US politics: four passionate pieces to read, after which you'll be more up to date on the coming elections than most US voters

1. Off With Their Heads
The Democrats walk themselves to the gallows
By Matt Taibbi

Q: Are bloggers too powerful?
A: Do I think they're important? Yes. Do I think the [bloggers] and Al Sharpton alone are the future of the Democratic Party? No! Welcome in, contribute, but it's about winning in November and moving the country forward, not about a firing squad in a circle.
-- Q&A with U.S. representative Rahm Emanuel, Aug. 28th issue of New York magazine

I badly want to move on to another topic in this column space -- there is very little in the world that is less interesting than the Democratic Leadership Council and their ilk -- but this stuff is fast becoming just too unbelievable to ignore.

What exactly does self-appointed congressional mega-celebrity and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chair Rahm Emanuel mean (says a friend of mine in Congress of him: "He's an amoral, showboating cock") when he says, "Do I think [bloggers] and Al Sharpton are the future of the Democratic Party?"

That's actually not hard to figure out; it's political hack-ese for the human sentence bloggers = Al Sharpton . As for what he means by that: Just think about the thought process that had to go into Emanuel's adding of the phrase "and Al Sharpton," when Al Sharpton wasn't even part of the question. Ask yourself if you really believe Emanuel isn't aware that he's addressing the mostly white, Upper West Side readers of New York magazine when he "offhandedly" ties bloggers to the legendary gold-medallion-wearing icon from forty blocks north in Harlem.

These DLC types are amazing, they really are. Their pathology is unique; they all secretly worship the guilt-by-association tactics of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove, but unlike those two, not one of them has enough balls to take being thought of as the bad guy by the general public. So instead of telling big, bold whoppers right out in the open, they're forever coming out with backhanded little asides like this one, apparently in the hope that only your subconscious will notice. I won't be surprised if they respond to the next electoral loss by a DLC candidate by having Bruce Reed argue in the Wall Street Journal that "bloggers, Queer Eye, and Arabs with syphilis are not the future of the Democratic Party."

Then there is the phrase, "Welcome in, contribute, but . . . "

Welcome in ? What is this, a political party, or a house in the fucking Hamptons? Who died and made these people gatekeepers to anything?

What Emanuel appears to be saying here is that "bloggers" -- by which he really means "people who voted against Lieberman" -- are welcome to "contribute," but not welcome to actually decide elections. In other words, we'll take your votes, but we'll decide who you vote for. An admirable sentiment for an elected official. How is it that these people have avoided being pitchforked to death for this long?

Finally, the "firing squad in a circle" line has been a DLC favorite for years. DLC chief Al From has been pimping it at least since the last presidential race. It's time we officially retired this line, which is really just a sorry take on the lame old high-school guidance-counselor saw: "Now, Jimmy. When you shoot spitballs at Vice Principal Anderson, you're really shooting spitballs at yourself." And little Jimmy thinks: No, actually, I was shooting spitballs at Vice Principal Anderson . . .

What's amazing about the "firing squad in a circle" line is that it is inevitably used less than five seconds after the DLC speaker has just finished dumping on Michael Moore, peace activists or whoever the party's talking-points-vermin of the day is (in this case, Sharpton and bloggers). He denounces Michael Moore as a disgrace to the party, then turns around and says that when we attack the party leadership, we're only hurting ourselves. These tactics are so transparent and condescending that one longs for some kind of cosmic referee to just drop down from the heavens and unilaterally disqualify their users on the grounds of their overwhelming general wrongness -- but the maddening thing about these DLC creatures is that that referee never arrives, and Al From is back on page one again the next day, shaking his head and grumbling piously about "unity" and "consensus" and "the lost art of bipartisanship."

The unspoken subtext of this increasingly bitter debate between the Democratic Party establishment and the supporters of people like Ned Lamont and Hillary Clinton's antiwar challenger, Jonathan Tasini, is a referendum ordinary people have unexpectedly decided to hold on the kingmaker's role of the holy trinity of the American political establishment -- big business, the major political parties and the commercial media. The irony is that it's the political establishment itself that has involuntarily raised the consciousness of its disenfranchised voters.

The surge in support for Lamont initially came from people motivated by two simple things -- a desire to protest the war in Iraq, and physical revulsion before the wrinkled, vengeful persona of Joe Lieberman. But the party, in fighting back, attacked not on the issues but on the means of protest -- blogs, grassroots activism, Lamont's independent wealth. In doing so, it threw into relief the essential parameters of the problem, which is this: The Democratic Party has been operating for two decades without the active participation of its voters.

