The impeachers are first!

Should I email back James to tell him that "Mitch" and "Grinch" don't rhyme ?

+++

(I just got this email from Mr Carville:

From: James Carville [mailto:info@dscc.org]
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 1:24 PM
To:
Subject: Mitch the Grinch

Howard first ?

yep

Considering how easily Reid caved in to the telecom immunity amendment, Carville should have sent an email titled -- Harry the Mary.

MR. DODD GOES TO WASHINGTON

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-thill/mr-dodd-goes-to-washingt_b_77237.html

Dodd has seized upon a strategy of action over diction. While campaigning hard in Iowa like the rest of the Democratic hopefuls, Dodd actually came back to Congress to do his job and filibuster the hell out of the offensively named Protect America Act. By heckling the halls of government for pretending to protect America while granting retroactive immunity to the telecoms like AT&T and Verizon that have compromised its constitutional freedoms while receiving industry favors for their efforts, Dodd achieved escape velocity back into reality. Those he left in his proactive dust like Biden, Clinton and Obama? Well, they decided that they favored the hyperreality of rhetoric, which is to say flurries of language with no intent to follow it up with substantive action.

DODD IS A GUSTING DEMOCRAT, IN CONTRAST TO THE DISGUSTING MAJORITY

But will Iowans know what Dodd just did for them since he wasn't in their state holding their hands and telling them how wonderful THEY are?

KRALL ON DODD

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_rob_kall_071217_dodd_proves_dems_can.htm

Today, Denator Chris Dodd threatened to filibuster the FISA legislation which included retroactive immunity for telecoms that capitulated to Bush pressure to break the law and spy on individuals.

His effort paid off. The bill was tabled until at least Jan 15, 2008, when the senate reconvenes after the winter break.

Dodd was the only senator among those running in the Dem primaries to return to Washington D.C. to oppose the bill. Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama and Joe Biden remained in Iowa.

Dodd says that if an attempt is made to continue to include the telecom immunity in the FISA bill, he'll filibuster then.

Recent history though-- the track record of the invertebrate 110th, Democrat led congress-- suggests that his efforts will fail, that the Dems will sell out the constitution for an extra few billion in spending on some pet projects. Maybe they'll trade the future of Americans' right to privacy for bragging rights that they actually passed a bill, possibly even persuaded Bush not to veto a bill he'd threatened to veto. But that's not likely. Bush has learned that the Dems don't have the guts to stand up. They cave.

Dodd says that if an attempt is made to continue to include the telecom immunity in the FISA bill, he'll filibuster then.

Recent history though-- the track record of the invertebrate 110th, Democrat led congress-- suggests that his efforts will fail, that the Dems will sell out the constitution for an extra few billion in spending on some pet projects. Maybe they'll trade the future of Americans' right to privacy for bragging rights that they actually passed a bill, possibly even persuaded Bush not to veto a bill he'd threatened to veto. But that's not likely. Bush has learned that the Dems don't have the guts to stand up. They cave.

Do DCDems cave, or are they complicit? I suspect the latter,

8. You make a good point, Sitka.

It seems that Harry Hayseed Reid wants more than anything to pass a bill that Bush won't  veto.

Pass a just and ethical bill and let the putz veto it!

Thanks for the clip Tom.

"Roy Carter for Congress, Roy Carter for Progress"

John wrote "Dodd was the only senator among those running in the Dem primaries to return to Washington D.C. to oppose the bill."

It seems to be favored as the liberal standard bearer on this blog, you have to turn against whatever legislation it is you used to fight to pass.

I think local "Democracy for..." organizations can be very effective and should be involved in partisan primaries, including endorsing candidates if it is helpful.  Our goal is to build a progressive majority, and the primaries are where that starts.

That being said, DFA national ran a survey which proved nothing except there was no single candidate which a sufficient majority of the organization supported to endorse.  The weakness of the methodology only added to that, but I think no matter how the poll was structured, no single candidate would have received the necessary supermajority.

