June 09, 2006

6/9: Viva Las Vegas!!!

While the rest of the blogosphere is still talking about Zarqawi, the biggest story 6/9 and through the weekend will be the YearlyKos convention in Las Vegas. Non-blogger speakers include: Gen. Wesley Clark former Amb. Joseph Wilson, Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM), Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC), DNC Chair Howard Dean, Gov. Tom Vilsack (D-IA), Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV,) UC Berkeley prof. George Lakoff, and People for the American Way's Ralph Neas.

Nolan at DailyKos has a list of links for those who don't want to miss a second of YearlyKos coverage. You can catch AirAmerica's streaming coverage online here. Politics TV and The Young Turks are all covering the event. Nolan ends: "Thursday was a great day but just a warm up for the real show on Friday, Saturday and Sunday." The schedule for the entire conference can be found here.

Warm up or not Markos Moulitsas delivered the keynote address last night. Highlights include:

We were born in '02, and sort of gingerly set out into this brave new world. None of us expected to be more than a lonely voice shouting into the wilderness. But liberal blogs grew rapidly, proving there was a desperate need for strong progressive voices in this country. That was 2002. 2003 was the year of Howard Dean, where an unknown governor from a small, remote, and usually forgotten state was propelled to front-runner status on the strength of netroots activism. 2004 ... well, let's forget 2004. In 2005, we helped Dean become DNC chairman, and we helped Paul Hackett prove that a strong, unapologetic, progressive voice could compete in the deepest red districts. And now it's 2006, and it looks like we've arrived.

There have been so many efforts to marginalize us by the media and political elite because we had the temerity to feel passionate about politics. How dare us riff raff demand a voice in our democracy? So they marginalize us. They say we're extremists. We're politically naive. We're young.

It's great that so much of the DC political press is here, since now they have to make sense of all the gray hairs in the audience. The average age of a Daily Kos reader is 45. We're not that young. Young at heart, perhaps, but we've lived. Some of us are newer to politics than others, but we have a shared body of experience that is mind-boggling.Unlike the out-of-touch establishment in D.C., we actually know what it's like to live day-to-day in George Bush's America. Chris Matthews may say that only the kooks don't like George W. Bush, but we, like the rest of the country, know better. We come from every corner of this nation. We are blue collar and white collar. We are liberal, moderate, and conservative Democrats.

It's our turn to inject some good ol' fashioned common sense into Washington D.C. It's our responsibility to demand accountability and reform from the Democratic Party and allied organizations that claim to represent us.
And if they refuse to reform, if they refuse to be more accountable, if they refuse to join this people-powered movement as it seeks to move our country forward ... well then, they'll be relegated to the dustbin of history.

Drinking Liberally Boulder reported on the address:

Markos got up and spoke about the history of the site and how DC is out of touch and we're Crashing The Gates. He spoke a little about the Tester primary victory and how people-powered politics is slowly starting to have some kind of an effect on the political scene. It's not the end all-be all, of course. But after 2004, I'll take the small victories where we get them. It will take time to have the kind of influence and elect the kind of candidates we really deserve. But it will happen based on today's struggles. Will Keenan joined with another fellow to produce a video of "Mission Accomplished Man." One of the funniest things I've heard of came from the video: gay terrorist immigrants. The video was a good rendition of fear-based voting trends that Republicans have married themselves to. I expect and hope to see more things from Will.

The Left Coaster attended the Pacific Coast caucus and the Science Bloggers caucus:

"The Pacific Coast caucus ... was a very lively session and at least part of it was filmed by someone from the NOW program. (Wow, how cool that NOW is attending the conference!) ... one fellow from Busby's campaign explained about what it was like on the ground with her campaign. He believed that this primary election had been the best chance for electing a Democrat in a district that is so heavily weighted to the Republicans, but it was always a long shot. And he believed that the gaff that Busby made was one of the main reasons she lost. The week before the election, the undecided vote was 10%, and after the right-wing noise machine picked up the gaff, those undecided probably broke 80% against her. ...The Science Blog caucus ... was on what could be done to fight the radical right who were actively working to undermine science. LondonYank told us that this session was nothing like she had expected: the discussion was all about religion and its war on science rather than science. Jerome agreed, in the rest of Europe, the subject of religion in relation to science would not be necessary."

