Progressive Blogs

One More Reason Why I Love Rachel Maddow

Bob Fertik — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 20:16:06 -0500

Yesterday Sarah Palin complained to Greta van Susteren about being criticized by "some blogger probably sitting there in your parents basement wearing their pajamas blogging some kind of gossip or lie." To show her solidarity with us bloggers, Rachel wore... pajamas! (h/t Ali Frick)

Kos, Kucinich, and the Overton Window

Bob Fertik — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 13:42:17 -0400

Perhaps someone can help me, because I really don't understand why Kos regularly attacks Rep. Dennis Kucinich as being "loony" or something similar. Here's the latest:

Here's what too many people still don't understand -- there's nothing loony about the netroots. This isn't fertile territory for the McKinneys and Kuciniches of our party. This is fertile territory for the Howard Deans of our party -- sensible, pragmatic progressives who aren't afraid to be Democrats. Why? Because we're the nation. We're not clustered in DC and NYC, we're spread out over all 50 states, and we know better than anyone what it takes to win in our own backyards.

We didn't rally around Webb, Tester, Schweitzer, Trauner, Brown, Massa, Burner and so many other moderate Democrats because they were little Kucinich clones, but because they were perfectly suited for the states and districts they seek to represent. It's that simple. Howard Dean wasn't an anomaly. He was our ideal.

We are not the elites, we are America, and we're situated squarely in its ideological center. We proved it in 2006, and we'll prove it again next week.

Don't get me wrong - I'm a huge fan of Kos on 98% of the issues. (I've mainly differed with him on impeachment, which he consistently opposed to prove Democrats could "govern", ignoring the substantive issues that could only be addressed through impeachment.)

But Kos is making a huge mistake in attacking Kucinich - in terms of raw politics, progressive policy, and even media strategy.

Kos's political mistake is that Kucinich is one of the few Democrats who is able to reach out to voters who stand to the left of the Democratic Party. If we had a parliamentary system like most of the world, these voters would readily join the Green Party because they believe deeply in saving the planet, ending war, and promoting economic and social justice. But because third parties are not viable in the U.S. under current rules, these voters reluctantly support Democrats.

As a sophisticated strategist, Kos understands the Democratic Party needs to be a "big tent" that covers a wide spectrum from Greens to Blue(Dog)s. So why does he want to throw Green-leaning Democrats out of the tent by attacking Kucinich?

Kucinich also appeals anti-corporate supporters of Ralph Nader, to non-fascist libertarians who otherwise support Ron Paul, to supporters of the Marijuana Party, to the numerous followers of popular spiritualists like Marianne Williamson who have no political champions, and even to believers in UFO's. Obviously none of these are large groups, and they don't get much TV time (except on Larry King and the offbeat channels), but in close elections these voters can make a difference, especially in The Great American Heartland.

There is also a practical consequence of throwing Green-leaning Democrats out of our "big tent" - they can produce third-party challenges that can swing close elections to the Republicans. There are at least three such challenges now: against Nancy Pelosi in CA08 (by heroic peace mom Cindy Sheehan), Kathy Dahlkemper in PA03 (by BlueAmerica candidate Steven Porter), and Christine Jennings in FL13 (by 2004 netroots favorite Jan Schneider). Pelosi is unlikely to lose her seat becasue of Sheehan's challenge, but Dahlkemper and Jennings may well lose their challenges because of lost third-party votes.

Beyond raw politics, the case against attacking Kucinich is infinitely stronger in terms of progressives policies.

It's impossible to compile a list of progressives issues on which Kucinich has been the leader - often the only Democrat willing to speak up and say on TV or the House Floor exactly the kinds of things the best progressive bloggers are writing.

Bush's invasion of Iraq - an epic historic disaster
Bush's threatened invasion of Iran - a mega-disaster that would dwarf Iraq
Bush's assault on our Constitutional rights, including warrantless wiretapping
Bush's assault on our election system
Paulson's Plunder - Bush's planned giveaway of $700 billion to banks and the wealthiest Americans
The need for single-payer health care
The need to impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney for their historic crimes

Obviously Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid never address these issues, nor do their lieutenants. But even the most "progressive" Democrats are silent, or at best mumble so quietly they are never heard: Russ Feingold, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, John Lewis, to name just a few.