It raised money by appealing directly to companies in private fundraisers, and it used the commercial media to enforce its policy positions, in particular its desire to "clearly reject our antiwar wing," as Al From put it a few years back. It's a simple formula for running one-half of American politics; you decide on John Kerry two years before the presidential vote, raise him $200 million bucks, and let CNN and The New York Times take care of any Howard Deans who might happen to pop up in the meantime. The same greased track is being prepared for Hillary Clinton right now, and we can be quite sure that guns are already being aimed at Russell Feingold.

It's been an essentially oligarchic system of government, where all the important decision-makers have been institutions, with any attempts by ordinary people to circumvent the system coldly repressed. Remember 2000, when Ralph Nader was not only not allowed to debate with Al Gore and George Bush, but wasn't allowed in the building -- not even allowed in a second, adjoining hall in the building, not even when he had a ticket? Well, we have a replay of that proud moment in our history going on now, with Hillary's Senate primary opponent Tasini being shut out of debates by New York's NY1 TV channel (owned by TimeWarner) which is insisting that qualified candidates not only reach 5 percent support in the polls (Tasini is at 13 percent and rising) but raise or spend $500,000. Said NY1 Vice President Steve Paulus: "All Tasini would need is for each [New York state registered voter] to send him a dollar. Right now, with the money he's raised, he does not represent the party he claims to represent."

So a war chest is now the standard for representation? In order to get on television, you need a dollar from every voter? (Are we electing a Senator or holding a Girl Scout raffle? What the fuck?) And this is decided by . . . an executive for a corporate television station? One that recently sent a reporter [Adam Balkin] to Japan to do features on high-tech toilets? In other words, NY1 will pay to put an exotic Japanese toilet on a few million or so New York television screens -- but insists on seeing a half-million dollar deposit before it will put a Democratic candidate with 13 percent support in a televised debate? Am I missing something?

This schism within the Democratic Party is the most interesting thing to happen in American politics in decades, because due to a system error, people have temporarily been allowed back into what had been a totally closed process. They're working round the clock to fix the loophole, though, because the Emanuels of the world know what's coming if they don't. The firing squad. And this time it won't be in a circle.


2. 'Republicans Help Terrorists' – by Paul Waldman

Whenever Democrats criticize the Bush administration on the subjects of Iraq or terrorism, they are quickly accused of “playing politics” with national security. The usual reply is that it’s the Republicans who have played politics with national security over and over again, not only using the issue to bludgeon Democrats, but even making military decisions—such as delaying the assault on Fallujah until after the 2004 election had passed—based on political considerations. (The delay, as NBC News reported two days after the election, was “for obvious political reasons.”)

But perhaps Democrats should stop complaining about national security being politicized, and start playing some politics of their own, not just defensively but offensively. It’s time to retire “am not!” as a Democratic response to GOP arguments.

The truth is that in 2006 and 2008, if Democrats can just stay even with Republicans on national security, they should win in a rout since they have wide advantages on almost every domestic issue. And for the first time in years, the public does in fact rate the two parties essentially equal on matters of war and terrorism. But if Democrats want to win on national security—not just stay even, but win—they have to be tough. And not tough in the way Democratic centrists have been thinking about it for a while—“If I say I stand with Republicans on every war, I’ll look tough”—but tough in a way that demonstrates a nuanced understanding of the nature of toughness, both with foreign enemies and domestic opponents.

The first step is to address Republicans the way they usually address Democrats: with ridicule and contempt.

Last week, Orrin Hatch said that terrorists are “waiting for the Democrats here to take control, let things cool off and then strike again.” I can just see bin Laden, deep in a cave on the Afghan-Pakistani border, saying to Ayman al-Zawahiri, “Ayman, did you see the latest poll from the 7th congressional district in Colorado? I think Ed Perlmutter could pull it out, Allah be praised!” Hatch’s statement may be ridiculous, but it’s not unusual. In fact, we hear virtually the same thing from Republican voices all the time: not just that Democratic policies are unwise, but that terrorists actively support Democrats, and Democrats actively sympathize with terrorists.

Think about what happened when Osama bin Laden released a videotape just days before the 2004 election. John Kerry said it showed that Bush should have caught bin Laden at Tora Bora. Bush’s allies said it showed that bin Laden supported Kerry.

The truth, of course, was just the opposite. As Ron Suskind reported in The One-Percent Doctrine, when the bin Laden tape was released, CIA officials agreed that bin Laden was actually doing what he could to aid Bush’s re-election. The terrorist leader is many things, but stupid is not one of them. He understands that Bush is not only the perfect symbolic foil for him, but that Bush’s actions, most particularly the invasion of Iraq, were exactly what bin Laden had been hoping for. Bin Laden knew his future depending on having George W. Bush to kick around for a few more years.

So Democrats need to say just that: When Bush invaded Iraq, he answered Osama bin Laden’s prayers, and everyone who thinks the war was a good idea has al-Qaida’s gratitude. Furthermore, if a Republican wins the White House in 2008, bin Laden and Zawahiri will be popping the champagne. Don’t imply it, say it : Republicans help terrorists.