Erin in Flagstaff at DailyKos was admittedly starstruck:

"The highlight so far was not having Wesley Clark standing near our table tonight talking to John and some other folks, it was as Mike Caccioppoli (who is running for the AZ CD1 seat) and I turn a corner in our hunt for snack food and I'm passing someone who reminds me of Joseph Wilson. I catch his eye and with a dumbfounded look I point at him and say, "You're...aren't you?"
Yeah, I'm quite the witty and eloquent gal. He smiles, comes over, and shakes Mike's and my hand. Oh. My. God. We actually have a conversation with Joseph Wilson. With Joseph Wilson!"

As I'm chatting with Mr. Valerie Plame, guess who he calls over and introduces us to? Larry Johnson! The four of us are talking about Zarqawi and Iraq. La di da. Fiddle dee dee. Doesn't everyone chat with Larry Johnson and Joseph Wilson about Iraq? Oh, was I giddy when we went our separate ways. I wanted to jump up and down and scream in excitement."

Ezra Klein at TAPPED felt as if DC had just been transplanted to the desert: "Wondering why the magazines are a bit quiet? Possibly because large segments of their staffs are in Las Vegas, making a fishbowl of YearlyKos. In the rooms I've been in, attendees have barely outnumbered those writing about the attendees. A CAP-sponsored seminar on media appearances this morning saw the second row populated by The Weekly Standard'sMatt Labash , The National Review'sByron York , and The American Prospect's me. Also darting in and out of the session were The New Republic'sRyan Lizza , Time'sAna Marie-Cox , Salon'sMichael Scherer , a Chicago Tribune reporter, and Maureen Dowd. And this was not, mind you, a large room."

The most common reaction to the death of Zarqawi in lefty blogistan was low key approval tempered by claims that the event would not change current realities in Iraq. Matthew Yglesisias at TAPPED: "TURNING POINT! TURNING POINT! Look, it's great that Zarqawi's dead, and it's certainly too bad the Bush administration chose not to kill him when they had the chance years ago, preferring to keep him alive since it was useful to bolstering the set of deceptions they used to launch a war in which tens of thousands of innocent people have been killed, but let's not kid ourselves here. Zarqawi's importance to the tactical situation in Iraq has always been overstated, and I doubt he has any significance at all to the strategic situation."

Fellow lefty Ivo Daalder at TPMCafe turned in a similar opinion: "A truly evil man is dead. That's a very good thing. But Zarqawi's death is no more likely to be turning point in Iraq than was Saddam Hussein's capture in December 2003. Because while Zarqawi and his terrorist henchmen were responsible for a lot of horrific violence, the present state of anarchy is the result of very different causes." Booman Tribune also compared the news to the capture of Saddam: "Obviously good news for an administration desperate for something positive to report from Iraq. The question remains, however: Has anything really changed? My initial reaction is that, as with the capture of Saddam Hussein, the various elections and the formation of the new "unity" government in Iraq, not really.

Not all on the left welcomed the news. Many thought Zarqawi's death would only make things worse. RJ Eskow at The Huffington Post: "Targeted assassinations are unethical, and they don't work. For those reasons, I was wrong to exult over Zarqawi's death yesterday. Sure, he was an evil human being. But all that's been accomplished by this strike is one death that encourages those on both sides who would escalate the cycle of violence even further." Factesque concurred: "But beyond all the uncomfortable talk of revenge, which isn't justice at all ... the fact is that Zarqawi's killing will only make matters in Iraq worse."

Whether they thought Zarqawi's death was good news or bad, many on the left smelled conspiracy in either the timing of his death, the portrayal of his role importance in Iraq. Scot Thill at The Huffington Post hits both notes: "It almost felt great clapping along with the rest of the administration-approved puppets in power at the press conference. Well, almost. Why? Well, for one thing, Zarqawi was an invented menace. Before the great "Iraq experiment" in democracy delivered not by necessity but by bullets and bombs (as well as WMD pretexts), Zarqawi was about as popular as Carrot Top. ...If there are any Americans left who believe that the death of Zarqawi is anything other than an orchestrated photo-op, then it's time to start scouting out apartments in Vancouver." TalkLeft had similar thoughts: "I'm not sorry he's dead. I don't doubt the U.S. killed him. But I do wonder when he really died."