When Kucinich fights for these causes, he does so with full command of the facts and with a calm and polished delivery that works in the most hostile forums - including Meet the Press (where Tim Russert attacked Kucinich for saying our invasion was primarily about oil, as of course it was) and FOX News.

Which brings me to the Overton Window - the concept that the only policy options that get taken "seriously" are limited to the center of our political debate. Since Barry Goldwater, conservative Republicans have staked out policy positions as far to the right as possible, and forced the "center" to move their way. We can see the success of that strategy now when a small 3% increase of the marginal tax rate on people making over $250,000 is called "socialism" - and Joe Biden gets attacked for laughing at the absurdity of the claim.

Dennis Kucinich is the only Democrat who stakes out policy positions to the left of the Overton Window. If we want to move the window to the left, we need dozens of Kuciniches all pulling the window in the same direction.

Kos himself points out the need to move our issues from the "loony" fringe to the mainstream:

Ah yes, us loony bloggers, fighting for universal health care, to protect social security, to keep our government from unconstitutionally spying on us, and to promote a sane foreign policy that doesn't unnecessarily cost us blood and treasure. You know, loony things supported by a majority of the (apparently also loony) American people.

By attacking Kucinich, Kos not only undercuts Kucinich's own efforts, but also discourages other Democrats from helping him in what of necessity needs to be a collective effort.

Surely Kos understands this. Like I said at the top, I just don't understand why he keeps doing it.

Update 1: Here are some responses to Kos from Kossacks, all of which are plus rated:

As someone way to the left of Obama, (8+ / 0-) by JSC ltd

I am tired of being stigmatized by having Obama shoved over into my pigeonhole.

Alas, nobody outside Ohio (besides me) seems to appreciate Kucinich.

...

Kos is wrong (9+ / 0-) by Chammy Nooks

I would wager that the majority of people that read this website agree with Kucinich's policies far more than those of the "moderate" Democrats that Kos mentions.

Single-payer healthcare. Clean energy such as solar and wind power, rather than the oxymorons of "clean coal" and "safe nuclear". Withdrawal of U.S. troops from the 100+ countries that they currently occupy. Economic policies that actually aim to eradicate poverty.

The ideological center is not a good place to be. The language makes it sound reasonable, but if there is a spectrum where one extreme wants to kill 100 babies and the other extreme wants to kill zero babies then the reasonable "center" would advocate killing 50 babies. I want no part of the "center".

...

but why? I love kucinich, I don't get it, I (4+ / 0-) by erin r

agree with everything he ever says!

I feel like if he's going to insult Kucinich so indiscriminately then he owes us an explanation. Is it personal?

McCain does not support the troops

by erin r

Update 2: Atrios implicitly addresses Overton:

I think Beltway people on both sides are surprisingly bad at, well, politics. They tend to view things through the concept of the political spectrum as dictated by the Villagers, unaware that people in the rest of the country, aside perhaps from political junkies, don't really see things that way. It isn't actually Cokie Roberts' world.

Even if Obama wins the biggest Presidential landslide since 1964, it won't be Obama's world either because the Overton Window is so far to the right that Obama's place in the spectrum is indistinguishable from "Socialist." The only way to make it Obama's world is to create space on the left through clear and serious people like Kucinich.

How Much Credit Do Bloggers Deserve?

Bob Fertik — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 13:25:39 -0400

As victory draws near for Obama and the Democrats, a handful of bloggers are getting ready for end-zone dances - let's hope they don't jinx the results.

Still, it's a fair question: how much credit do bloggers (and blog audiences) deserve if Democrats win?

Unlike 2006, there was no "macaca moment" - a single Youtube that transformed an election, in that case Virginia Senator George Allen's expected victory. So judging the role of bloggers requires a more sophisticated analysis.

The single most important moment in the presidential campaign had nothing to do with bloggers - it was the sudden collapse of Lehman Brothers on September 16. McCain was still enjoying his convention bounce, but when the bottom fell out of the stock market, it took McCain's campaign down with it.

Even so, McCain's campaign would not have collapsed if its foundation was intact. And that's where bloggers played a decisive role: like an army of termites, we ate through the foundation, leaving it ready to collapse.

