Putting "Horrible Images" on our T.V. Screens, and the Larger International Challenge

The President's can not be mentioned often enough statement that "The enemy cannot defeat us on the battlefield, but what they can do is put horrible images on our TV screens" -- unless "horrible images on our screens" was long winded slang for "violence" -- is troubling. Particularly in light of his assertion that his popularity rating is exceptionally low because "people are unsettled because of the war," when, shortly after 9/11, the most horrific images on our TV Screens in U.S. history helped catapult these same ratings to exorbitantly high levels, and after the beginning of the war in Iraq, his ratings were again fairly high.

While the President's point may have been well intentioned (hard for many to assume, I know), it needs to be vigourously and repeatedly pointed out... that those images are real. They are reality. War is reality. (As is terrorism). Something that we all would hope is not hard for those who have not fought in it to recognize.

With respect to the Haditha incident, which brought forth particularly brutal images, and a particularly brutal reality: We are all responsible for our soldiers. This journalist, in his separate web log, eloquently makes the case.

But our image to the world is critical. As pointed out here, it is also critical to effectively communicate and illustrate to the world that we are in Iraq:

"Liberating Iraq from a repressive regime, and temporarily assisting the new government with security," nothing more.

Stories/incidents such as Abu Ghraib, and Haditha, hurt that image. And our message. Abu Ghraib was a mistake by those managing the war, and was wrong. Haditha was a mistake by a small isolated group fighting that battle, among thousands fighting it, and was wrong, but can be an outgrowth of war, if never excusable.

It is also important to continually emphasize to the world that we don't repress information to manipulate or hide (it also would be important to convince the pack of faux journalists masquerading as news people over at the clever as a fox station, if they didn't already have a pre set and manipulative political agenda).

Thus, unlike with many other countries, the world knows about our mistakes, our failures, as well as our successes. And it is similarly important to emphasize that Haditha was a grievious, cold blooded mistake by otherwise honorable fighting men and women, that in no way reflects upon the values, goals, or actions of the larger group or the U.S. military, or our presence there.

We want to help Iraq stop its internal killing, where Sunnis kill Shiites, and Shiites kill Sunnis, merely for their ethnicity, and insurgents fight the formation of a new Iraq governent that reflects the will of the Iraq people rather than a small group at the expense of real Iraqi sovereignty. Should we go? Should we stay? Out intentions have always been honorable, and we have freed Iraq from the dictatorial rule of a malevolent despot. But what is now best for the Iraqi people?

Some other related considerations, and questions, regarding Iraq, and the war on terror, which it has become part of. And which it is sometimes being confused for, including by the media. And some regarding the symbolism and implications of the poor job that the media is doing covering this issue -- and the related issue of what we are doing instead here at home.

Co-Workers, and Religious Persecution

This article is entitled "Persecution of Christians in America!" The first paragraph:

Some years ago, I worked at a job where another colleague and I had to go out of town on an assignment for a week. Since I was going to spend a considerable amount of time with my co-worker, I asked her some questions in order to find out what we had in common and what kinds of things we could talk about. Some of my questions were about religion. I wanted to know if she was a fellow Christian. If she was, then we would have a lot in common and we could share openly about our faith. I was not in any way trying to convert her. I just wanted to have some idea of where she stood. She never gave any indication that she did not want me to ask those questions about religion. When we came back to the office, she filed an official complaint. My Supervisor informed me that if I talked about religion with co-workers again, I would be in danger of losing my job. That was persecution, but it was mild and easily remedied. All I needed to do was either change jobs or else not talk about religion. If you compare it to cancer, it was stage zero--a small event, which has not spread, and which can be fixed easily."

Hmm. Maybe the second colleague overreacted, maybe not. It depends what the above author/co-worker said and how she said it. Either way, on the facts given, it seemed like one co-worker was trying to grill another about her personal religious beliefs to see if they would be be bosom spiritual buddies on the trip, and not just co-workers on a business trip. That the author does not see how inappropriate this potentially is, but turns it into "religious persecution," is a bit striking.

It was not a voluntary social situation. It was an involuntary work situation. And the first co-worker started asking questions before hand, of a sensitive, personal nature. Far worse, she acknowledges that she did this to "see if they would get along." She thus, unwittingly, turned religion into the litmus test to see if the would get along, on a trip that they both had to take and would apparently have ample opportunity to learn about each other on. That she does not see her questioning, and its express purpose, as a form of mild social pressure over religion rsecution in a forced work environment situation, is step one of the bizarre process of somehow twisting this backwards into religious persecution. Step two and three is the type of perhaps blinding zealotry that fanatical, as opposed to devout, religious belief sometimes seems to inspire. It is all too common outside of America as well, and in its most extreme forms, we have seen the results.

This lady is probably very well meaning, truly feels that she has been wronged, and that her own religion, rather than the work relationship sanctity of her co-worker, has been put upon.

But that doesn't change the fact that in America today, reasonable checks upon the imposition of religious beliefs upon others, is somehow, and perhaps dangerously, being confused with persecution of one's own religion.

Reporter Dana Milbank wrote an interesting article on this in the Washington Post:

Quoting Rick Scarborough, who organized the officially titled "War on Christians" conference that convened the last week in March:"I believe themost damaging thing that Tom DeLay has done in his life is take his faith seriously into public office, which made him a target for all those who despise the cause of Christ," Scarborough said, introducing DeLay yesterday.

It gets a little scarier:

Gary Bauer, a Christian activist and former presidential candidate, argued in a
speech that the "War on Christians" in America was even emboldening al-Qaeda.
"They believe they can win, because they believe you and I are decadent; they
think our civilization is fat and lazy," he said. "I believe they're wrong, butI understand why they're confused."And why are they confused? Because
American Christians are attacked by "elites" who think America is "a country of
unbridled liberty, different strokes for different folks."

The agenda was similarly ominous, with forums on the threats from Hollywood, the judiciary, gays and, worst of all, the news media. "I can tell you that there probably is no greater megaphone for anti-faith values," conservative activist Paul Weyrich
said in introducing a panel on the subject.

As somebody else aptly put it, "I'm a huge fan of Jesus Christ, myself. It's just his fan club that concerns me."

The Misplaced Apology of a Talk Radio Host, and Why it Matters

Doug McIntyre, Host, McIntyre in the Morning, Talk Radio 790 KABC, penned a widely replayed and articulate "apology" for having "voted for" the Bush administration.