So, DFA should stay out of naming names in the primary/caucus states and instead be pushing all the candidates to support progressive positions on the issues and take stands (perhaps a signed pledge) to implement tkem when elected.

"Bush has learned that the Dems don't have the guts to stand up. They cave. "

Well then, why don't we elect more of them.  They should make great negotiators in foreign policy.   Maybe they could take Bin Laden up on his offer. 

 If you all see it, so does everyone else.  What a fiasco.

This Wexler blog has been around before. My answer to the petition is NO WAY!

On the previous blog, should be endorse primary candidates? If Howard was running, no problem, no need to ask. Since he isn't, the answer is NO.

Tom Bearse
Tue, 12/18/07

Cheap shot....hit attack ad. Obviously by an Obama supporter.

I have no problem with someone admitting they made a mistake, correcting it and moving on. In fact, it would be refreshing to have a President who could admit that once in awhile. Let's not punish reflection and correction. Why are you?

Left hanging on the last thread..... 

ON local endorsements. Yes, DFA locals should endorse IF they have provided a fair opportunity to evaluate the candidates, a process for deciding (not just whoever happens to show up) and there is a clear progressive running that stands out. If several progressives are running or there is NO progressive running, then stay the heck out of endorsing.  

On endorsing a Presidential candidate, I still believe DFA ought to endorse one of them. Aren't we big enough to live through that even if it's not our own favorite?

We ought to have a membership vote, then endorse the winner. Standing on the sidelines in an important election and saying "choose a progressive" is rather lame in my view.

But that's the decision national HQ took and it's getting late to change it.

Indy wrote "I have no problem with someone admitting they made a mistake, correcting it and moving on. In fact, it would be refreshing to have a President who could admit that once in awhile."

Let's not have one who has to admit it everyday.

Is the Register printing the news about Dodd's stand yesterday?  I didn't think so.

Phil, you claim we have a strong field and we do...but not in IA.  In Iowa, the least are first and the best are last IMO.    

You also said, "anyone that doesn't stand with Dodd is a closet Republican, bought and paid for by Corporations."

Phil, I don't want to pick a fight, but you're standing with Edwards.  Are you a closet repug?  Or are you talking about the critters not standing with him?

In any case, I strongly object to Iowans picking my nominee.  Maybe they used to be strong principled dems, but not anymore - not with Clinton running so high in the polls.  In fact, IA appears to have gone bonkers with the Huckleberry thing.  AAR was saying last night that Huckabee is backed in IA by the home schoolers -  And by letting Clinton and Obama in, Iowans are showing there pro-war colors.  Again, more repugs in the closet.

This whole process is antiquated and quite disgusting.  If we're ever lucky enuf to have a real primary, decided by the people, we'll have to dump this system.  Soon.

What if progressive Iowans don't LIKE any second choice? What then?  I can't believe how much power these people have that they throw away on candidates who are not the new dems who represent the will of the majority of the dems in the country.

I  don't even know why I pay attention since my vote will be meaningless.  grumble

Yes, Sitka, OR has mail in ballots. 

Tom Bearse
Tue, 12/18/07

Guess you're following Obama's lead and attacking Edwards now, is that it? Can't run on your own merits? Why do some people here just take their orders and march.....

seashell :-)
Tue, 12/18/07

Sea, Your beef isn't with Iowa. It's with people who want to back the winner or the leader instead of the one who they feel is best on the issues. If people didn't do that, Iowa wouldn't matter a bit.

My rule is vote for who you really want in the primary. I'm usually on the losing side with that philosophy but so what? At least I can live with myself!

Giving away America....with our dollars

Blank Check for Afghanistan Passes, Iraq Funds to Come
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/121807J.shtml
Truthout's Maya Schenwar reports, "Under a cloud of frustration, the House of Representatives passed an omnibus spending bill Monday night that contains $31 billion for the war in Afghanistan, with the expectation Iraq war funding will be added in the Senate. Additionally, the bill submits to most of the president's requests on domestic spending."

