Leavitt takes a page from Abramoff

Jack Abramoff, Ralph Reed, and Grover Norquist would approve of ex-Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt's (current Bush secretary of HHS) sham charity. After all, its what they used to funnel money to their favorite cause: themselves.

The Leavitts used nearly $9 million of their assets to set up the foundation in 2000 under an obscure provision of the federal tax code. In 2002, 2003 and 2004, the Leavitt organization donated less than 1 percent of its assets.
...
While Mike Leavitt alone has claimed about $1.2 million in tax write-offs since 2000, the foundation gave away only $49,000 in 2002 and $52,000 the next year, according to tax returns and other documents filed by the foundation. Meanwhile, the foundation's assets have been used for a $332,000 loan to Leavitt Land and Investment Inc., in which the secretary owns a significant stake, and other secured loans for insurance and real estate deals, said Alan Jones, a trustee of the organization.
Leavitt Land and Investment, in turn, extended an interest-free loan to Leavitt in 2002 valued at more than $250,001, according to a recent financial disclosure.

Oh millioniare's and their tax loopholes. This is why I can never be a tax attorney. You have to figure out ways to make the rich even more rich while knowning that what you are doing directly hurts the poorest of the poor who get health care and other vital services from the government.

As glad as I am that this partisan hack millioniare is no longer my governor, it is too bad that we have a partisan hack billioniare as our current governor. I am sure even if Scott M. Matheson, Jr. had this kind of money, which he doesn't, he wouldn't do this kind of thing. Nor would Scott push for a tax cut for the rich and push the tax burden onto the middle class of Utah. Because that's the kind of guy he is.

photo of the day

Courtesy of BAG News Notes

This in a nutshell, or bombshell, is the war in the land of Canaan/Phoenica. Look at the propraganization of the youth by Israel, and then compare it to the school books in surrounding Arab countries, and you will see that the powers that be don't want this mutual hatred ever end. They are prepping the next generation to join in the conflict whether by being members of the Israeli army or that of Jahadi's.

This image is so emotionally charged that it would make Karl Rove and Goebels blush. But it just makes me sick. Our photo of the day.

Utah still in the race to the bottom

Governor and billioniare John Huntsman Jr. is reviving his "tax reform" proposal that creates a "flater tax" designed to appeal to the uber-Rich, to entice them to move to Utah. That is why the rule against perpetuities has been basically abolished (estates can keep divvying up the dead man's money 1,000 years after he's gone by will).

Utah's Republican leadership still believe in the economic fallisy that if you give away enough to the rich and/or corporations, they will want to move here and spend their money/create jobs in this state. This is what I call joining the race to the bottom. Because other cities and states are playing the same game, all trying to out bid another by stripping out their tax revenue, giving away land, giving favorable loans, etc. The result is that all of these states lose. The best way to create economic growth that will aid the state coffers and make live better is to create an environment that employees not employers, find appealing.

Attract the smartest, most tallented, creative types, and you get the high paying jobs that contribute back to your community. How do you do it? Create great schools, safe neighborhoods, clean livable streets, nice shoping centers, walkable downtowns, a nightlife, and lower cost of living by lowering or eliminating taxes on groceries, clothing, etc. Utah already has a great advantage over other states. We have great weather, great outdoor activities, a relatively low crime rate, cheep housing, friendly people, and relatively light traffic.

But our public schools are a mess, and traffic/crime are getting worse without any leadership from Johnny on either. Didn't Huntsman run primarily on education, and moving the prison out of Draper? Funny where his focus ended up being: on the ultra-rich and mega-corporations. You shouldn't have to bribe companies (or sports teams) to move to your state. It is better for everyone if they move because they want be in the ideopolis.

"Was tuen Sie denn?"

Our photo of the day:

Can Bush stop embaressing himself and the U.S. during the G8 conference? First he talked with is mouthful to British PM Tony Blair as if he really was his lapdog (then they both talked about a different Middle East than the one that exists), before that actually was the pig roast, and now "the grope"

Appearantly Bush is just like those bosses that touch you in uncomfortable ways at awkward times. Just because she is a 'conservative' woman doesn't mean you get to give her an unasked-for backrub. Bush has shown off the worst sides of his personality: his boorish and imature behavior, his lack of knowledge (and lack of interest) in important world affairs, and his general inability to do any policy (foreign or domestic) right.

