The Progressive Blog Alliance HQ

A couple of pieces at Consortium News, which has some of the best commentary and news on Bob Gates' nomination as SecDef, seem to bear out the main theme I've been pounding away at these past couple of weeks - the Democrats are unlikely to change anything.

First a snatch from "Democrats Cave on Gates Nomination" by Robert Parry:
Despite winning the Nov. 7 elections largely due to public anger over the Iraq War, congressional Democrats crumbled in their first post-election confrontation with President George W. Bush on the future direction of that conflict.

[full article at P! . .

Lieberman lost the Democratic Primary today 8-8-2006 and will now run as an "Independent Democrat. Let it be known. The angels of democracy are singing and we are tired of Americans dying for oil. We are also tired of Democrats being weak on the Bush Administration which is arguably the worst Presidential administration in the history of our nation. We want our country back from war profiteers. We want our country back from liars. We will not sell our country, our ports, or our integrity! We want a President and Congress who do not interfere in families personal decisions i.e. Terry Schiavo. We want energy policies written by our congressmen not lobbyist. We want our credibility as a strong nation back which Bush has incrementally squandered. We want the Federal Budget balanced and the national debt payedoff. (Clinton balanced the budget with record surpluses which Bush has squandered.) We want Social Security when we retire, which Bush has already spent nation building and funding wars. We want affordable education. We want Mothers to stop burying their children. We want candidates who will standup to Bush and say HELL NO! You can go F*#K yourself. We want a living wage not tied to tax cuts for the wealthy! We want healthcare for every Man Woman and Child period! We want immigrants not marginalized or criminalized by the bigotry and xenophobia of the Republican Party. A majority of Americans want Choice not Supreme Court appointments that will erode Roe and other civil liberties. We want accountability at the polls not machines made for republicans by republicans. We want peace. We want stability. Our country demands nothing less than a new direction. Today progressive democrats everywhere have shown that we are mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore!

One of the problems with politically progressive people is that, themselves being decent people, they often misinterpret the real meaning of what the other side says, because they are unable to comprehend just how indecent and structurally corrupt the other side is. Hence progressives naively tend to give credit to the other side where credit is not due, because they cannot see that what looks and sounds good is not necessarily good in reality. In brief, they often fail to perceive the actual quality of what is right in front of their eyes. By the way, by “the other side” I don’t just mean conservatives. To me, most “moderate” liberals are also an integral part of "the other" camp -- they are the "good cops" to the conservatives' "bad cops," so to speak.

On Monday Robert Steinback wrote an opinion piece for the Miami Herald that got picked up and repeated ad nauseam all over the Blogsphere. Even prominent left-leaning sites like Salon and Smirking Chimp reprinted it. The gist was that Mr. Steinback feels blindsided by all the illegal, unconstitutional, immoral acts that the Bush administration engages in under the guise of fighting the so-called War on Terror. He moans and whines about this being, "No America that I know," and Boing Boing, for their part, calls it "stirring".

You know what I call it: Self-indulgent, hand-wringing bullshit that comes at least three goddamned years too late! The signs that America had fundamentally changed were all around us way before 9/11, and anyone who couldn't see them was either a moron or a member of the administration... And, in the remainder of his last post for this year, Kvatch comes unglued. Read it here.

Grindstaff Chronicles

Rich and poor sitting at the same table? Over their collective dead bodies, say the republicans. The poor deserve an empty table, because it's their own fault for being poor, and the rich deserve to be even richer.

Read the entire Grindstaff Chronicles Newsletter.

Crossposted from The Republic of T.

Today's New York Times has an article that might just give us some idea of what probably drove Sen. Harry Reid to involve “rule 21” last week and shut down the Senate. (And why Republicans were so quick to comply with demands that the investigation into pre-invasion Iraq intelligence be stepped up.)Editor & Publisher previewed the article yesterday.

Tomorrow, in its print edition, The New York Times starts to answer the question, with reporter Douglas Jehl disclosing the contents of a newly declassified memo apparently passed to him by Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee. It shows that an al-Qaeda official held by the Americans was identified as a likely fabricator months before the Bush administration began to use his statements as the basis for its claims that Iraq trained al-Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons, according to this Defense Intelligence Agency document from February 2002. It declared that it was probable that the prisoner, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, “was intentionally misleading the debriefers” in making claims about Iraqi support for al-Qaeda's work with illicit weapons, Jehl reports. “The document provides the earliest and strongest indication of doubts voiced by American intelligence agencies about Mr. Libi's credibility,” Jehl writes. “Without mentioning him by name, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Colin L. Powell, then secretary of state, and other administration officials repeatedly cited Mr. Libi's information as ‘credible’ evidence that Iraq was training Al Qaeda members in the use of explosives and illicit weapons.

