new here.  I'm sure you guys probably knocked this one around when it was first reported.  However, Bush keeps mentioning Zarqawi in his speeches and Kerry finally asked the question: why didn't we take Zarqawi out when we had the chance before the damn war?

I'll tell you why:  Because they needed a fake AQ link.  Because they always need a boogey man. Because they cared more about 'getting Saddam' than about the American soldier.  

Because they are pathetic,  loser, cowardly wimps who think war is a game.

They should get an XBox and leave our soldiers alone!

MSNBC report (from March 2004) after the jump:

I am one of the people who appreciate the potential negative impact of Michael Moore (my independent minded friends pretty much hate Moore), but these are Bush's own words.  Should Kerry use these words against Bush?  Is there a way to use the footage of Bush in an ad?  I'd love to see Kerry whip these words out in tonight's debate and follow up with a devastating ad in the battle ground states.  Is there any better way to demonstrate that Bush will continue to fight for the elite and Kerry will fight for the middle class?

Remember that jackass?  Well, he is making the case for conservatives to vote against Bush (he isn't for Kerry, of course.  He's voting Libertarian).  He says Bush as failed conservatives on fiscal reponsibility, immigration, and civil liberties.  I think we tend to underestimate how many conservatives are upset with Bush on his spending ways and immigration policy.

How great would it be for Bandarik to out poll Nader?

Anway, it makes for a fun read....

Hillary in the spin room will DESTROY all the Repugs.  Excellent!

Go Kerry!