Under the header "Zarqawi's Take-Out Politically Timed? Here's Betting Osama's Will Be as Well," Lefty Russell Shaw at The Huffington Post thought similar new about Osama could be around the corner: "Was Zarqawi was operating from within Iraq, so his mere presence was handy as a straw man to establish a "link" between Saddam and Osama. ...Given the possibility the Bush Administration is playing political timing-games with the terrorist card, will we conveniently kill Osama the week before November's mid-term Congressional elections? I think you know the answer to that."

Lefty media critic Eric Boehlert at The Huffington Post, however, took the Washington Times to task for claiming elected Dems also were describing the Zarqawi killing as a stunt. Boehlert: "The Washington Times article does not quote a single Democrat who thinks the Zarqawi killing was a "stunt." The article, as far as I can tell, was a pure Democratic hit piece from the right-wing daily owned by the Rev. Sung Myung Moon, who fancies himself to be the son of God. ...The article as posted online quotes exactly five Democrats in the story. Three of them, Sen. Harry Reid, Sen. Kent Conrad, and Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, all label the killing "good news." The other two Democrats quoted are well-known war critics, Rep. Pete Stark and Rep.

Dennis Kucinich. Neither one of them though, suggested the killing was a stunt."

ZARQAWI II: Dems (And The MSM) Hate America

While there were righty bloggers who doubted Zarqawi's death would change much in Iraq (Rich Lowry at The Corner: "Just talked to an administration official who is generally an optimist on Iraq. Says "I'd be leery of those who say this is a strategic turning point." Power Line: "On the other hand, I don't think Zarqawi's demise is going to change things in Iraq.")

Many on the right couldn't help but take some pot shots at anti-war Dems. Jonah Goldberg at The Corner: "Where's Dean? A reader asks: "Isn't it about time for Chairman Howard to say something like I suppose it's a good thing that Zarqawi is dead..." Littlegreenfootballs: "The cut-and-run crowd has wasted no time mobilizing their spokesmen of negativity; I turned on CNN a little while ago and who did they pick to comment on Zarqawi's death? The poster boy for cut-and-run, Rep. John Murtha (D-PA). And on the very day US forces targeted and killed Al Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Murtha said to Wolf Blitzer, "I think we cannot win this."

The MSM also came in for righty derision. John J. Miller at The Corner: "Both Time and Newsweek have Haditha on the cover this week. Will they put Zarqawi on the cover next week?"

Hugh Hewitt blew a gasket over Joel Achenbach's blog post on how the air strike must have looked to the American pilot. Hewitt: "I don't see how these paragraphs can easily be read as anything other than an assertion of moral equivalence between the American pilot who deliver the bombs and Zarqawi." Mark Steyn agreed: "Well, this man is disgusting. And to hell with him, frankly. You know, the Archbishop of Canterbury made this point. He said that the terrorists and the United States Air Force were both equivalent."

Instapundit thought his righty friends had just mis-read the post: "I have to say that I didn't read it that way. To me, it seemed that Achenbach was juxtaposing the bestial approach of Zarqawi with the matter-of-fact tradesmanlike approach of the U.S. military. Now some of the comments below Achenbach's post, on the other hand, are just pathetic -- but not surprising.

Lefty bloggers jumped on 6/8 Quinnipiac Univ. poll numbers showing cable exec. Ned Lamont (D) within 15 points of Sen. Joe Lieberman (D). Georgia10 at DailyKos notes that: "Among Democrats, Lieberman's approval has plummeted by 11 points in a little over one month. Perhaps it has something to do with Lieberman's attack ads? It will be interesting to see how the numbers change as voters become more familiar with Ned Lamont (76% of registered Dems still "haven't heard enough" about Lamont to have a favorable/unfavorable opinion of him), and as they begin to see the true Joe Lieberman." Steve Benen at TAPPED points out the issue driving Lamont's campaign: "Among Democrats in the state, 56 percent say they believe Lieberman deserves another term. Most of those who want him reelected point to his overall record, while most of those don't point to Lieberman's support for the war in Iraq.