["Was tuen Sie denn?" Means "What are you {formal} doing?" in German]

Matheson is cruising

Today, the local papers finally got around to covering the Matheson/Christensen race, such as it is. The general assesment is right: Jim will have an easy time and part of that is because he is an encumbent, part because he worked so hard to develop his reputation with conservative voters.

I must take issue with this line, however: "Utah's lone Democratic representative in Congress has commandeered traditionally conservative values like fiscal responsibility, multiple use of public lands and protecting children from violence." These are not conservative values, these are DLC/Blue Dog values, and really fiscal responsibility has become a mainstream Democratic value since about 1993. Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and other New Dems triumphed these values and ideas for decades. Everyone wants to protect their children from violence, some just don't see the harm in violent video games and movies. Others find sex in video games and movies more troubling than violence (Christian Conservatives).

As far as the St. George land deal goes, I don't know the specifics and haven't talked to any knowledgable environmental friends of mine about it, so I can't comment on the propriety of the Matheson-Bennett bill on a policy level. But on a political level, it is a no brainer. Jim has surely shown that he is not beholdant to the environmental wing of the party and given Washington County voters another reason to vote for him.

After learning he was being redistricted into Southern Utah, Jim made it his goal to deliver for Washington County, especially since it nearly cost him his seat in 2002. So Jim got a nice airport for St. George, and this land-deal would help development which would be key for swingish voters in the area. Smart moves all.

The payraise move Jim makes every year gets him editorial mentions around the nation and is also good politics. But it also good policy. Why should Congress give itself a raise when it won't raise the minimum wage or reign in spending on boondoogles?

Christensen's slam is to call Jim's legislative career as "representation by press release. Hopefully, he can find one bill that can pass. That would be great." It would be great if he could pass a bill, but guess how many House Democrats get their bills passed in a GOP controlled House, especially ones from potential GOP pick-up seats? I am guessing a handfull at best, and all of those are probabbly much more senior than Jim. So it is a nice line, but has no real substance behind it. Then again, this is the same guy that said "Tolerance is the religion of people who no longer believe in anything."

That has to be the most bigoted and hate-filled statement I have heard in a while. Even if Christensen was running against a pol as disgusting as Joe Biden or Joe Lieberman, I would still vote against LaVar. I have no tolerance for such intolerance.

VRA now a tool of GOP majorities

Don't get me wrong, I think the Voting Rights Act is one of the best pieces of legislation ever divised by Congress. But thanks to the Supreme Court's unwillingness to step in and create clear, bright-line rules about redistricting (and deciding this year to allow re-redistricting) and advances in software, the GOP is able to use the VRA to ensure they stay in power. How? By using majority-minority districts to their advantage:

The Republicans are more than happy to cede 40 or so majority-minority Democratic big-city districts, carved to the specifications of the Voting Rights Act, in exchange for a lock on the far more numerous [white,] suburban districts.

One of surest ways to make seats more Democratic leaning is to spread the black vote around several districts, such that there is a sizable minority (20-40%) but not an overwhelming presence (so that the rest can be divvyed up in other districts. But this could violate the VRA, which prohibits diluting the votes of minorities. New York Magazine has the goods:

"It seems clear that the VRA doesn’t serve us well," says a Democratic congressman who’s tried to push the issue with colleagues. "But a weird, self-interested math comes into play. Black Democrats don’t want to appear retrograde; whites don’t have the courage to stand up and try to fix it without blacks standing alongside them; and Republicans like the outcome that they’re getting, which enables them to have perpetually lily-white suburban southern districts. And then there’s so much animus—not between the parties, but between white Democrats and black Democrats, in lots of parts of the South. So any effort to ‘fix’ the thing is a nonstarter. But I’d be a better congressman if my district were more diverse, and Democrats would have better chances of winning if there were more ‘swing’ districts."