Unfortunately, although McIntyre makes a number of good points about the Bush administration and the democrats, he also labors under several brutally inaccurate misconceptions, as a result of the same carefully crafted spin that he so artfully disparages in his excellently written piece.

For example:

"In fairness, I don't believe a Democrat president would have gone into Iraq. Unfortunately, I don't know if President Gore would have gone into Afghanistan. And that's one of the many problems with the Democrats."

There may be a few liberals with respect to whom this is true, but they are a small minority of liberals, let alone democrats. The vote authorizing the use of force in Afghanistan was 518 to 1 in favor. Again, this needs to sink in. 518 to 1, in favor. And it wasn’t conditioned. After Senator Kerry gave a largely unreported speech to the Senate before the Iraq vote, stating 1) that the threat of force was necessary to force inspections, 2) that the vote was solely to remove WMD, and 3) only if that otherwise could not be accomplished (or it turned out that the weapons inspectors find nothing and ask us to wait, as they did), through new, joint weapons inspections, a majority of Senators voted for that resolution. But, in their minds at least, conditionally, and with some reservation as to how it might be used, and with some equivocation when by early winter of 2003 it began to be apparent that there was a possibility that our assumptions of WMD's in Iraq may have been wrong.

The AUMF resolution, authorizing the use of force against Afghanistan, on the other hand, although a blanket authorization, was unconditional. And Afghanistan met that blanket requirement, and more.

The Taliban regime that ruled Afghanistan was more than indirectly connected to the attacks of September 11. They were in large measure responsible for the success and reach of the al-Qaeda terrorist operation. As Peter Bergen, perhaps the world's foremost western authority on al-Qaeda, explained it, the Taliban were "intimately commingled" with al-Qaeda. They afforded them sanctuary, allowed them to set up protected camps from which to conduct their recruitment and training exercises, with which they assisted and helped provide cover and protection for. In addition, and in return, al-Qaeda fought with and right alongside the Taliban against the Afghanistan Northern Alliance that sought to overthrow the repressive, tyrannical Taliban rule.

Additionally, here is an internal memorandum, not initially made public, that was passed on from the Clinton to the Bush administration. Prepared in the last few months of the Clinton Administration, in the wake of the October 2000 al-Qaeda suicide bombing of the Destroyer U.S.S. Cole in Yemen, the memo describes the high degree of the al-Qaeda terrorist threat and the need for effective planning and response, including with respect to the Taliban therein.
After the al-Qaeda attacks of September 11, to go into Afghanistan and unseat the Taliban, and root out al-Qaeda therein, was a no brainer. And it was one that very few democrats did oppose, or would oppose. And one for which the potential in some form or another, even before those attacks, had already been recognized by the very same Clinton Gore administration that McIntyre now ridiculously but commonly, mischaracterizes.

I have had rather unsettling debates with Sebastian Mallaby of the Washington Post on this larger "point" of democratic "opposition" to Afghanistan. Mallaby assured me that "some" democrats opposed Afghanistan, without ever really being able to provide names, or otherwise indicate how this in any way represented anything other than a small minority that was blown out of proportion by the typical sampling practices of the conservative far right. The press has to come up with some arguments against democrats and in favor of the Bush administration, no matter the facts and actual track record of each on specific issues, otherwise it would appear 'biased." At least that is what much of the media meekly thinks. Or that portion that isn't already biased because it's part of what has become an oligopolistic corporate stranglehold on most of the mainstream news in America today.

Editorial page editor Fred Hiatt also "defended" the Afghanistan/democratic question, in his newspaper’s otherwise lengthy but tepid endorsement of Kerry for President, a few days after I brought up this very same point again. The issue was oddly referenced, and the same anti democratic point was implicitly made, as if somehow it wasn't patently clear that every single one of our prior 42 Presidents, and 518 out of 519 current Congresspeople, would have gone into Afghanistan to root out those responsible for the attack upon us on September 11, 2001.

It is true that examples of democratic and liberal opposition to large scale action in Afghanistan (as opposed to simply taking out al-Qaeda therein, to which any opposition was exceptionally miniscule) can be found. But they are far and few between. Ralph Nader, always anti establishment, is one, but, again, he would have still taken action, just more directly targeted. And some of that minimal opposition (which on conservative blogs and in conservative rags, as is often the case, was blown into something it was not even remotely close to) was not even opposed to targeting the Taliban regime, but was with some of the details of our implementation therein. Oddly, a lot of the criticism, that has been turned completely around by the far right, is that, rightly or wrongly, we did not maintain sufficient focus on Afghanistan after the initial actions.

There is a also great deal of misperception regarding the larger issue of national security and fighting terrorism. The fact is -- reference even the milquetoast and, on partisan charges, heavily sugar coated 9/11 Commission report -- that the Clinton/Gore administration, while it could have done even more, still did more on a daily basis to combat al-Qaeda than the successive administration, even though the threat then was lower, our knowledge was less, and there was no crescendo of intelligence data indicating that the chances of an attack had rapidly increased. In fact, an increase in the threat level, and, more importantly, our awareness of it, occurred in the late 90's and around the beginning of the new millennium, and the incoming Bush administration was well briefed and warned. The response was to largely ignore the issue, then (right or wrongly, most Americans have their own opinion on that) go into Iraq, and clamp down on the fundamentals of democracy.

The perception that democrats would not have gone into Afghanistan, when only one out of 519 Congressman and Senators did not vote in favor of it, or that they are "soft" on security, is as much their own fault as it is the fault of the right wing conservatives who have for the last few years dominated the debate.

The reason is rhetoric. The conservative’s ability to capitalize on it, and the democrat’s inability to realize just how profound an effect it has on the American psyche and perception. One oddly repetitive example that I continually heard on most talk shows discussing the Afghanistan matter, for instance (including the allegedly liberal "NPR" and other public radio programs), was the incessant commingling of the Iraq and Afghanistan action by conservative guests. This constituted a blatant mischaracterization of the issues. Yet, critically, it was often allowed by unattendant hosts. Far more egregiously, it often went unchallenged or uncorrected (or sometimes just marginally noted), by dismissive democratic guests, who did not seem to realize the importance of it, or, seemed to just erroneously assume that everyone otherwise "knew better." This often left listeners with the false yet critical impression that disagreement with either the timing or planning of our military action against Iraq, or simple disagreement with the way the Iraq action was subsequently handled, was somehow disagreement with our having taking action against the al-Qaeda and supportive Taliban rule. And conservative hosts, pundits, spin machines, publications, and blogs played up this misperception.