Spazebay at DailyKos reports that a 6/8 noon DFA and MoveOn PAX pep-rally in New Haven "was overflowing, with estimates of over 200 supporters in attendance." With Tim Tagaris at YearlyKos Aldon at the official Ned Lamont blog live-blogged the event. Spazeboy also provides video of local CT TV coverage of the race as well as Lieberman's 6/8 Imus appearance.

Over at the unofficial Lamontblog thirdparty gets personal with Lieberman campaign manager Sean Smith: "Dear Sean, If, as you claimed yesterday, Ned Lamont's candidacy "is supported mostly by out-of-state political activists," then why did 300-400 motivated Connecticut voters show up at today's rally in New Haven at noon on a weekday? Could you get even a quarter as many people to show up for Joe? (Without paying a bunch of college kids, I mean.) MoveOn and DFA have 60,000 members in Connecticut, almost all of them - unlike your candidate - committed Democrats. Only Connecticut members voted on these endorsements - and hell, Jim Dean even lives in Connecticut. Are they suddenly all "out-of-state political activists" because they are on an organization's national email list? Or are you just talking out of your ass again?"

All this was enough to get lefty Talking Points Memo re-thinking his Lieberman ambivalence: "I've wanted for some time to comment on the Lamont/Lieberman race - basically on whether I think it's a good idea, what it says about the direction of the Democratic party and so forth. I have to confess that I find myself ambivalent. But it's an ambivalence I'm not particularly impressed with. At some basic level, I have a hard time not liking Lieberman. I have friends who either used to work for him or remain in his orbit. And that probably has some effect on me. And it's quite true that his actual voting record is far more solidly Democratic than the atmospherics surrounding him and his reputation. ...I think the most generous read on Lieberman is that he's just out of step with the parliamentary turn of recent American politics which I myself, Mark Schmitt and many others have discussed. But I think that's too generous. The whining in Washington that it's somehow an affront that Lieberman's hold on his senate is being threatened is entirely misplaced, a good example of what's wrong with DC's permanent class."

TPMmuckraker has another update on the deepening Rep. Jerry Lewis's (R-CA) saga reporting that: "Shortly after Lewis rose to be the chairman of that subcommittee, Letitia White's husband, up until that point a tobacco industry lobbyist, made a curious professional decision: he began lobbying on defense spending issues. ...Richard White was a tobacco man until 2000. ... But in 2000, one year after Jerry Lewis became chair of the defense appropriations subcommittee (taking Letitia White along with him), Richard White registered to lobby for "defense spending items" on behalf of a lobbyist. It's not clear which of the lobbyist's clients White was working for."

But perhaps more importantly, righty bloggers are beginning to pick up on the story and they are perfectly ready to through Lewis under the bus. Leon H. Wolf at RedState: "Memo to Congressional Republicans: Stop Acting Like Democrats. ...If we wanted stuff like this to happen, we'd have left the Democrats in power." Captain's Quarters: "Federal investigators have an open investigation into Lewis' dealings with Trident and Small Biz Tech PAC. If they find enough evidence, they should prosecute him to the full extent of the law. Even if they cannot find any laws being broken, this tawdry arrangement shows just how much power earmarks have to corrupt our system of government. We need to push Congress on every instance of abuse to reform the earmarking system to make it completely transparent, creating the Trent Lott Pork Database for rapid discovery of our worst sausage-makers and the ability to glean the possible influences between pork and political payoffs."

Lefty Middle Earth Journal looks at Dem failure to discipline Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) and remembers why he doesn't count himself in their ranks: "While I've abandoned the Republican party myself, I never cease to be disappointed by certain aspects of the Democrats, thus keeping me from joining their ranks. ... May I remind everyone that I didn't see any Democrats complaining when the Republicans were pushing Tom DeLay to step down from his leadership position as soon as news leaked that he was going to be indicted in Texas?

Righty Baseball Crank at RedState sees Dem race-baiting coming back to haunt them: "Remember when Hillary Clinton argued that Republicans ran the House like a plantation? Well, looks like it's the Democrats who are facing a revolt along racial lines for high-handed tactics. ...The caucus chairman, Rep. Melvin Watt of North Carolina, told reporters that some black voters might ask why action was sought against "a black member of Congress" when there was neither precedent nor rule for it. ...In point of fact, Pelosi is actually trying to do the right thing as well as acting in the best interests of her party. But she who lives by the race card..."