The foundation of McCain's campaign was his "brand." The "maverick" image was part of the brand, but not the entirety of it. McCain's brand was built through a lifetime of public acts, including his time as a POW, his Keating 5 comeback, his campaign finance work with Russ Feingold, his 2000 battle with Bush, his support for the invasion of Iraq in 2002-2003, his enthusiastic support for Bush in 2004, and his immigration work with Ted Kennedy. It was a mixed record to be sure, but McCain's greatest asset was his infinite time on TV talk shows explaining the issues of the moment from his point of view.

McCain loved TV, and TV loved him back. Every TV host knew McCain well, and liked him. They all wanted him to show off his smarts and win.

But bloggers knew better. We knew Obama was the one with the smarts, not McCain. And we knew all of the character flaws his TV friends refused to report. It took the collective force of bloggers to force TV hosts to tell these inconvenient truths: that McCain was a Bush loyalist, a flip-flopper, a blatant hypocrite, a right-wing tool, a kept man with contempt for his wife, a cancer survivor with an uncertain prognosis, a reckless gambler, and a cranky and hot-tempered and nasty old man.

Bloggers created this alternative narrative on our own. Obama went out of his way to praise McCain's character, which drove us all nuts. Obama's praise was echoed by all his surrogates; no one involved with his campaign was allowed to dis McCain.

Fact-based sites like ThinkProgress documented all the evidence about McCain. Narrative-based sites like DailyKos drove those facts into the campaign spin. And as jamesboyce describes, creative individuals wrote and produced their own short videos and ads.

It was genuinely a collective effort - everyone did their share, and there were (surprisingly) no leaders at all.

Although we have no Martin Luther King or Susan B. Anthony, we are a vast and powerful movement. One can only imagine what we could accomplish if we were - gasp - organized!

Update 1: A brand-new study by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press shows the tremendous advantage of the progressive blogosphere over our bankrupt conservative cousins - twice as many readers (as a % of our "base"), 3 times as many donors, and 2.5 times as many eventgoers. The political establishment thinks the conservative "movement" is a powerful force, but we're 2-3 times more powerful.

Marching Orders for Aggressive Progressives

Bob Fertik — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 00:30:29 -0400

Commandante Markos wants us to "break their spirits" - and gives us our marching orders for a sweeping victory on Election Day:

I realize there are people uncomfortable with aggressive language and action. That's the difference between liberal weenies and movement progressives. Liberal weenies sit around thinking that "the truth" is enough for victory, and that if we simply explain to voters why Democrats are better, why, we can't possibly lose any elections! That's the crowd that wants to keep the "high ground" and doesn't want to go down in the gutters and fight the GOP where they live, lest we get a little muddied ourselves.

Movement progressives realize that we must do everything necessary allowable under the law to win because elections have consequences. This isn't about who is most pure, but about taking the fight to the enemy and aggressively embracing progressivism, offering clear contrasts between us and them, and fighting fire with fire. There's no ambiguity about where I belong.

So to my fellow movement progressives, embrace that killer instinct and let's finish the job. We've got conservatives demoralized and on the run. They are retrenching around their most important voices. So let's pick off those they've left exposed and go after their best defended leaders as well. Let's get rid of John Shadegg and Mitch McConnell and Liddy Dole and the rest of them. Leave them leaderless, and susceptible to takeover by the Evangelical Right that so freaked out Wall Street conservatives during the primaries (when Huckabee was briefly in the lead).

Let's run up Obama's margins in the Blue states and narrow them in the Red states to give Obama a huge, unmistakable national mandate. Let's win states Bush won by 20 points or so in 2004, like Indiana, Montana and North Dakota, to rub salt in their wounds. Let's keep forcing them to go more and more into debt, so that they emerge from the election with their coffers drained, heavily in debt.

Wanted: House Primary Challengers for 2010

Bob Fertik — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 15:25:43 -0400

Look out Bush Democrats - here comes Accountability Now. But its success depends on our ability to find more primary challengers. If you know one, tell them!

Jane Hamsher writes,

Primary challenges work. The threat of a primary challenge in 2010 will change behavior in 2008. The question is -- how can we create a system where we aren't dependent on chance for a Donna Edwards (or Ned Lamont) to emerge?