The article itself goes into greater detail, but the scuttlebutt here is that the administration -- which had the memo in 2002 -- knew they were being lied to about the existence and extent of Iraq's fabled WMD program. Steve over at Lean Left has more on just what this could mean for Bush.

This piece is being crossposted from Comments From Left Field.

Many thanks to Mark Crispin Miller for posting the full audio of a speech given by Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) at a private party in Georgia on August 2. I have clipped out the relevant two minutes of this speech and transcribed it for everyone to see. Bottom line, Schumer admits to, in effect, a new Democratic strategy whereby he and the DSCC leadership will choose who will run against vulnerable Republicans. The case he uses is our own fight for the seat held by Rick Santorum. Here is the audio clip in mp3 format.

Crossposted from the The Republic of T.

Same shit. Different day.

I'm not sure which is more irritating. NARAL's call to action for supporters to sound off on "top blogs" -- Kos, Atrios, MyDD, the Left Coaster, and Swing State Project to be specific -- on the Roberts Supreme Court nomination (as if the rest of us are chopped liver) or Kos' response that NARAL and other groups should focus on getting Democrats elected first and their specific issues second.

 Crossposted from The Republic of T.

Eleanor Clift reviews the Ohio 02 race and says bloggers done good. She also profiles Markos and his appearance with Joe Trippi at a "Reflections of a Blogger" forum here in D.C. (No, I did not attend. Got an invite, but didn't go.) To his credit, Kos disavowed any leadership role, but this assessment from him -- out of Clift's profile -- about what Dems need to do just doesn't go down to well with me.

Crossposted from The Republic of T.

Well, as a former co-worker of mine used to say, it’s all over but the shoutin’. Thanks to the recent Senate compromise over the filibuster, one of the most homo-hating judicial nominees in recent memory gets her ticket to the federal bench, and her brother in homo-hatred will soon follow.

The Senate on Wednesday confirmed California judge Janice Rogers Brown for the federal appeals court, ending a two-year battle filled with accusations of racism and sexism and shadowed by a dispute over Democratic blocking tactics.

Crossposted from The Republic of T.

Now this is interesting. Even given my previous criticism of John Kerry, I think I’m going to have to give him a bit of credit for recently taking a stand on the Downing Street Memo. I particularly have to concur with his dismay over the media blackout concerning the media blackout on the memo, and his question of whether the reality of what the Downing Street memo says can break through the combination of media silence and American ignorance/apathy.

“When I go back [to Washington] on Monday, I am going to raise the issue. I think it’s a stunning, unbelievably simple and understandable statement of the truth and a profoundly important document that raises stunning issues here at home. And it’s amazing to me the way it escaped major media discussion. It’s not being missed on the Internet, I can tell you that.”

Story Here

OK, Former Governor of Vermont, Howard Dean is currently the Chair of the Democratic National Committee. In an interview last weekend, Dean blatantly stated that one of the major problems of the Democratic party was taking Black voters for granted.

Well, its about damn time someone said something. I have been saying it since I started voting (1990 congressional election was my first time).

Howard Dean was picked for this position due to his fundraising ability on the Grass Roots level. During his campaign, he allowed supporters to donate as little as $25 dollars to his campaign and he raised Millions of dollars by a wide range of people. His Platform was good, however, he screeched or something and the status quo Democrats did every thing to get him out of the election.

This was just a drill. If this had been a real emergency you would have been instructed to stick your head in the sand and kiss your civil liberties/civil rights goodbye.

I haven’t written much about the Senate goings-on about the “nuclear option.” As I said before, there were several people out there doing a great job of covering it. But I have been watching the drama unfold, and with a sense of dread. Dread because, though my understanding of the legal system is probably quite limited, it feels like we were—and are—on the verge of a radical shift in our judiciary.

What got me thinking about it was this article about a Massachusetts Supreme Court justice speaking on the subject of majority rule.

So, after all the sturm und drang, Senate "moderates" reached a "compromise" on the disputed judicial nominations. Some compromise. The most egregious of the nominees--Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor--will get their "up or down vote" and will undoubtedly be confirmed. Aren't these precisely the sort of reactionary activist judges from whom the Democrats' sacred filibuster was supposed to protect us? Exactly what are they saving their filibuster for? The Supreme Court? Do they really think that Frist and Co. won't press the nuclear button then? Can even Harry Reid be that stupid? Evidently. Here's his statement:

There is good news for every American in this agreement. The so-called "nuclear option" is off the table. This is a significant victory for our country, for democracy, and for all Americans. Checks and balances in our government have been preserved. ... We have sent President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the radical arm of the Republican base an undeniable message: Abuse of power will not be tolerated, and attempts to trample the Constitution and grab absolute control are over.