Lefty Michael Crowley at The Plank mocks Rep. Tom DeLay's (R-TX) description of himself as a "principled partisan" in his farewell speech. Crowley: "Of course, the problem here is that DeLay really wasn't all that principled. From the GOP's 2003 Medicare bill to farm subsidies to pork spending--not to mention the shameless use of government to enrich legislators and lobbyists--DeLay cast aside the conservative ideals he espoused in the name of political power and personal gain. As even the Wall Street Journal harrumphed last year: "The problem... is that Mr. DeLay, who rode to power in 1994 on a wave of revulsion at the everyday ways of big government, has become the living exemplar of some of its worst habits." Right down to the self-important, self-deluding farewell address."

John Podhoretz at The Corner notes that global temperatures may be rising but Al Gore's approval ratings are not: "After three weeks of lionizing publicity, Al Gore is only a teeny tiny bit better off against Hillary Clinton in a new Gallup poll on the 2008 race. Previously she was leading 38-14; now she's leading 36-16. He'll never get better press than he's gotten recently, and Hillary has been the subject of some pretty bad press at the same time. Yet she still holds a commanding lead. I know the primaries won't take place for 19 months, but trust me, this is very good news for her."

Kausfiles (no permalink, must scroll down) seeks to deflate some pompous critics who claim the public doesn't care about HRC's marriage. under the header "Media Ethicists 0, Readers 1" Kaus writes: "That widely-denounced Patrick Healy story on the state of the Clinton marriage was the NYT's #2 most-emailed story of the month. The emailers have a point, no? More Clinton gossip, please! (And better.)"

Populist David Sirota at The Huffington Post writes that his enthusiasm for a Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) presidential run is tempered by Obama's centrist tendencies. Sirota: "I wanted to get a sense of what Obama wants for himself - rather than what we the public are projecting onto him. And in exploring that question, I found the answers were not easy to find. He strongly supports some very progressive policies, but he also called Sen. Paul Wellstone a "gadfly" - a negative term that suggests Obama doesn't aspire to pursue a similar courageous path as the late progressive hero from Minnesota charted. ...To be sure, Obama is a sincere guy who has great talent and great potential - but only if he is willing to reject Washington's definition of "mainstream" and use his talents to redefine "mainstream" to make it represent ordinary people. The question remains: does he have the guts - or desire - to take on that monumental task?"

Lefty academic darling George Lakoff at The Huffington Post points readers to a Rockridge Institute article comparing their "Framing of Immigration" with an analysis by Frank Luntz. From Rockridge:

"Framing the situation in terms of "illegal immigrants" skews the discourse. It characterizes people who are almost all honest and hardworking as criminals, thereby ignoring their contributions to American lifestyles and the American economy. And it ignores the systemic causes and problems: our cheap-labor economy that drives down the cost of labor, and the many political and economic causes that contribute to pushing so many people to leave their home countries."

Contrast this approach with Luntz's. Luntz understands the power of language and political frames. However, he uses it for manipulative ends. Here's a sample: "This is about overcrowding YOUR schools, emergency room chaos in YOUR hospitals, the increases in YOUR taxes, the crime in YOUR communities."

In celebration of Rep. Tom DeLay's final good-bye the Public Campaign Action Fund has posted a "Tom DeLay Gift Registry" so that we can all help him get a fresh start in his new life. The list includes:

A Can of Raid: Perhaps his next job will be his old one -- exterminator!

Unused Frequent Flyer Miles: Lobbyists and corporate donors don't have any more reasons to fly him around the world.

Autographed Picture of Jack Abramoff: Maybe he already has one -- but just in case!

Glass of Dirty Water and Jar of Dirty Air: DeLay led fights to damage the environment to help out his polluting donors. Let's return the favor!

A Copy of the Constitution: Think he'll read it?

Golden Handcuffs: He must already have the matching golden cufflinks.

$90,000 From William Jefferson's Freezer: Isn't that what he always wanted? Cold hard cash?

Clean Elections-Style Public Financing for Federal Races: Wouldn't it be nice to think that DeLay's corruption led to passing real reform?

Posted by at June 9, 2006 12:21 PM