Indy wrote "Guess you're following Obama's lead and attacking Edwards now, is that it? Can't run on your own merits?"

Where did you see, hear or discern the name Obama?  I saw a recording of Edwards owning up to his mistaken votes in his own words, which is a real virtue of the candidate if you're to be believed. 

Edwards HAS made a lot of "apologizes" which are really flip-flops. Nothing wrong with that except when the mistakes were made as recently as during his one-year senate term and if they become so numerous that they become a big target for the Repugs.

Should Romney or McCain become the nominee, we could hardly call them flip-floppers if we have one of our own opposing him. That is a concern I presently have about Edwards.

By the way, if we're actually discussing messages that "attack" candidates as Indy suggests, I missed all of his criticism of Edwards after last Friday's remarks, as reported by John McCormick of the Chicago Tribune:

"Edwards, campaigning Friday in a northeast Iowa town that Obama visited at roughly the same time, suggested the Illinois Democrat's proposed leadership style would not serve him well in reforming health care and fixing other problems.

"'He talks about bringing drug companies, insurance companies ... to the table and working with them and negotiating and compromising,' Edwards said Friday. 'I just think that'll never work. If that would work, it would have worked years ago. If that worked, we'd have universal health care. We don't.'"

Joan*in*Florida,

What do mean "NO WAY"? Is there a problem with Wexler or his approach to the issue? Or are you just opposed to impeaching Cheney?

BTW, due to the overwhelming response, Wexler is raised his goal from 50K signatures to 250K.

20.

Indy Steve
Tue, 12/18/07


Guess you're following Obama's lead and attacking Edwards now...
Why do some people here just take their orders and march.

-----------

Well, that's what "follow the leader" actually means... - "take their orders and march".

No followers immune from that..., lol.

26.

Wexler is an excellent representative.

former wrote "No followers immune from that..., lol."

w00t!

Tom Bearse
Tue, 12/18/07

Because Clinton groupies got their orders to cozy up to Edwards. Funny how all of a suddent he Clintonites on DKOS starting being nice to Edwards supporters immediately! And now Obama is attacking Edwards. Hence the ad which is clearly an Obama ad with the reference to voting right the first time (well, could be Kucinich I suppose).

Anyway, Edwards is drawing a distinction about how he would approach solving problems. He WOULD NOT sit down with drug cos., oil and gas cos. and work with them on a compromise that doesnt' provide universal health care or an energy program that doesn't do anything to reduce global warming. Dems need to grow a spine and wise up.

16.

Indy Steve
Tue, 12/18/07

I have no problem with someone admitting they made a mistake, correcting it and moving on. In fact, it would be refreshing to have a President who could admit that once in awhile. Let's not punish reflection and correction. Why are you?
--------------

24.

Joan* In*Florida
Tue, 12/18/07

Edwards HAS made a lot of "apologizes" which are really flip-flops.
***************

Interesting questions!

What's better in this "representative democracy", flip-flopping apologizer OR un-flopping non-apologizer?

29.

Tom Bearse
Tue, 12/18/07

Reply to this

former wrote "No followers immune from that..., lol."

w00t!

-----------
!!!

Don't forget I've meant "followers the leader"!

Joan* In*Florida
Tue, 12/18/07

Anybody can be shown to "flip-flop" over a time period. There are too many quote clips that can be made to look like it. I don't think it's an effective tool any more anyway. It was used against Kerry but also was used against Dean. Any decent editor can make up a clip to present just about anything you want.

Edwards was also representing a fairly conservative state so if he was truly a representative, some of his votes might have been that and not his own views. It is a balance of representing your constituents and holding to only your own views. Either one to an extreme is a fault.

Indy wrote "Anyway, Edwards is drawing a distinction about how he would approach solving problems."