Such swing districts would be more progressive and ultimately more favorable to the interests of African-Americans. But not necessarily Black politicans. I hope that by 2006, a district without a majority of minorities could elect a minority to represent them. Of course, I am not so naive not to recognize that people vote against minorities all the time just because they are minorities and folks like Barrack Obama are the exception rather than the rule.

Still CBC members should look beyond their own selfish interests into what is best for their constituents-- having a Democrat-controlled House-- and not what is best for them personally.

Story of the day

Now that I am back working in the criminal division of the DA's office, I get to relish the stupidity of criminals.

A 45 year old man in Salt Lake City broke into someone's house and starting cooking their 2 pounds of bacon, whereupon the owner returned home and found him and called the police. "Responding officers found ...[him] sitting at the kitchen table. " He was charged with burglary.

What the heck is going on in Canaan?

Man, Israel is getting attacked with hundreds of missles from Hesbolah, Hamas is cheering away, and who knows how much Syria, Lebanon and Iran are involved. Meanwhile, the Bush administration is saying nice dipomatic nothings and doing less.

This is a direct result of the failure of the peace talks in the twilight hours of the Clinton Administration, the election of Sharon and Olmert, and the election of Hamas to the PLA. What a freaking disaster.

Meanwhile, our troops are being beseiged in Iraq by local insurents, rival tribal gangs, and Iranian operatives. Meanwhile still, Iran is moving forward with nuclear technologies, as North Korea reworks their crappy missle technology. They already have nukes.

This is also a direct result of cowboy diplomacy of the Cheney/Rumsfeld cabal. They PNAC plan really has made things much, much worse.

Israel has the right to defend itself, but at the same time, there needs to be peace and it cannot be achieved at the butt of a gun. The Palistinans need a contiguous homeland, with access to water, the ability to work, and saftey and security for all those living in the land of Canaan. If only fmr. Rep. Wayne Owens (D-UT) were still alive to help bring both sides back from the brink of disaster.

the week I missed

Sorry for the long absense dear readers, I took a much needed vacation. Canada is very interesting, it is like a cleaner, nicer version of the U.S. But I couldn't live in a country that doesn't have the guts to stick up for itself and permitted Great Britian to control it until late into the 20th century. I saw many interesting things, like the hundreds of bunnies hopping around the University of Victoria (pics to come).

I also enjoyed Seattle, but I think the overcast weather would eventually be draining on my phyche even though my skin would love it. I had not really been outside in the sun this whole year until last week and even though I used sunscreen, I got pretty burned. Remember kids, apply liberally and thorougly, especially when you go out on a boat or on a long bike ride.

On the plane, I read Glenn Greenwald's book, which I bought, and Kos/Armstrong's book, which I checked out from the library. I am glad I bought what I bought and borrowed what I borrowed. Crashing the Gate reads like a series of blog posts by Kos, which tend to be more based on emotion that clear, thorough logic. Maybe it is the fact that I am in law school, but I found Glenn's writing to be excellant and will be giving the book to my father who seems inclined to think that the NSA wiretapping scandal is no big deal. I believe it will pursuade him otherwise. Whereas, if you weren't already a believer in Kos and Jerome's brand of agressive progressiveness, you were only pursuaded that the GOP has their sh!t together whereas the Democrats don't in areas of consultants, ad buys, and GOTV.

The DLC section to me is the most frustrating thing. No matter how many times I and others tell folks on Kos or MyDD that the DLC doesn't endorse or support candidates other than writing policy papers and calling them the New Dem of the week or among the 100 to Watch. The DLC doesn't have a vast conspiratorial agenda, and I don't see how they can simultianously be irrelevant and capable of taking down Howard Dean.

The DLC is a 501(c)(3), which means it can't support candidates or get involved at all in primaries other to state their opinion. Individuals associated with the DLC/PPI like Al From could endorse a candidate personally and give them $2,100, but that's it. There is no way they would risk their tax status to help Liberman win. Sure they might had advised him, DLC members might have given money or raised money for him, but the DLC can't and doesn't get involved in any election other than in their magazines, blogs, and interviews. DLC staffers liked Rep. Ed Case, CA Aud. Steve Westly, and ex-Rep. Tim Roemer, but they did little for those folks in their efforts to climb higher. The DLC like to take credit for spotting rising stars and crafting them with the DLC's message, but they aren't repsonsible for telling them to run for higher office or supporting them on an institutional level.