One of the standard GOP talking points is that Democrats don’t understand the nature of the terrorist threat. The appropriate answer is not, “Yes, we do understand it.” When you say that, you’re still talking about whether Democrats are tough enough on terrorism. The appropriate response is to start making the case that it’s Republicans who don’t understand terrorism. If you think the Iraq war has made us safer, then you don’t understand terrorism, you don’t understand al-Qaida, you don’t understand what has happened over the last five years and you cannot be trusted with America’s security. Don’t imply it, say it .

Republicans have also built every presidential campaign for the last 40 years around the idea that the Democrat is weak and effeminate, while the Republican is strong and manly . They’ll do it again in 2008. So Democrats need to not argue, “Yes, we are too strong”—again, that’s talking about whether Democrats are strong or not—and argue instead that Republicans are weak. Nor is it enough to say, “They’re strong, but dumb.” The truth is they’re a bunch of insecure wimps, so unsure of their masculinity they feel a burning need to invade somebody every couple of years to show they’re real men. Don’t imply it, say it . The Republicans should be characterized as the party of whiny fearful sissies, and until they get the keys to the military taken from them, we’re all at risk. Had we not invaded Iraq, al-Qaida might have been destroyed by now.

The Israeli debacle in Lebanon is an excellent opportunity to make this case. The Israeli operation was Bushism in action, all the more surprising coming from a government that is supposed to have a better understanding of their foes. Afraid of being seen as weak, the Olmert government—led by a prime minister and defense minister who both lacked the lengthy military careers of most of the country’s recent leaders and who thus were particularly keen to prove their toughness—responded to a provocation by launching a massive air assault followed by a ground invasion. They believed that if they inflicted enough damage on Lebanon’s infrastructure, the Lebanese people would turn against Hezbollah—just as neoconservatives now argue that a strategic bombing campaign would cause the Iranian people to rise up and overthrow the mullahs. (And no, I’m not kidding. People like Bill Kristol are actually arguing that.)

Of course, just the opposite happened—today Hezbollah has many more Lebanese supporters than it did two months ago. The Israelis also believed that with enough bombs, Hezbollah itself could be destroyed—and just the opposite happened there, too. Hezbollah depleted its stock of weapons—which Iran will be happy to resupply—and lost some of its fighters, but it has emerged as one of the most potent forces in the Arab world, with vastly more political capital than it had before. Hezbollah is hailed throughout the Middle East as heroic victors over the Jews and their American patrons, and parents are naming their newborn boys “Nasrallah.” Israel failed because it didn’t understand what it was fighting against, just as the Bush administration doesn’t understand how to fight terrorism.

Time For Some Tough Love

Both of the next two elections will be fought in no small part about Iraq. The heart of the Republican strategy is not so much to convince people that leaving Iraq is a bad idea—they probably realize they’ve lost that argument—but that if it’s Democrats who preside over the departure, they’ll do it in a way that makes us all feel weak and humiliated. That’s why we hear all these phrases signifying weakness: We can’t “cut and run,” walk away with “our tail between our legs” and accept “defeat.”

So Democrats need to find an exit strategy that not only will work, but that makes sense to the American people and allows them to sign on to it without they themselves feeling weak in the process. Despite the fact that a clear majority of the American people believe the war was a mistake and want to get out, Democrats have to not only demonstrate to people that they agree with them on this issue, but that they will go about the withdrawal in a way they can live with emotionally. Voters have to be convinced that the Democratic plan is smart, but also that it will make them feel strong in the process.

And this is how they can do it: “Tough Love for Iraq.”

We’ve done what we can, and now we’re changing the nature of our presence in Iraq. We’ll be there to provide the Iraqi army with logistical and air support, we’ll be there to assist in targeted operations against insurgents, and we’ll provide expertise and consultation in the reconstruction process. But we’re not going to be patrolling the streets to keep order, and we’re not going to have 130,000 of our soldiers acting as targets for discontent and violence. We’ll help you, Iraq, but you’ve got to stand up on your own.

The idea of “tough love” places America—and those who support the policy of withdrawal—not as a victim but as a parent who’s had it up to here. The Republicans, on the other hand, are those indulgent parents who won’t say no. (Not only is it good politics, it will have the added benefit of making James Dobson’s head explode.)

Finally, the tough love strategy for Iraq has to be placed in the context of a new strategy for combating terrorism, one that can be presented to the public as a clean break with the bumbling and thick-headedness of the Bush years. It could include elements like a new commitment to actual homeland security based on real threats, and a redrawn “hearts and minds” effort that consists of something more than Karen Hughes telling Muslims that America is really, really awesome.

But whatever the details of the Democratic national security strategy, it will succeed only if Americans believe that signing on to it, and voting for its advocates, will make them feel good about themselves. If Democrats can do that, they will have truly changed the debate.