As a result of these same types of processes, many Americans, seemingly smart, honorable, thoughtful, as surely McIntyre has at least in part represented himself to be by his carefully crafted and heartfelt admission of mistake, have been terribly mislead. On a host of issues and questions.

The results are that somehow there is this belief that Al Gore, for example has no moral compass, no sense of right and wrong, no vision, no integrity, or even spine. All of this is largely incorrect. But perhaps the most incorrect of all, perhaps what is most damaging to our nation, is this idea that Al Gore, or even other similar democrats, would be soft on terrorism.

What democrats are soft on, are their political opponents, and their political opponents mischaracterizations. When they do play "hardball," they also tend intead, erroneously, to think that calling them names, and using harsh language, is being “tough” on them, when all this does is makes them look petty and undermine their own case, and alienate and offend many of the moderate Americans who they need instead to bring into the circle of awareness on the facts.

What democrats have also become increasingly soft on, is running a national campaign. They allow their opponents, just as John Kerry did in 2004 as well, to dominate the issues, and define them and their leaders, rather than allowing themselves, and their own party, to define them. It is not just the Gores, or the Kerrys, but the Democratic Party apparatus and mentality as well, which has lead to this.

For the results that America has witnessed the past five plus years, where largely right wing and far right wing conservatives have been voted into Congress and the White House, they tend fault others. But also bear a good portion of the blame. Well reasoned and intelligent American citizens are misled on the issues that matter (a classic current example, that is critical and goes to the core of our democracy, is here). Yet our leading democrats, privately and even sometimes publicly, blame their political opponents, for mischaracterizing the issues -- when every time their opponents mischaracterize an issue or fact, it is an opportunity to show America how their opponents continually engage in the same pattern of leading by misleading, whether purposefully, in order to manipulate the voters, or through poor understanding of the essential issues themselves. Or they blame the voters, for getting mislead when, all the voters have predominantly heard is the conservative side making the consistent case, over and over and over, repeated in a media sound bite world day after day after day. And when voters are going to act upon the information that they receive and hear, just as they always have, and just as they always will.

The reality is, Democrats also have themselves to blame, for letting their political opponents get away with it, and for allowing their political opponents, at the same time, to define themselves as the party of trust and valor as a result. The same political opponents, on a related note, that have come, sadly, to confuse the nobility of the soldier sent off to war, with the men who send them.

McIntyre is terribly wrong when it comes to at least some of these issues, such as how Al Gore would have handled Afghanistan, and others. But he is representative of many, many Americans. It is time the Democratic Party started addressing why.

The Kos Machine and the Political Left

I've referenced the excellently run and brilliantly conceived and set up, Kos site before.

While a bit left leaning, there seem to be many strong thinkers that visit, and write at that site (and a multifold greater of casual and devout readers both, some of whom may be fairly left leaning and/or vitriolic for popular taste, but many of whom exhibit reasonable enough sensibilities). So I found it rather odd that after posting the following brief article as a diary entry in the wee hours of the morning, that scores upon scores both prior and after (all rolling in over the minutes, hour after hour), my fairly humble, modest piece received not one comment. Yet the dozens preceding it, and what were probably close to a hundred that came after, today alone, almost all if not all received comments.

If nothing else, it would seem that this piece has at least the fact going for it that it covers pretty vital issues. They may have been explored, as well they should be, and as the most important issues repeatedly are, on the Kos report. But this fundamental issue covered below certainly is vital enough to demand as much attention as can be given -- which, by the popular perception of the issue, and the coverage of it by the mainstream media, has clearly not been enough.

So I try, here, to give it a little more, and perhaps someone else can take these general points, and express them in a way so as to help get them the majority of America and mainstream media attention that, for our democracy to properly work, they require:

"As noted:

The [Bush] administration has established that it believes that it has the right to undertake any action in the name of "combating terrorism," including the action
itself, the classification of it, and now the persecution and prosecution of anyone who leaks it.

The Soviet Union would be proud.

Those in America, however, need to write to their local and national media, and courteously, with well reasoned facts and logic, ask them to cover this and other issues objectively, and to stop kowtowing to the right and far right.

An excellent analysis of the issue was done by Glenn Greenwald, part of which could be used to send directly to media sources. For example:

It really is hard to imagine any measures which pose a greater and more direct
danger to our freedoms than the issuance of threats like this by the administration against the press. If the President has the power to keep secret any information he wants simply by classifying it -- including information regarding illegal or otherwise improper actions he has taken -- then the President, by definition, has complete control over the flow of information which Americans receive about their Government.

With respect to the reporting on the Abu Ghraib matter, and similar issues, as I noted here:

In America, our government, under our founding documents -- and I suggest, very
correctly -- derives its sole power from the consent of the governed. This has to involve consent of its policies, as well.

Additionally, people are also responsible for their own government, and for their own country. This also includes, first and foremost, its policies. [And, since this was the liberal leaning Kos site, I even took out the line here that "this also includes the people of other countries, including, by the way, Mexico.]

Therefore, it is anti-American, to have not reported this information, when it represented policy that was not only (apparently), in violation of international law, and in violation of our own stated policies, but potentially against the will of a majority of Americans as well. .

The unfettered flow of information regarding what its government is doing, makes a democracy work. It impedes an autocracy. While we hear all this rhetoric about democracy abroad, we need to start focusing on it here at home."

The Right Wing Conservative Slant

From a Conservative Blog Post (californiaconservative.org):

Let's not put all of this on the reporter's shoulders, either. Blame must also be affixed to the editors and publishers, too, for letting this information find its way to print. While it's true that a lot of things that are classified that don't need to be, it's obvious that the NSA's Terrorist Surveillance Program that the NY Times broke, and the CIA's black sites story that the Washington Post's Dana Priest won a Pulitzer for aren't in the category of needlessly classified.

Wow.

The FAR less egregious of the two points above, first.

The "secret" prisons.

We should visit all the TV stations that originally broadcast his tapes, etc., and get the information that we need to get to capture Osama Bin Laden, for example.