Westley's big mistake was hiring the Chris Lehane of California politics: Garry South. South ran Gray Davis' horribly nasty 2002 reelection effort that reduced turnout to unheard of levels, even for California. Was it surprising to anyone that South used the same low-ball tactics against Angelides that he used in 2002 against GOPers? Westley also shouldn't have listened to South, but that's another story for another time.

missing Sandra Day

While Justice Kennedy has written some pretty great opinions lately, without the presence of Justice O'Connor, Kennedy has been left to steer the court.

The results have not been pretty: 4-1-4 decisions, vague concurring opinions, multipart multi-split opinions and generally bad law all around.

Why are the police able to turn knock-and-announce warrants into no-knocks at their discretion? Why has the Clean Water Act been, um watered down? Why has mid-decade re-redistricting been upheld? Because Kennedy is the lone swing vote.

Vieth v. Jubilander was also a terrible case, and these are hard issues, but allowing redistricting purely because the legislature changes political hands sets an awful precedent. This is in effect makes the U.S. House of Representatives the pre-Seventeenth Amendment U.S. Senate-- a federal legislative body whose members are chosen at the whim of each state legislature. The House will now represent the majority party in their home state's state house (and governor's mansion), and not the people of their district. With advances in statistical analysis and computer programming is it possible to create districts which virtually lock in a seat for a particular party.

The Framers of the Constitution intended the House to be the more representative body, which is why they made it larger, based on population, and gave it the power to originate spending and tax bills, the power to impeach, and the power to choose the president in the case of an electoral college tie/plurality. The Senate was supposed to be the more deliberative, tempered body (the saucer to cool the hot coffee of the House's cup) filled with more learned, wise men [now a few women], which is why they had the power to ratify treaties, advise and consent on presidential appointments, and vote to remove the President or Supreme Court Justices from office.

Gerrymandering has turned this all on its head. I am sure that the Founders were political and believed in Gerrymandering (after all, it started with the first Congress) but I highly doubt they ever dreamed mapmakers would ever wield the precision and predictability they possess. If they had known where it all would lead, I doubt they would have approved of such counter-majoritarian abilities.

Maybe the court looked the other way because Democrats in 1990 redistricted Texas overly favorably to their cause and the DeLay Gerrymander was just a wing in the opposite direction that made the state Congressional delegation match the statewide voting percentages. But now other states will be emboldened to reredistrict not just to "correct and injustice" but to counter the will of the people. The very fact that elected officials are now beholden more to mapmakers and party bosses than the electorate violates the spirit, and I believe the letter of the Constitution.

Bush has a sense of humor

Appearantly, Bush wants the Line-Item Veto, despite the fact that SCOTUS was pretty definative against such power in Clinton v. City of New York (although dishonest partisans like Thomas, Scalia, and Alito might change their minds). Bush's claimed reason for having increased executive powers? To cut spending.

"And I'm not going to deal myself out of the budgetary process," he said. "So my point is, they can meet the size of the pie, but I may not like some of the slices of the pie. And therefore, what do we do about it? And one way to deal with it is the line-item veto. The president could approve the spending that is necessary, could red-line spending that is not, and then let the Congress decide whether or not the president is right."

Just like how he let Congress decide whether or not to use the NSA to spy on American citizens' phone records, library records, financial transactions, and internet activity. Or just like how Bush let Congress pass a ban on torture, only to seemingly veto the bill without allowing the Congress a chance to override the veto.

Bush's signing statements violate the Constitution. specfically, Article I, Section 7, Clause 2 ("The Presenment Clause"):

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law.