Earlier this year, our Accountability Now PAC raised money for the purpose of holding our elected officials accountable. We have been working since then to try and figure out the best way to use that money, and ultimately decided that it could best be used trying to find more candidates like Donna Edwards.

So Accountability Now brought together partners including MoveOn, SEIU, They Work for Us, Color of Change, the Steelworkers, DailyKos and BlogPAC and are funding a project to look at districts across the country and try to figure out where we can find great candidates to challenge incumbents who have become more responsive to corporate America than they have to their constituents...

So please help us get started by telling us if you know great progressive leaders in your community who deserve support. Taking on incumbents is extremely difficult, and often times good challengers won't step forward because they don't think they can martial the resources required to be successful. We want to find these people, evaluate them and let them know that we are here and we can help them.

Let us know about great progressive leaders in your community here.

Listen to Hamsher's interview with Glenn Greenwald.

further support ban on smoking in bars and music venues

healer1111 — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:22:03 -0400

I would like to know if anything is being done in regards to smoking in public places. Specifically, in bars and music venues in Florida. We are allergic to smoke (2 - 3 day headaches) and sometimes nosebleeds and my fiancee is asthmatic. This makes it hard for him to breathe and limits where we can go. It would be nice to be albe to enjoy a band or DJ's in a club without getting sick. It's a big problem and I know a lot of people that just don't go out around it anymore. This makes it hard on the performers (attendance numbers) and not fair for hard working people that want to go have a good time once in a while. The smokers have more rights! Is anyone concerned about this? Is the funding for the smoke-free movement going to go away with a President (elect) who recently smoked? We need to keep the pressure on because smoking causes millions of dollars a year in healthcare costs and illnesses. Not too mention the personal cost to the families of nicotine addicts. Some folks will have no gas or food - but they got cigarettes. This happens more than you know expecially in lower income families. But that's for another day. ~ For now - I just want to be able to breathe clearly in bars or music venues.

Pundit of the Year: Nate Silver

Bob Fertik — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 09:31:30 -0400

I frequently rail against the willfully ignorant and stupid people who call themselves "pundits" and pollute our airwaves. Today I want to do the opposite: praise a real pundit who came out of nowhere (politically speaking) and rose to the very top of the "profession." His name is Nate Silver and his website is FiveThirtyEight.com, named after the total number of Electors in the Electoral College. (If you divide by two, 269 is a tie so 270 is needed to win.)

Last night, Silver made the "big time" with an appearance on Countdown with Keith Olberman. Watch the video below and you'll see why Silver is so good: he's precise, factual, thoroughly informed, practically wise, and humble.

Every four years, I go to an election night party to watch the map light up in red and blue states, with a feeling of dread that key states may go red. This year, thanks to Silver, I hope to know down to the decimal point how each state will go. And if key states unexpectedly go red, I'll also know exactly where to look for Republican voter fraud.

Obama, don't follow McCain into the mud

mr_twist — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 15:02:14 -0400

Please help unite
Obama supporters in rejecting McCain’s
negative campaign style. We must clean up politics if things are ever to get
better. We have a chance to be so much more than the same old attack politics,
but Obama must hear the voices of his supporters on this.

Please read the message to Obama on the following blog and
help spread it to others.

http://manyhands.blogspot.com/

Senator Barack Obama,

I realize that you have already endured
much since the start of your campaign for the presidency. Along with
the grueling schedules, lack of sleep, and time away from your family,
you have had to deal with being the target of racial slurs, hateful jokes, untrue attacks on your faith, and even slander against your loved ones. All of us who support your bid for president and many of those who do not condemn such unethical political trash.

I call upon you to recognize in these difficult times that the Obama campaign belongs to its supporters. It belongs to all of us. We want to support what we have seen in you. Maybe it was something we read in one of your books, a rousing speech
you made at a huge rally, or a small commitment you expressed in a more
personal setting. Regardless, we all found something to believe in that
we share. We found a hope for something better in the potential that
you contain and in what we have seen from your best moments. Do not
forget this. Even when you falter you must still be committed to the
steady course of something new, something positive, and something which
makes you capable of inspiring and leading millions.

This needs
to be said in light of McCain deciding recently that there is only one
way for him to defeat you: by drawing you into his mud. Unable to rally
the enthusiasm and hope that you stir in people McCain has decided
instead to take the low road and lash out
at you for inspiring so many to believe in and work for change in their
country. These are McCain's politics, do not let them become yours. Our
country does not need a second McCain campaign, we need something
different, something new, and something better.