But here's the problem with the prisons. Since we don't really always know who is a terrorist, and who is innocent, torture, let alone state sanctioned torture, is certainly not the right call. (Also, remember, a lot of the Iraqi insurgents, as hard as this is to understand, and as misguided as they may have been, were not terrorists, but thought they were fighting for their country against aggression.)

But more importantly, if it is a policy that the American people would not accept, and it is being done by their government, then they have a right to know.

At least in a free society, the "land of the free and home of the brave," they have both a right, and a duty, to know.

Under our founding documents and principles -- and I suggest, very correctly -- our government in America derives its sole power from the consent of the governed. This has to involve consent of its policies, as well.

Additionally, people are responsible for their own government, and for their own country. This also includes responsibility for its policies.

Therefore, it is anti-American to have not reported this information, when it represented policy that was not only in violation of international law, and in violation of our own stated policies, but probably against the will of a majority of Americans as well.

With respect to the NSA wiretap surveillance issue, it is mind boggling just how upside down this issue has been turned.

For the party that claims to be on the side of freedom, the "give unchecked power to the government in order to 'protect us'" approach is also extremely hard to fathom. And, it is cowardly.

First,a basic understanding of the legal and constitutional issues is required. Unfortunately, this doesn't come from reading Alberto Gonzales' spin, which no less than conservative constitutional studies fellow Robert Levy called "bizarre," in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The issues are non partisan, and they are clear cut and unambiguous. The surveillance program was in plain violation of the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act, and as such, flagrantly violated the Constitution's separation of powers clauses.

This action also represented the unilateral appointment and usurpation of unchecked government power. That is -- no warrant or other basis for review, and no record to actually know what the program, good intentions aside, is or might be used for. This is why the Executive Branch's unconstitutional actions, in the words of Ronald Reagan's Deputy Attorney General Bruce Fein, would have our founding fathers "rolling over in their graves."

But regardless of all of these considerations, the program was blatantly illegal under FISA, and the clandestine exercise of it, therefore, a violation of the Constitution's First, Second, and Third Articles' separation of powers clauses.

And, most important of all, even if the question was ambiguous (which it's not, READ the above link), those would still be up to the people of the United States, through our system of checks and balances, to make a determination on. Not for the executive branch to do secretely.

A democracy can not function without proper information. To suggest that the government's potentially (and flagantly) illegal activity should not otherwise be investigated and exposed by the Press to the American people, let alone suggest that they did something against America interests, is, in the words of Nixon White House Counsel John Dean (on MSNBC, April 6), "something other than a democracy."

Upon top of all of these other considerations, the issue of threats and attacks upon the press, to cover up possible criminal, illegal, or unconstitutional actions, is about as anti-American and anti-democracy as one can possibly be. The issue is brilliantly, and chillingly, covered here by author Glenn Greenwald. It should be required reading for every American citizen.

Why Democrats Lose, and the Big Brother Type Repercussions When They Lose to Far Right Wing Rule

Here are some fundamental strategy considerations that democrats (and liberals in particular) seem to hate. This fact alone, given the abysmal track record of the past five years -- that is, losing continously to right wing conservatives -- ought to be enough to warrant their consideration.

But when this was posted on the leading political blog, Daily Kos, it warranted ten comments. Four of them mine. Meanwhile, a post a few minutes later, read "It is Sunday night, and it has been a good but tiring weekend, and I was thinking about writing a diary. But I got nothing but the horrific Barbaro tragedy at the Preakness yesterday. And that is too depressing. So how about a fun diary. "

This reasonably intriguing post then asked, "if you had the power to change any election of the past, which would it be, and what would be the result."

It received 92 comments. I guess people would rather dream about having won, rather than figure out why they didn't, and how to address it.

My points, slightly edited (original, somewhat spicier post here):

What exactly is "truth to power"? I understand it's supposed to be self explanatory. But it isn't. It's too abstract. And "truth to power" in 2004 led to what is the largest aggregation of presidential power in U.S. history (Lincoln's case can't be similarly considered, he took specific, temporary action to keep the United States from becoming two separate nations). That is, unless the side that is now largely using this phrase spoke the "truth" in 2004. But if they did, they sure didn't communicate it. Either to the public, or to the media.

The clasic example of both, concerning the seminal issue of the 2004 election, is here.

Consider one critical issue regarding the implications of all of this. The recent revelations that on top of everything else, the Executive Branch of our government has apparently been spying on some journalists.

I'm not sure that the majority of America realizes the implication of this for America, and for the free and open democracy which we are supposed to have.

Democracy can not operate properly if there is a chilling effect on the press. While normal Americans may not feel this, or feel that their calls possibly being monitored are a threat, how about American citizens who are investigating stories about government conduct? The average citizen doesn't always get this because they don't do it. Just like the soldier who goes to war to protect them from without, and the journalists who keep information open and available to protect democracy from within, if they don't engage, it can be taken for granted. In the latter case, unlike the case of the soldier, the notion is also abstract, thus also far less obvious.

The media has also done a terrible job, as it is, covering this seminal NSA wiretapping story. With respect to the NSA issue, consider the same USA today piece that broke the story about the domestic telephone record database:

In the case of the NSA's international call-tracking program, Bush signed an executive order allowing the NSA to engage in eavesdropping without a warrant.
The President and his representatives have since argued that an executive order
was sufficient for the agency to proceed. Some civil liberties groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, disagree

"Some civil liberties groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, disagree." Wow. Outside of the current administration representatives and a few blind loyalists who have a far different view of the Constitution and America than our founding fathers did, everybody (who is versed in the issue) disagrees. Including some notable conservative republicans and think tanks. Here's one stark example, as noted, and some typical testimony (here before the Senate Judiciary Commitee) on the issue. This is a far cry from "civil liberties groups."

In addition to this gross mischaracterization, the USA argument -- implying, once again, as the media repeatedly has, that there are two separate and reasonable sides to one sided issues, is blatantly incorrect -- The issue, as laid out here (I urge you to send it, a summary, or a similar analysis, to every member of the mainstream media that you can think of), is clear cut, and unambiguous.

There is a reason that right wing rhetoric has taken hold. I suggest very strongly that it is time for democrats (who, now once again, are confusing a long predictable backlash with evidence that they don't urgently need to fundamentally improve what and how they communicate with a majority of America), to stop assuming that they are good at politics, when in fact, for the past five years, they have been beaten by right wing conservatives.