This is a radical agenda by Dick Cheney and his cabal. Having already reclaimed whatever executive power presidents had prior to Watergate, Cheney, John Yoo et al are trying to use Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 ("Commander-in-Chief") to grab as much power as the Rubber-Stamp Do-Nothing Republican Congress will allow.

Right now, Specter has another Kabuki Theater effort of "reigning in the president" and being a "moderate savior of the Constitution." One wonders how many days he will keep up the charade.

Dems sell out Voting Rights

House Democrats must not be that confident that they will win back the House in November. The Hill Reports

The prospect of a Texas House Republican chairing the Judiciary Committee motivated Democrats to compromise earlier this year on a bill that would reauthorize and amend the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Amazingly enough, they prefer James "lock up the illegal immigrants" Sensenbrenner to Lamar Smith. It just goes to show how radically conservative the House GOP leadership is. It also shows how Democrats have no spine to stand up for the right thing, and trust the voters to help them.

Democrats and civil-rights leaders compromised on measures regarding voter protection, including those to curb the use of photo-ID laws, to ensure that a bill would be passed before the bill sponsor, committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), gives up his gavel at the end of the legislative session, according to several Democratic sources in the House, including multiple committee staffers.
...
One House staffer who works for a CBC member said the Democratic leaders’ concern was so great that they told CBC members not to campaign too intensely for the bill for fear that it would splinter the bipartisan coalition and delay a vote. This deal was brokered long before tension between Pelosi and the CBC surfaced after Pelosi asked Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.) to step down from the Ways and Means Committee.

In my book, the only legitimate complaint that Southern House Reps have against the VRA is that the section 5 clearance by the DOJ should not be limited to the South. There is racism in New York, in Maryland, in Massachusetts, in Indiana, in Illinois, in California...in every state. Both parties use racial demographics to draw line for state legislative and congressional districts, but they pretend it is "communities of interest" and the like.

Republicans like to pack the minorities into as few districts as possible, and CBC-type minority politicans love to have a safe seat. Democratic leaders tend to try to spread out the minorities, especially African-Americans as much as possible so as to increase their chances at picking up seats.

So why would House Dems allow tried and true voter suppression tactics like ID cards be permissible under the VRA? Because they are afraid of a different chairman? Shouldn't they be licking their chops at having African-American and voting rights champaign John Conyers in charge in January if the Dems take back the House? Why cave now when you can beat the GOP over the head with it and get a better bill later?

No matter what, Dems are going to pick up seats in both chambers and the Senate will be able to craft a better bill than this. So why the rush? Are they too chicken?

UPDATE:Rick Hansen over at Election Law Blog reports:

Last night the Rules Committee voted to table H. Res. 878, which had provided for the rule on debate of VRA renewal (that's the deal that allowed two proposed amendments, the Norwood amendment and the Westmoreland amendment). It appears then that the details of the VRA renewal debate will have to be renegotiated, and that's likely not to happen until after the July 4 recess.

Is this because of the compromise that the Dems made? Even with 152 co-sponsors and the political goldmine of holding up VRA? I hope I am wrong.

Josh Ewing for UT St. Rep. (25)

Maybe I am hopping on the establishment bandwagon, considering all the big names that have endorsed Josh, but after noticing his signs (quite nice, aren't they), reading his bio and positions on his website, I think he would make an excellent Representative.

Better still, he has a blog in which he tells the story of an attempted bribe by Summit Co. (Park City and its environs) Democratic Party Chair Rob Weyher, whose neice was in my high school graduating class (and her brother was a 3L when I was a 1L at the U).

This guy is an idiot. First, he gets caught driving drunk, then he leaves a message on the phone of Josh's boss at Love Communications? FYI Rob, if you want to bribe someone, you don't leave a record of it.

I’ve been asked several times if I thought my opponent had been involved with Mr. Weyher’s acts. I’ve always said that I have no reason to think that Chris would have been involved. I know that Rob is a strong supporter of Chris, because he thinks she would be the more “liberal” candidate, but I don’t think Chris knew what Rob was doing. Unfortunately, like what is happening in the Cannon-Jacobs race, outside forces are trying to intervene and influence the outcome. I just hope voters look beyond this issue, learn about the candidates, and pick the best person for the job.