Can you, for the sake of interest or whatever, actually recite what Obama's attack on Edwards was, now that you've "drawn the distinction" between "attacking" a candidate and "drawing a distinction" between approaches to solving problems?

As for your analysis, it's simple enough for a child to understand.  If Edwards comments on or criticizes an opponent, he's drawing a distinction.  If an opponent comments about or criticizes Edwards, it's an attack, and the opponent (or supporter as the case may be) can't run on his own merits.

Guess Nietzsche is following Hume's lead and attacking Kant now, is that it?

Ivan wrote "Don't forget I've meant 'followers the leader'!"

I'll remember!

33.

Indy Steve
Tue, 12/18/07


It is a balance of representing your constituents and holding to only your own views. Either one to an extreme is a fault.
------------

Wow!

That's even more interesting, what this "balance" is actually about?

...Uhmmm..., I have a guess though..., it is probably ability to sustain at any price, for as long as possible "professional political carrer"..., lol.

Tom Bearse
Tue, 12/18/07

Obama attacked Edwards on his votes in the Senate, just like your dutiful supporter put together in the ad. That's why I think it was an obama ad.

I think it's fair for Obama to bring up Edwards' votes and I think it's fair for Edwards to criticize Obama's approach. As long as it doesn't get personally attacking and remains a distinction on the issues. The ad you put up didn't. It was a thinly veiled personal attack with song.

http://jonathan__singer.mydd.com/story/2007/12/17/151811/38

OOPS:

"professional political career" = "career of professional political Representative"

Double lol, anyway.

bbl.

former
Tue, 12/18/07

Why do we call them "representatives", former? And have elections every once in awhile. Any elected official who gets too out of synch with the electorate doesn't get elected. Do you really believe anyone ought to be in office and not listen to his/her constituents? Or try to represent their views while not compromising their own? yes, it is a difficult balancing act.

Indy wrote "I think it's fair for Obama to bring up Edwards' votes and I think it's fair for Edwards to criticize Obama's approach."

I think you're right.  How do you explain the following two questions: 1) "Guess you're following Obama's lead and attacking Edwards now, is that it?" and 2) "Can't run on your own merits?"

Tom Bearse
Tue, 12/18/07

Because you posted an attack ad that was cleverly disguised but was clearly coming from Obama's latest attack. I think it's a mistake to attack your opponent at this point. Run positive campaign from here on out. Obama and Clinton are slipping in Iowa internal polls or you wouldn't see Obama attacking Edwards and Clinton attacking Obama.

I have no problem with someone admitting they made a mistake, correcting it and moving on.

Me neither....so long as their time of reflection is greater than how long it takes to complete a poll which shows public opinion has changed. 

Indy wrote "Because you posted an attack ad that was cleverly disguised but was clearly coming from Obama's latest attack."

I was bringing up Edwards' votes.  I thought it only fair. Didn't you?

And, Tom, this was too clever to have been done by an amateur. They had access to footage over many time periods. The one who posted is brand new to Youtube. Likely a hit ad from a campaign. That is the new strategy, don't you see. Guerilla attack on youtube so the campaign can say they didn't do it. We'll see......it follow too closely on obama's latest strategy.

Except from me, Edwards has had a free pass until now about his former self. It's good to see him finally being called on it -- I just think don't Obama himself should be doing it.

Indy wrote "And, Tom, this was too clever to have been done by an amateur."

You obviously know way more about it than I do.  I just watched it.

Acurately stating someone's record shouldn't be called an attack.

Sitka wrote "Except from me, Edwards has had a free pass until now about his former self. It's good to see him finally being called on it -- I just think don't Obama himself should be doing it."

You're misunderstanding. All Obama did was draw a distinction between the candidates'  approaches to problem solving.  There was no song included with it.

Sitka
Tue, 12/18/07

Let Clinton use her surrogates. I'm surprised you support that kind of deceptive tactic. If the candidate can't say it or do it, then it shouldn't be done. Some might say that is naive, but that's what I believe. Don't hide behind others making your case.