I suggest that since the evidence clearly indicates that the perception of being good at politics is clearly misplaced, that democrats stop resisting ideas that conflict with their dearly held notions of what is politically astute, as, again, clearly those notions have led to a process of communication that has failed to offset the gross mischacterizations of their own candidates in the public eye, and has failed to illuminate the excessive reliance upon often tautological, distorted, or flat out misleading rhetoric by the far right wing.

The classic example of this is the seeming glee, or misplaced consolation, that seems to be taken in some liberal blog quarters at the current horrendous poll numbers of both Congress and the current administration. As if this is validation. Yes, it is validation, of what an abysmally poor set of campaigns the democrats have been running every two years since 2000, including, most notably and importantly, the two presidential elections. Note to democrats who mistake these low poll ratings as signs that they are "getting their message across," as opposed to political displeasure with the current leadership and politicians in general; the time for your case to be effectively made and heard is before the election, NOT after it.

I offer two fundamental differences with what seems to be the prevailing potpourri of views. Much of what is suggested on this subject, even if seemingly otherwise, dances around the edges of the root of the matter; effective communication with a majority of the electorate. "We have to," for example, "have this position," or "do that," or "think this" including, yes, to some extent, even the ever popular, "appeal to the base," or, now, "to our grass or net roots." All that is secondary (although making an effective case can cross over into the necessary appeal to the base, including the grassroots - and from my brief conversation with Markos (Kos) the other day, for example, he does also suggest the importance of clear and simple messages). The reasons that what has happened, has happened, are far more fundamental.

Please consider the critical yet basic principles here, and here, as noted above. And, as noted above, expanding upon them and pullling it all together, see here. And if you agree, try to give some voice to these ideas. If you don't, please tell me why, so I can address it.

As for USA Today and its mainstream media ilk, write to them, call them, regarding their coverage of the NSA program. If enough people do so, courteously, graciously, and with solid points to back them up, it will have an effect. As suggested in the link above, one reason that the mainstream media has become so kowtowed, is that for over a decade, right wing conservatives -- who often confused facts with bias against their belief -- have orchestrated (and continue to orchestrate) a highly effective, organized, and very publicy and brilliantly marketed campaign against it.

I maintain, and continue to maintain, over, and over, and over, and over, that;

"A Democracy is only as strong as the quality of its mainstream information."

This is true by the very definition of the word mainstream. I also believe that this can be easily overlooked, by thinking that the Internet explosion somehow substitutes for this, as opposed to slowly becoming a secondary part of it. Mainstream = where a majority of Americans predominantly get their foundation of news. This is also where the focus needs to be in a democracy.

This Just Might Cross the Line

Sans Culotte asked "This list has seen many new additions since I first posted it 4-26. Please steal this list. Email it. Post it. Let it be known.The ever-expanding list of Republicans mired in scandal, just in the past year. The GOP List of Shame Abramoff and Rep. Tom Delay (R-TX)"

Okay: Seems a bit kitschy, and a little unfair, but why not:

Abramoff and Rep. Tom Delay (R-TX)"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/30/AR2005123001480
_pf.htmlhttp://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000182.php
Abramoff and Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA)http://www.auburnjournal.com/articles/2005/12/26/news/top
_stories/01doolittle.txthttp://tpmmuckraker.com/doolittle.php
Abramoff and Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/28/AR2006042801879_pf.htmlhttp://tpmmuckraker.com
/ney.phphttp://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/news/14263285.htm
Abramoff and Sen Conrad Burns (R-MT)http://www.greatfallstribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060426/NEWS01/604260303/1002http://www.msnbc.msn.com
/id/12227763/site/newsweek/http://tpmmuckraker.com/burns.php
Abramoff and Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL) http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/14605795.htm
Abramoff and Rep. Dana Rohrabaker (R-CA)http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/10/rohrabacher-abramoff/http://www.eritreadaily.net/News0306/article0306261.htm
Abramoff and Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX)http://www.citizensforethics.org/press/newsrelease.php?view=116
Abramoff and Rep. Don Young, (R-AK)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-02-10-abramoff_x.htmhttp://tpmmuckraker.com/young.php
Abramoff and Rep. Richard W. Pombo (R-CA) http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/29/washington/29pombo.html?ex=1303963200&en=e1f05b7b09e0f3d2&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc
=rsshttp://www.californiachronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=8078
Abramoff and Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ)http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/1223hayworth23.htm
lhttp://www.jackinthehouse.org/characters/details.php?view=19http://www.dccc.org/news/20050628_hayworth/
Abramoff and Rep. Steven LaTourette, (R-OH)http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-02-10-abramoff_x.htm
Abramoff and DeLay, Doolittle, Ney, rohrabacher http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/
Comment/JoshMarshall/081705.html
Sen Bill Frist (R-TN)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/23/AR2005092301811.htmlhttp://thinkprogress.org/frist-stock-timeline/
Sen Conrad Burns (R-MT)http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2006/04/23/news/state/25-post.txthttp://tpmmuckraker.com/burns.php
Sen Rick Santorum (R-PA)
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=11174http://www.citizensforethics.org
/press/pressclip.php?view=1827
Sen John Thune (R-SD)http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2005/07/08/news/local/news04.txthttp://
www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_Thune
Sen George Voinovich (R-OH)
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050403/NEWS24/504030349http://www.opednews.com
/articles/opedne_bob_fitr_050731_dramatic_new_charges.htm
Gov Taft (R) and Ohio Coingate
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_bob_fitr_050731_dramatic
_new_charges.htmhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5746148,00.html
Ky. Gov Ernie Fletcher (R)
http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/14556190.htmhttp://
news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050831/EDIT01/508310315/1020/EDIThttp://
talkingpointsmemo.com/kentuckydocket.php#fletcher
MS. Gov. Haley Barbour (R)http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/28/ap/politics/mainD8H8SGRG0.shtm
lhttp://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000496.php
MO Gov. Matt Blunt (R)
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/14455281.htm
Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12141276/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/28/AR2005092800270.html
Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI)http://www.channel3000.com/politics/9176616/detail.htmlhttp://
www.citizensforethics.org/press/newsrelease.php?view=131
Rep Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA)http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050702/news
_1n2duke.htmlhttp://tpmmuckraker.com/cunningham.php
Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA)
http://loper.org/~george/archives/2006/Mar/972.htmlhttp://
www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007125.php
Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA)http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/11/AR2006051101881.html
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20051223-9999-lz1n23lewis.htmlhttp://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2006/05/wilkes
_and_the_.htmlhttp://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-lewis11may11,0,2817251.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Rep Michael G. Oxley (R-OH)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/18/AR2006041800987.html?nav=rss_politics
Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA)
http://tpmmuckraker.com/doolittle.php
Rep. Richard W. Pombo (R-CA)http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/29/washington/29pombo.html?ex=1303963200&en=e1f05b7b09e0f3d2&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc
=rsshttp://www.beyonddelay.org/summaries/pombo.phphttp://www.dccc.org/pombo/
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA)
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20051204-9999-1n4adcs.html
Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH)http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/14275670.htmhttp://
www.swingstateproject.com/2005/07/oh-2_jean_schmi.php
Rep. Charles Taylor (R-NC)
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/cats/charles_taylor/
Rep. Katherine Harris ’06 Sen candidate (R-Fla)http://www.sptimes.com/State/82598/Harris_backed_bill_ai.htmlhttp://www.tbo.com
/news/metro/MGBM27UOPME.htmlhttp://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives
/cats/katherine_harris/
Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA)
http://www.harpers.org/sb-curt-weldon-kim-employment.html
Rep. John Sweeney (R-NY)
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000158.php
Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-NY)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/22/AR2006042200995.html?nav=rss_politics
Brian Bilbray House Candidate (R-CA)http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/energy_environment/index.htmlhttp://
www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000355.phphttp://www.dccc.org/stakeholder/
archives/004612.html
Ralph Reed ’06 Lt Gov Candidate (R-GA)http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB114548590969830492-KX98zvSUWRHqye46SjeFOdagWUQ_20070419.html?mod=blogshttp://tpmmuckraker.com/reed.php
ex-IL Gov. George Ryan Sr (R)
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0604180306apr18,1,6246344.story?coll=chi-news-hed
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Jr Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff to Vice President
http://www.slate.com/id/2128530/http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=I._Lewis_Scooter_Libby
HUD Secretary Alfonso Jackson
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/09/AR2006050901593.htmlhttp://thinkprogress.org
/2006/05/10/jackson-unethical/
Interior Secretary Gale Norton
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/17/AR2005111701682.htmlhttp://
denverpostbloghouse.com/washington/?p=367
Whitehouse OMB Official David Safavian
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/19/AR2005091901859.htmlhttp://
www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-10-05-official-indicted_x.htm
Whitehouse Chief Domestic-Policy Adviser Claude Allen
http://www.slate.com/id/2138116/fr/nl/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/24/AR2006042401825.html
Ex-F.D.A. Comissioner Lester M. Crawford
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/29/washington/29fda.html?ex=1303963200&en=9c06cfc1730afb55&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
DHS Chief Financial Officer Nominee David Norquist
http://public.cq.com/public/20060508_homeland.htmlhttp://
www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000619.php