Yeah, right. President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the radical arm of the Republican base are laughing up their sleeves at this very moment. They got the judges they wanted, and the Democrats got bupkis. That's terrific news, Harry. Thanks for all your hard work.

What Do Progressives Stand For?

On May 6, 2005 Eric Alterman wrote the following: I was watching a panel on foreign policy called “Are We Making the World Safe for Democracy?” at the L.A. Times Festival of Books on C-SPAN and a questioner asked “My conservative friends can enumerate four or five basic principles of what it means to be a conservative, but what are the principles of the liberals? I would really like to find out what are the basic principles of the liberal worldview… My liberal friends are not able to elucidate them for me. I’m serious…. For my conservative friends we can rattle off four or five principles, if you could just rattle off four or five things that are basic.”
Nobody wanted to answer. David Rieff said, “I think it’s a provocation this question. If anyone could argue for the ability to rattle off, as you say, four or five principles I would take issue with the seriousness of those principles.” Reiff is right, but the political problem is real and central. Anyone want to try and answer? If you solve it, I’ll credit you in the next book, and you will have made the world a better place.

From my blog: Politiks As Usual Is Bush having second thoughts on his anti gay marriage stance? He could be seen yesterday getting very close to Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah and holding his hand. At first i thought maybe they were just being friendly, but then it hit me. These guys would be perfect for each other. They both know about pumping and fucking people(or whole countries) in the ass!

The following was taken from my blog: Politiks As Usual ,I will not post fashion advice, seeing as how I have little to give. In response to Dave's question, "We can't all be gangsters...can we?" I find myself at a bit of a lost. I'm reminded of the Geto Boys' wise words, "damn it feels good to be a gangsta," and I can't help but think of the feelings Democrats will have after the 2006 elections. Dave will talk a lot about gangstas and ninjas, and one is easily confused as to what he's talking about. Gangstas and ninjas stand up for the little guy, they never stop believing in the miracles of cooperation, and they never let some fuckstick like Tom Delay insult the American people.

Since President Bush has opened the door to ideas on how to change Social Security, progressives and liberals have seemed reluctant to weigh in. Rather than seize an opportunity to make a regressive tax a progressive one, or balance future benefits on the backs of the multi-millionaires President Bush favors, they have chosen instead to do nothing. Although I agree doing nothing is better than anything I have heard so far, what I have not heard is to turn the Social Security Trust Funds into a more purer form of pension plan, something like CALPERS, the California Pension Retirement System.

First, the numbers. CALPERS is a hugely successful investor. Over the last ten years, it has generated an annual rate of return of 9.7%, and last year it earned a whopping 16.6% in a flat stock market. The Social Security trust funds, which by law must invest entirely in special low interest T-Bills earned a conservative 5.6%. CALPERs is diversified, with 60% of its assets in stocks, both domestic and international, as well as owning real estate, municipal bonds and of course, T-Bills. They are well managed, with a staff of experts as well as outside advisors. Management fees are the lowest in the business, achievable in part because of its size.

Tas of Loaded Mouth has issued a cry-out to bloggers big, almost big, and on the left, and on the right, on behalf of a cry-out from Sub-Sailor (Rob Schumacher) of Rob's Blog. Just like Tas, I'm gonna let Rob blog for himself:
""Status quo of U.S. military personnel"...shall we say "how the
warhawk administration treats it's disposable assets"? Or "how not to
win the hearts and minds of your own troops"?"

This is my first remark to my PBA blog.  On Nov. 2nd where I come from - Washington, DC - about 90% of the vote went to John Kerry (the Democratic candidate you know).  But after Nov. 2nd I only kept hearing how Massachusetts voted 60+ per cent for Kerry.

Now if I came from a battleground state maybe I'd be impressed but I'm from Washington, DC and we voted 90% for John Kerry.  In the mainland U.S. no other jurisdiction voted anywhere near 90-91% for Kerry.  The simple yet stunning fact of the Kerry landslide in DC seems to have completely escaped the attention of the entire Democratic Party all across the USA.

Could that be because most Washington, DC voters are Black?

I just want to leave readers with that thought and question. Perhaps we can discuss it further, if folks feel up to it.  The issues for the immediate future aren't really complicated. The question is whether Democrats will continue to choose to crap on their base - and keep right on losing.  -M-