Josh is a classy guy. My only beef is that he didn't know this was against the law, but at least his instincts were sound.

Jacob is beating Cannon

Or at least, Jacob is within striking distance, and Cannon is scared of losing his seat. How do I know? Because all of a sudden, Jacob has to tackle rumor about being a gambling adict.

Now in most places, that wouldn't be much of a scandal. But in Utah, and especially in Orem/Provo, it's a big issue. Here's why:

President Gordon B. Hinckley of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints forcefully repeated the church's long-standing opposition to all forms of gambling at General Conference in April 2005.
President Hinckley gave a similar speech in 1985, when he said, "President Brigham Young spoke out against gambling. President Lorenzo Snow spoke against it. President Joseph F. Smith spoke very strongly against it; and, in 1925, President Heber J. Grant and his counselors said, 'The Church has been and now is unalterably opposed to gambling in any form.' "

Jacob has gambled before, he's admitted it, but he claims he quit in 2005 and spoke out against during debates with Cannon. But on the Doug Wright show, a conservative radio talk show host that toyed with running against Jim Matheson [but who was blocked by Eagle Forum-types], let callers chime in with the rumor that had been swirling via email.

Jacob also admitted he vastly exaggerated the number of illegal aliens in the Gunnison prison. He said 40%, the Dept of Corrections told the Deseret News the number is 8.4%...even if the state's entire immigrant inmate population were at Gunnison, they would account for 30 percent of Gunnison's prisoners. And remember these are all immigrants (both legal and illegal), who knows how many of these prisoners are naturalized citizens, or have become citizens, or had visas etc.

Jacob is talking to blogs like Right Wing News and Michelle Malkin has attracted the attention of Xenophobe Lou Dobbs, who will be filming in Utah today. This is going to be a tight race.

UPDATE: Jacob is even crazier than I thought! Courtesy of the Salt Lake Tribune:

"There's another force that wants to keep us from going to Washington, D.C.," Jacob said. "It's the devil is what it is. I don't want you to print that, but it feels like that's what it is."
Jacob said Thursday that since he decided to run for Congress against Rep. Chris Cannon, Satan has bollixed his business deals, preventing him from putting as much money into the race as he had hoped.

Why NYC Dems always lose

Two words: Al Sharpton. Now he wants to have all 3 black candidates unite against David Yassky for NY's 11th Congressional District. Why, not because David was prominently featured in DLC literature. [Heck, I even wrote two articles about him, this one and a this piece.] Nope, it is because Yassky is white (and Jewish)

Sharpton claims this isn't about Yassky's race, but rather about how African-Americans in New York are underrepresented at all levels from NYC.

But what does that have to do with it? Sharpton himself points out that "The district, which includes Brownsville, Crown Heights, East Flatbush, Flatbush and Park Slope, is roughly 60% black." Yassky got lucky that there are 3 black candidates in the primary, thereby presumably splitting the black vote.

Sharpton has a history of ruining the party's chances by playing the race card, in his run for Senate and Mayor and in whom he supported for Mayor, Senate, Governor, and Congress.

If Al really wanted what's best for black representation in the NY delegation, he would have met privately with the three black candidates and talked off record with local news. Instead, he does an NY Daily News Op-Ed. Another Crown Heights riot indeed.

Brooklyn is gentrifying as a result of skyrocketing property values, and Yassky represents Brooklyn in the city council. It seems perfectly reasonable that Yassky could represent the area in Congress. Plus, it is not like he is going to vote against 60% of his voter's interests in Congress and expect to be re-elected.

You can't understand why NYC has something like 80% of the voters Democrats and still has a GOP mayor, GOP governor, a GOP state Senate, and until 1998 a GOP U.S. Senator until you look Al Sharpton's race-baiting strategies straight in the eye and denounce them.

Joe Klein: brown noser in chief

I used to think that Joe Klein was a New Dem. After all, he spoke quite approvingly of Bill Clinton's policies, even if he expressed dismay about President Clinton's moral behavior. Now after the latest in a series of fawning pieces about the manliness of George W. Bush, we know that Klein is just a suck-up to Presidents.