The One Party That Fails to Make the Case

Many people really are democrats, yet they think that they are republican. This is the first case that democrats need to make. And it happens to be true.

While the republican party used to stand for some good principles -- fiscal accountability, responsibility, limited government, freedom, etc. -- this is not the case any more. The party has become dominated by its right wing, and has become the party of rhetoric.

People don't like rhetoric. The irony is, rhetoric works, brilliantly, when not recognized. It is also hard to recognize, which is part of what makes it so effective.

John Kerry, for example, made some critical points right after we went into Iraq and toppled the Hussein Regime. Points that in hindsight would have saved lives, and would have increased our chances for success in Iraq. These are critical points, given the stakes we've created, our soldiers' valiant sacrifices therein, and the 300 billion plus cost that perhaps could have been better used elsewhere in the war on terrorism.

Yet during the campaign of 2004, what was this turned into? Constantly, Kerry was "undermining our troops," dividing America" or "undermining America." Great sounding rhetoric, that took the issues, and turned them upside down on their head.

The entire election was like this. The media did a poor job of assessing the facts, but so did the democrats, in recognizing the importance of this, using it to show how the other side in fact was not the party of trust, candor and forthrightness (thereby undermining its entire platform as well as its credibility) and undermining its mischaracterizations therein.

If one side constantly misrepresents, mischaracterizes, or, as others put it, "lies," and constantly contradicts itself -- but repeatedly convinces the public that (1) the other side lies (Gore in 2000) or repeatedly contradicts itself (Kerry in 2004), while (2) it itself is the party of consistency, trust and candor -- what does that tell you?

If the other side can create this false perception of both parties, with so little to work with, and the other side -- namely democrats, can not create the CORRECT perception with so much evidence, to work with, what does that tell you?

It tells you that maybe democrats are not as good on politics as they think they are, and that the erroneous view that they think they may be a bigger limitation than the shortcomings to begin with, no?

It tells you that maybe there is a systematic habit of fundamental errors that get repeated over and over, that go to the core of (1) recognizing what needs to be communicated to the majority of America, (2) how to do it, again, TO THE MAJORITY OF AMERICA -- NOT the self interested who already self select their blogs of choice on the Internet -- and (3) the critical role of the media therein. It tells you that maybe it is time for democrats to stop blaming everybody else, and to listen?

Yet, as suggested, democrats often disagree, sometimes vehemently, with even these basic precepts. This may be an even bigger part of the problem than the fact that democrats don't know how to effectively do this in the first place. Not recognizing that democrats are not that great when it comes to politics hurts them even more, for example, than not being that great on politics in the first place, and then when they are, being self righteous about what is "wrong," when if they were so good at identifying what was wrong, they wouldn't have been so mischaracterized for the past five years, -- and beaten by the far right wing whose policies and rhetoric have mainly been backward -- in the first place.

Why? The reason is found in the last sentence of those quick suggestions linked above: "democrats often think that everybody knows what they know." They also, and this is a classic one, often mistake the supposed importance of "communicating with their base,' with the far more important, "communicating with A MAJORITY OF AMERICA." The two things can be very different. The key, however, is that done properly, the latter does not exclude the former, but the former almost always excludes the latter. (I.e., you make the effective case to a majority of America, your base will get it too).

Some Democrats Get it at Least

From a comment posted at Digby:

Talking about impeachment, at all, is what is called "bulletin board material" in the sports world. It motivates the other side. Use [relevant expressions] and euphemisms for impeachment, not the actual word "impeachment."