I hope Obama and Edwards stop going after each other. It doesn't benefit either of them. And their supporters ought to realize that as well.

Tom Bearse
Tue, 12/18/07

How do you know there wasn't a song somewhere?! ;-)

Let's work on not getting an Obama-Edwards feud going. That would work to Clinton's advantage.

Edwards / Obama in 2008.

Clinton groupies got their orders to cozy up to Edwards. Funny how all of a suddent he Clintonites on DKOS starting being nice to Edwards supporters immediately!

Will backroom subterfuge once again propel Edwards beyond his real merit?

(and a good reason why dkos is such a sucky place -- a dungeon of backstabbing byzantine intrigue.) 

Let's work on not getting an Obama-Edwards feud going.

Edwards / Obama in 2008.

LOL So long as Edwards is first. 

If you wouldn't see Obama attacking Edwards unless Obama is slipping in Iowa internal polls, why did we see Edwards attacking Obama regarding his approach to solving the health care problem?  Or wasn't that an attack?

I'm surprised you support that kind of deceptive tactic.

Nothing deceptive.

I think the candidates should talk about themselves and leave talking about others to others. I also think what being said about them should be factual and relevant.

Edwards record: factual and relevant.

Obama's middle name: factual but irrelevant. 

But go back a few months. Remember when Elizabeth Edwards was out there slamming people in her husband's behalf? Did you oppose and criticize it since it didn't come from his mouth? I don't remember so, I'll take whatever your word is for it. 

why did we see Edwards attacking Obama regarding his approach to solving the health care problem?  Or wasn't that an attack? 

That's not an attack in my book unless he mischaraterized it or said something unfactual. 

You're misunderstanding. All Obama did was draw a distinction between the candidates'  approaches to problem solving.  There was no song included with it.

I just don't think it's good politics for Obama to do anything which can characterized (or mischaracterized) as an attack. As your youtube post demonstrates, there are obviously ways to get the word out on Edwards' record without doing it himself. 

"Edwards, campaigning Friday in a northeast Iowa town that Obama visited at roughly the same time, suggested the Illinois Democrat's proposed leadership style would not serve him well in reforming health care and fixing other problems.

"'He talks about bringing drug companies, insurance companies ... to the table and working with them and negotiating and compromising,' Edwards said Friday. 'I just think that'll never work. If that would work, it would have worked years ago. If that worked, we'd have universal health care. We don't.'"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

that is the difference between the two candidates

make your choice

Edwards was also representing a fairly conservative state so if he was truly a representative, some of his votes might have been that and not his own views.

That's why I'm against Edwards. Based on his record, I would expect him to represent conservative America much too often as president. 

"'He talks about bringing drug companies, insurance companies ... to the table and working with them and negotiating and compromising,' Edwards said Friday. 'I just think that'll never work. If that would work, it would have worked years ago. If that worked, we'd have universal health care. We don't.'"

As the third placer, Edwards has the luxury to criticize which Obama doesn't as front runner. Obama should explain why Edwards' characterization is wrong, but stay above the perception that he's attacking anyone.

Chris Dodd is a conservative man with a liberal voting record. I consider him the marker in my mind on this issue and find Clinton and Obama to his right on being pro-business, and Biden as well. as we saw this week principles trump narrower political interests of Dodd

this debate seperates out the DLC true believers

does anyone think for a minute that John Edwards would vote for immunity from liability?

"'He talks about bringing drug companies, insurance companies ... to the table and working with them and negotiating and compromising,' Edwards said Friday. 'I just think that'll never work.

This is why Edwards is disingenuous on the subject. He talks like he's going to dictate health care policy when in fact, anything that happens will be a compromise with the existing insurance system. Dean understood that; as Obama apparently also does and is willing to say outright.

does anyone think for a minute that John Edwards would vote for immunity from liability?

Based on his record? Yes.