Klein's lust for being around the powerful is typical of the DC pundits/"reporters," but Klein seems to have a bad case of cocktail weenie fever. Digby [via FDL] sums it up this way:

Bush is stuck in the mid-30s, his brain narrowly escaped indictment and he had to mount the most top secret trip since Kissinger went to China (someone left the cakewalk in the rain) yet Klein is drooling and panting over the president's pants again, getting all hot and bothered when the frat-boy in chief calls the Iraq defense Minister an "interesting cat" and al-Zarqawi a 'dangerous dude.'

It doesn't matter what the idea is (Immigration Reform in 2006 or Welfare Reform in 1996), if it is held by the President of the United States, Joe sure thinks is a good idea and people on both sides of the aisle in Congress should agree.

Klein thinks he is a liberal, he has the media convinced he is too. Some liberal bloggers think he is a Joe Lieberman Democrat. I think he is just a kiss-a$$.

why bloggers suddenly are noticed

Remember when bloggers were referred to in the media as this intreguing side note? Oh those rabble rousing youngins, with their computers and internets, what will they think of next?

Well it turns out, you hold a convention, you get coverage. YearlyKos might have been the smartest move the blogosphere's made in a while. The MSM really could wrap their heads around what the blogosphere is and what its demographics are. No matter how much we complained or paid for surveys. Because the media was able to attend the event and speak to bloggers face to face and see the thousands of them who paid their way there, they could finally cover the blogs properly.

Reporters could see with their own eyes that bloggers were not all college students, in fact that the average age is in the 40s and 30s, not the 20s and teens. They could see that they bloggers don't wear pajamas and are actually real people, just like those Iowan caucus goers political reporters like to cover.

I think comparing the left and right bloggers to Iowan straw pollers/caucus goers is actually quite apt. Both are relatively small portion of the Democratic Party, and not necessarily representative of the entire party. They tend to be more educated, whiter, etc.

They are called activists. Now some are activist (online and off) of the kind that deserve the term used in its pejorative context: the single issue Nazis who demand ideological or racial loyalty, reality be damned.

The kind I prefer and read are mostly the best kind of activists: concerned, organized and vocal citizens. Folks like John Aravosis, who fights for gay rights as he sees them, urging boycotts, calls to Congress, exposing hypocrites etc. While he may be focused mostly on gay rights, he also delves into other privacy rights, like cell phone records, NSA wiretapping, credit history, etc.

The blogosphere will continue to be influential because we are using an incredibly effective medium of spreading our ideas, message, efforts, and money to the candidates and causes we believe in. Its power will only grow as more people go online and more people read blogs, especially decision makers and reporters.

Restoring American Values

That's my slogan, which I believe is better than "Let's get Real" and certainly better than "Together We Can Do Better."

Restoring American Values is something down home and apple pie, and might even sound conservative. And true, what Democrats would like to do is go back to the past...the 1990s.

By American Values I mean: respect for the Constitution and co-equal branches of government over certain political leaders, respect for hard work and sacrifice over wealth and priviledge, a Communitarian rather than a Hobbsian worldview, the Geneva Conventions, open government, accountable leaders, responsibile leadership, the American Dream, fairness and fair dealing, acting in good faith, reality over spin, patriotism as critique of the government's policies, a level playing field, freedom to believe in whatever you want without hurting others or yourself, freedom to say what you want within reason, reason over fear.

All of these have broad support, much broader support than: treating public policy as a business and expecting a return on "investments" in politican's campaigns/families, dividing Americans by religious expression, class, sexual orientation, utilizing fear to win, giving special deals to special interests, prefering communications experts over policy experts, Post-Modernist belief that their is no reality, denouncing critics as traitors and/or faithless, the infalibility of the president, torture, etc.

Join Democrats across the country demanding change, we need to restore America and American values before its too late.

Restoring American Values

That's my slogan, which I believe is better than "Let's get Real" and certainly better than "Together We Can Do Better."

Restoring American Values is something down home and apple pie, and might even sound conservative. And true, what Democrats would like to do is go back to the past...the 1990s.