Say that Democrats will restore "accountability, responsibility and ethics" to the Congress, and will exercise its "constitutional oversight responsibilities." People who want Bush impeached will take the hint, and people who don't like Bush or the GOP, but are scared by a possible impeachment, will have nothing to object to or fear from those euphemisms.

The GOP are masters at this, as I pointed out. "Smaller government" for the GOP means: "We are going to dump undeserving lazy-welfare queens off of public assistance so we can cut your taxes -- you Angry white guys, and married white housewives out there."

Let the GOP spend time and money frothing at the mouth looking like a bunch of lunatics about how the democrats are going to impeach the President. the Democrats' response should always be: "You can only impeach Bush if he's done something impeachable. Apparently the Republicans all think Bush did something impeachable, otherwise they wouldn't be ranting and raving about it like a bunch of lunatics. If that's the case then THEY should be the ones to do their constitutional duty and impeach him. Otherwise, if he's done nothing wrong then there's no reason to worry."

Worse than a Government for Sale

The Bush Administration's HUD Secretary, Alphonso Jackson, apparently thought that now it is okay if now government contracts, paid for with taxpayer money, are awarded based on the partisan political persuasiosn of the recipient. This is extraordinary. 48C.F.R. 3.101-1 states

"Government business shall be conducted in a manner above reproach and, except
as authorized by statute or regulation, with complete impartiality and with preferential treatment for none. Transactions relating to the expenditure of
public funds require the highest degree of public trust and an impeccable
standard of conduct"

In canceling a government contract because the CEO of the recipient firm did not approve of the President, Jackson seemingly broke the boundaries of even a textbook alteration of the application here, from "complete impartiality" to acknowledged and complete partiality.

The thought process openly acknowledged by the Secretary is perhaps more alarming. As quoted here:

"He didn't get the contract. Why should I reward someone who doesn't like the
president, so they can use funds to try to campaign against the president? Logic says they don't get the contract. That's the way I believe."

So the government should reward contracts as a means of raising funds to support the same party in power that is rewarding the contracts in the first place? Making sure to specifically avoid accomplishing the opposite, instead of simply being impartial as the law calls for, is exactly the same thing.Corruption is one thing, but open and unrecognized corruption?

A few days later, as noted in the Washington Post, Jackson changed his story, completely.

The Importance of Making the Case

This letter allegedly appeared in an international paper, as reported here:

"Once again American conservatives are playing the spin game by turning Senator Feingold's censure resolution into an attack on national defense. This argument is unjustified and blatantly incoherent. Feingold is not by any means trying to prevent law enforcement agencies from doing their jobs, but rather is calling on Americans to recognize that President Bush, by refusing to inform the FISA court of his actions, is not only neglecting to comply with the constitution but is also disposing of America's founding ideology of balance of power. Hopefully America will not be confused by the Republican's absurd spin on this issue, and will recognize that Senator Feingold is in fact trying to preserve America's freedoms, while the president once again cowers cowardly under his old and worn excuse of national defense."

Focus on this sentence: Hopefully America will not be confused by the Republican's absurd spin on this issue. Again, this letter appeared in an international forum. But it seems to have hit the nail on the head. "Hopefully America will not be confused." America is confused on the issue, as repeated polls show, but would be less so if the party that supported Feingold repeatedly made the case. From an email sent several times to Feingold's Press Secretary and Feingold's Chief of staff, that was never responded to. Hopefully, it was read, since it was followed up on by voice mail as well:

As articulated briefly via voice mail, the attacks upon Senator Feingold by the republican leadership present an opportunity. Specifically, to turn the issue around, exposing (1) the lack of responsible leadership, (2) the political projection of game playing with and manipulating the American public on, critical issues to our democracy, and (3) Either a stark lack of integrity and trustworthiness, or a fundamental lack of understanding of these very same critical issues -- without directly arguing these things.

My recent suggestion to democrats in general (as posted on a new blog) should also apply here: "Communicate a message, don't waste time handicapping or telling people what they feel or should feel. Sell, don't tell. Show, don't tell. Make the case to Middle Americaerica. Don't conclude. Sell, don't argue, don't whine, don't call names. Make the case stronger than the language used. Take every opportunity to convey your message, use the other sides' mischaracterizations to undermine their credibility, and their basic understanding of the issues, while at the very same time setting the record straight, and getting your message out." I suggested there that democrats had a harder time following this (or sometimes even agreeing with it) and that this was part of the reason why both Congress and the White House have been dominated the past five years by right wing conservatives.

I would add 3 things to the specific situation. 1) Making sure to reference the "illegal and unconstitutional" [not just "illegal"] wiretapping, explaining why and trying not to let it be quoted without doing so. 2) Making the case every opportunity that arises, and then some (also using supplemental catch phrases such as "the same pattern," "more big government," "increasing gap between rhetoric and reality," or better. 3) Making the case repeatedly to the media as well.

Intensive and Unwarranted Big Government Intrusion into People's Lives

This CBS News Story has to be a joke, but it's not:

"The current ordinance prohibits more than three people from living together
unless they are related by "blood, marriage or adoption. The defeated measure
would have changed the definition of a family to include unmarried couples with
two or more children. "

This is big time governmental social engineering, no matter what one's view of children, or unmarried couples with them.

The government forcing values upon people is not consistent with American values, which is that the people, not the government, determine what those are. While it is a far cry from even the mildest of many far more stringent edicts of some Middle Eastern countries, it smacks of the same mentality. As much as it would be nice to have couples with children be married, that is their decision, and to take something away as basic as housing, it to in effect take that decision away in that locale.

Upside Down, and Inside Out

Listening to several experts on the news - legal, constitutional, privacy and big brother type questions aside - most make one seemingly consistent point about the massive NSA phone record database. In essence, they suggest, stripped of all identifying information and content, they can help to recognize patterns between known terrorist cell related elements, and unknowns.

This seems reasonable enough, except for one thing. Wouldn't it make more sense to work from known information, and progress to the related but unknown, then to track all unknown information to look for the known? An excellent analysis among experts on the subject.