(Paul Waldman is a senior fellow at Media Matters for America and the author of the new book, Being Right is Not Enough: What Progressives Can Learn From Conservative Success.)


3. Shocking election-theft testimony
Vote-rigging software written for Republican
Posted by Evan Derkacz (from AlterNet.org)

Computer programmer Clinton Eugene Curtis testifies under oath before the U.S. House Judiciary Members in Ohio (back in 2004).
Stephen Pizzo (http://www.newsforreal.com) writes:

If you can watch this entire video (http://alternet.org/blogs/video/40755/), and still use an electronic voting machine, you deserve the government you get. If your state or district has decided to use electronic voting machines this November, demand an absentee ballot today. Watch this video. Then join those of us who have decided that since paper was good enough for our constitution, it's good enough for our vote too.

Oh, and when you're done watching the whole video... pass it along. November is only a few weeks off and the last thing Republicans want to see is either house returned to Democrat control. Because if that happens, hearings happen. And if hearings happen... well, who knows - someone(s) could go to jail. So, demand a paper ballot or an absentee ballot in Nov. and leave the cheaters with a pocket full of worthless Diebold electrons.

A partial transcript:

Are there computer programs that can be used to secretly fix elections?
Yes.
How do you know that to be the case?
Because in October of 2000, I wrote a prototype for Congressman Tom Feeney [R-FL]...
It would rig an election?
It would flip the vote, 51-49. Whoever you wanted it to go to and whichever race you wanted to win.
And would that program that you designed, be something that elections officials... could detect?
They'd never see it.

(Evan Derkacz, a New York-based writer and contributor to AlterNet.)


4. The Upside of Anger: the case for progressive rage -- by Asheesh Siddique, Princeton University (from campusprogress.org)

Does an angry base of liberal activists, embittered by the fiasco in Iraq and consumed with Bush-hatred, spell disaster for progressives in the immediate future?

“Yes,” concluded pundits as fire-breathing anti-war candidate Ned Lamont trumped moderate incumbent Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut senate primary on August 9, riding a wave of resentment at Lieberman’s closeness to the Bush administration. Conservative columnist Cal Thomas warned that Lamont’s win “completes the capture of the Democratic Party by its Taliban wing . . . willing to ‘kill’ one of their own, if he does not conform to the narrow and rigid agenda of the party’s kook fringe.” Others weighed in against the presumed dangers of “anti-war fever and anti-incumbency rage.” The Washington Post ’s David Broder said political anger was alienating “the broad swath of centrist voters who feel they have no voice.” “The Democrats are angry at the Democrats,” intoned CNN talking head Glenn Beck. “What does the average person do?”

Join in, I hope. Progressive anger is the key to improving our democracy- and taking back America from the radical right.

After all, America wouldn’t be the great nation it is today without incensed inhabitants demanding progressive change. Resentment against undemocratic “taxation without representation” motivated colonists to dump British tea into Boston harbor in 1773, putting us on course toward nationhood. Rage against the injustice of slavery fueled abolitionists to agitate successfully for emancipation. The umbrage of suffragists led to the enfranchisement of half the population in 1920. Disgust at exploitative labor conditions led to progressive era reforms. And the anger of gay rights activists in 1970s against the criminalization of homosexuality means that today anti-sodomy laws are a thing of the past.

Today, we’re the freest, most democratic society on earth because our predecessors got mad back then.

But accepting that America in 2006 is the best our country can be sets expectations too low. For all our country’s phenomenal progress, Americans should be outraged about the massive problems still demanding our attention: a misguided war in Iraq needlessly taking the lives of fellow Americans and squandering our national treasure, high schools where white students are 22% more likely to graduate than their black peers, and forty million Americans without health insurance. We don’t believe this is an acceptable state for a country with America’s potential. Today’s progressives possess a social rage well-suited to our national condition: a constructive refusal to hold nothing short of the highest expectations for the country, and the politicians in Washington who should be working harder to fulfill them.

True, anger about the injustices still plaguing these United States might seem a bit much considering how well many of our vital statistics measure up against other’s. Millions of people around the world live on a dollar or less a day, while our minimum wage ensures that even our lowest paid workers make more than forty times that. Hurricane-ravaged Louisiana’s per capita income of $24,820 in 2005, lowest among all states, was higher than that of every single nation in Sub-Saharan Africa. And, all the anger on cable TV and the blogs notwithstanding, Americans generally settle our political disputes without violence, whereas bloody civil wars have persisted in many parts of the world.

But no nation in the world holds as much potential for improvement as the United States. Americans are uniquely positioned – thanks to our system of government, economic strength, and open society – to make their country not simply good, but great. Progressive anger has always pushed us closer to fully realizing this potential- as it does today. The real problem, it seems, is that our counterparts on the right are angry about the wrong things.