By American Values I mean: respect for the Constitution and co-equal branches of government over certain political leaders, respect for hard work and sacrifice over wealth and privilege, a Communitarian rather than a Hobbsian worldview, the Geneva Conventions, open government, accountable leaders, responsible leadership, the American Dream, fairness and fair dealing, acting in good faith, reality over spin, patriotism as critique of the government's policies, a level playing field, freedom to believe in whatever you want without hurting others or yourself, freedom to say what you want within reason, reason over fear.

All of these have broad support, much broader support than: treating public policy as a business and expecting a return on "investments" in politician’s campaigns/families, dividing Americans by religious expression, class, sexual orientation, utilizing fear to win, giving special deals to special interests, preferring communications experts over policy experts, Post-Modernist belief that their is no reality, denouncing critics as traitors and/or faithless, the infallibility of the president, torture, etc.

Join Democrats across the country demanding change, we need to restore America and American values before its too late.

Get real Senators

Roll Call reports there are too many Senators looking in the mirror these days.

With an extraordinary 11 sitting Senators seriously eyeing a bid for the White House in 2008, both parties are already dealing with logistical and personality headaches as the lawmakers use the chamber as a testing ground for their competing agendas.
...
“It’s going to be an absolute circus,” acknowledged one GOP Senate aide. “There’s going to be a lot of thumping of the chests, a lot of third-person speaking.”

Lord, save us! Let's do a run down on the wannabes and the reality. For the Democrats: Sens. Evan Bayh (Ind.), Joseph Biden (Del.), Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), Chris Dodd (Conn.), Russ Feingold (Wis.), John Kerry (Mass.), Barack Obama (Ill.), and ex-Sens. Tom Dashcle (S.D.), and John Edwards (N.C.). For the Republicans: Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (Tenn.), who is retiring after this Congress, as well as Sens. John McCain (Ariz.), Chuck Hagel (Neb.), Sam Brownback (Kan.) and George Allen (Va.). Oh and don't forget Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.).

Of the Democrats only Hillary, Edwards, Finegold, and Obama have a prayer. [Even then, I think Obama won't run, Finegold will fizzle out like Dean did, and Hillary will collapse under the weight of all her CW strategy] The marginals are Kerry and Bayh, but both of those two will flop by Super Tuesday. The rest, well they will do about as well as Sen. Orin Hatch did in 2000 or Sen. Lieberman in 2004.

Of Republicans: McCain and Allen are the only ones. Frist will be fun to watch implode. Brownback will say something too nutjob that pragmatic GOP folks will have to kill his candidacy lest he hand the White House to the Democrats (ditto for Tancredo). Hagel has no support from the base and is about the same as Joe Biden on the Democratic side: both think that being on Sunday talk shows nearly every week equals press love and/or actual support; it equals neither, rather it means you are a good counter-label guy and filler.

What is it about the senate that makes those electeds think they are somehow qualified to be president, or more importantly, able to get nominated and elected president? For 46 years, no guy whose most recent elected position was U.S. Senator was elected president. By 2008 it will be 48, I bet.

Senators can't talk like normal people after a certain number of years there. Senators don't actually accomplish much that voters can latch on to. They have long voting records which can be easily distorted.

This is why the best Democratic canididates are ex-Gen. Wes Clark, ex-Gov. Mark Warner, ex-VP Al Gore, and ex-Sen. John Edwards, in that order. Edwards is unique in that he spent only 6 years in the senate, and still talks like a normal person.

McCain is exceptional because most people know him from his presidential run in 2000 and the moderate reputation he built up by co-sponsoring popular Democratic legislation. McCain pretends to talk like a normal person, but an attentive listener can see through the facade.

Personally, I see Guillini taking it over McCain. I doubt Romney will do well, he seems gaff prone and a one term Massachusetts governor by choice is a lot different than a one term Virginia governor by law.

Please Sens. Dodd, Biden, Hagel, Frist, Kerry, Brownback, et al, save us all the hassle and pain and just don't run. For the love of your country and party, don't waste our time.