It has also been argued that such a phone data base would possibly have prevented 9/11, because "we knew who some of these guys were." This argument is disturbing. If we knew who these guys were, why weren't we tracking this information back outwards to find connections, instead of lamenting that we did not have a data base of several billion calls at that point to sift through so that we could find them. The record is also clear that we did not utilize the information that we had, and that if more attention was paid to the issue in light of the known facts at the time, a different and much clearer picture might have emerged.

George Will, and Democrats

Dear [syndicated political columnist George] Will:

You write eloquently ["Politics Without Passion," May 14] of Joe Klein's book and politics. You also reference the impact of Gore's misplaced sighs during the debates.

Those sighs by Gore did not exhibit disdain for Bush, so much as frustration at the misrepresentations that Gore believed were being made. Instead, Gore should have focused in on the representations themselves, and if he believed that they had been made, not let go until they had been both clarified, and used to highlight the critical facts of either lack of trustworthiness, or misconstruction of the issues by his opponent. As should have those who supported Gore. More

More Government Spying, and Not for al-Qaeda

According to this ABC report, the government is now tracking telephone calls made by reporters. This is essentially spying on reporters. As noted in the Daily Kos;

"Even if it were untrue, putting out this information on press/source phone logging would have an incredible chill effect on anyone inside any federal agency considering resorting going to the media."

Is this good? Not for democracy it's not. Usually such a source goes to the media for a reason -- for example, they believed that internal investigations are cut off and Congressional oversightmay be non-existent in the absence of Congressional knowledge - and such activity serves as the last true check upon governmental abuses of power.

Unauthorized leaks of properly and appropriately classified information is one thing, but has this ever been, and is it such a problem in America, that spying on reporters is now warranted?

The Cato institute, prior to some of the more recent revelations, including the above, argues that the current administation has advanced federal power well beyond the limits of the Constitution.

Voting in America. By Man or Machine?

This piece suggests that the 2004 election results were not sufficiently covered by the media. Specifically, the problem was the lack of any way to verify actual votes, among other potential issues noted in this (perhaps slanted?) article here

The main concerns center around the Diebold Corporation, and its close ties to one of the political parties, near monopoly on electronic voting machines in several areas (incuding the critical state of Ohio), and lack of oversight regarding the machines' application, usage, and processed results.

Blackbox Voting reports on the latest security flaw, yesterday, May 11, and provides futher information regarding the ongoing issue and security problems.

More on Big Brother

This is particularly compelling in light of the post immediately below,

According to this Think Progress article:

"CongressDaily reports that former NSA staffer Russell Tice will testify to the
Senate Armed Services Committee next week that not only do employees at the
agency believe the activities they are being asked to perform are unlawful, but
that what has been disclosed so far is only the tip of the iceberg. Tice will tell Congress that former NSA head Gen. Michael Hayden, Bush’s nominee to be the next CIA director, oversaw more illegal activity that has yet to be disclosed."

Free America?

The U.S. federal government, under the current administration, is getting a bit too big and powerful, in contravention of our founding father's vision, as this article (also printed here below) at the non partisan PresstheNews.Com notes. Particularly the Executive branch, as noted with alarm in this study by the conservative Cato Institute.

What has Congress done about it? Not much

Now, as the popular web log Daily Kos notes, according to numerous eyewitness accounts, a rifle was pointed at civil protesters at a Bush visit in Florida. In America? The land of the free and the home of the brave? This should be intolerable to all Americans.

An Atrociously Misplaced Attack on Stephen Colbert, from one of the Nation's Leading Editorial Pages.

"Dear [Washington Post Ombudsman Deborah] Howell:

Regarding this May 4 piece on Stephen Colbert, I would have expected nothing less from Richard Cohen [the Post's "resident liberal"].

He not only wasted his energy lashing out at Colbert, but did so viciously. Why? Because obviously, the issue of Colbert making good points in the, heaven forbid, wrong forum, is far more important than any of the issues that face America today.

And why not pile it on, too. One of the least egregious of Cohen's attacks was that Colbert was a coward for -- get this -- making these points in the very presence of the people he wanted to make the points to. As opposed, to, say, from the cush insulated self righteous armchair position of a locked position as a Washington Post editorialist? More

An Extremely Poor Argument

Mary Cheney, on Larry King Live, in the course of the first few seconds of watching it (somewhere in the middle of the program) was observed stating; "In fifty years, people will look back,...And they will see that we haven't been hit by a terrorist attack in five years, that the economy is strong and jobs are being created."

Nice spin. And nice rhetoric, as she added, "and that takes strong leadership." Nothing about the Constitution, the increase in police state power, the decades worth of environmental progress rollback, our greatly decreased standing in the world and the ongoing strength of the al-Qaida terrorist movement, including its leader, an almost unprecedented buildup in our national debt, and the fact that for one of the few times in history under reasonably robust economic growth, real wages have fallen (and that there's barely been a net addition of jobs in the past five years, after a roughly 16 million plus net addition under the previous eight years of prior administration leadership, if she really wants to play the economics and jobs game).

As for not being hit by a terrorist attack, we have lost over 2000 soldiers in Iraq, mainly for the benefits of the Iraqis, where poor management and poor contemplation of the strategic situation have considerably lessened our chances for long term success therein. From another angle, we have, under this administration, been hit by the only significant terrorist attack in our history. And, aside from pearl harbor -- which involved leading world Powers seeking global domination -- the only large scale direct attack against us in our history, and the only direct attack on continental soil, and the only attack where innocent civilians were directly targeted. More importantly, there is also compelling evidence that the administration virtually ignored this threat despite excessive warning signs, and now, subsequently, in response has trampled on the Constitution, over focused on Iraq, and reduced rather than increased the world cooperation so necessary for eliminating this scourge.

Our ports still are not secure. We have not done much to secure unsecured fissile materials -- which pose perhaps our greatest long term threat -- and the leader of the organization responsible for brutally murdering thousands of innocent U.S. citizens on U.S soil remains at large, and making tapes .

Missing the Boat

"I just wrote you:

Republicans know how to focus on exactly what needs to be focused on. Democrats do not.

Earlier today (on the clever Fox station) 'democratic strategist' Mary Ann Marsh was asked about Rudy Giuliani. I would not bother to note her response, were it an aberration. But for democratic strategists, it is not.

Paraphrasing [Ms. Marsh]: 'His problem is that he is a republican. Polls show that most Americans do not support republicans right now, and that they are going to have a really hard time in the fall elections,' and then went on about how voters were tired of republ