I am not asking you to be soft and avoid holding people accountable, asking tough questions, or defending yourself from lies.
I am asking you to not be drawn into the negative campaigning that your
opponent so wishes to see you engage in. There is a difference between
hard politics and dirty politics. Do not become a mudslinger instead of
a "hope monger". Many of us want something different and you are our
best hope for that. Please Sen. Obama, do not walk into the politics of
anger and spite.

--- One of your inspired supporters

Is It Time to Abolish the CIA?

Bob Fertik — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 11:37:09 -0400

After the CIA's miserable failure to predict the collapse of the Soviet Union, then-Senator Pat Moynihan proposed eliminating the CIA and putting the State Department back in charge of collecting intelligence, as it was before World War II.

Now, after the intelligence community's catastrophic failure on Iraq, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell is proposing an idea that's nearly as radical: intelligence analysts should talk to bloggers like Juan Cole:

In a new directive that challenges the insular culture of U.S. intelligence agencies, Director of National Intelligence J. Michael McConnell has ordered analysts to cultivate relationships with outside experts “whenever possible” in order to improve the quality of intelligence analysis.

The DNI’s July 16 directive on “Analytic Outreach” (pdf) establishes procedures for implementing such outreach, including incentives and rewards for successful performance.

“Analytic outreach is the open, overt, and deliberate act of an IC [intelligence community] analyst engaging with an individual outside the IC to explore ideas and alternate perspectives, gain new insights, generate new knowledge, or obtain new information,” the directive states.

“Elements of the IC should use outside experts whenever possible to contribute to, critique, and challenge internal products and analysis….”

“Sound intelligence analysis requires that analysts… develop trusted relationships” with “experts in academia; think tanks; industry; non-governmental organizations; the scientific world; …and elsewhere.”

There are a number of reasons why Juan Cole and other bloggers regularly get things right, while the CIA and other intelligence agencies get things wrong.

For one, Cole speaks Arabic and Farsi and reads local news sources, while the U.S. government (U.S.G.) has very few Arabic/Farsi speakers, because so many were purged for being gay or exposing neocon lies.

Of equal importance, Cole isn't part of the U.S.G. bureaucracy and therefore isn't subject to the carrots (like Medals of Freedom for intelligence whores like George Tenet) and sticks (like intimidating visits from Dick Cheney) that result in corrupted intelligence.

Finally, Cole isn't getting paid so he doesn't have to make s**t up to get a check - unlike people like Ahmed Chalabi and Curveball and the bounty-hunters who delivered 90% of the Gitmo prisoners.

But given the obvious advantages of non-corrupt intelligence over corrupt intelligence, isn't it time to revive Pat Moynihan's proposal to eliminate the CIA entirely, and hand intelligence back to the State Department?

Imagine how much better U.S. intelligence would be if it was compiled through a partnership of honest civil servants and honest citizens, both inside the U.S. and abroad - and imagine how much cheaper too.

And to take this thought one step further, imagine how much better U.S. intelligence would be if it was all made open source and crowdsourced? For example, if everyone who cared about the possible threat from Iraq in 2002-2003 had access to all of the information (such as Gen. Hussein Kamel's 1995 CIA debriefing that he had destroyed all Iraqi WMD's after the 1991 Gulf War), it would have been impossible for George Bush to lie the country into invading Iraq.

Can the Netroots Change A World Run by Thieves?

Bob Fertik — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 20:53:55 -0400

Last weekend at Netroots Nation, Matt Palevsky of The Real News had a brief but thoughtful interview with Matt Stoller of OpenLeft.com about how much the Netroots can change American politics and the world. Stoller, as always, was militantly realistic:

The scale of what we need to do is far larger than our capacity right now. Just changing the way we relate to each other and the land around us - because we have a country and a world that is actually run by thieves - that's the problem.

The subprime mortgage crisis, Iraq, oil, any of these different problems boil down to the fact that the people that are running our culture, our elite institutions are basically stealing. And we have not solved that problem so there's that crisis of legitimacy in the leadership.

What we have to do is figure out how we displace that leadership and replace it with people who believe in social responsibility towards one another and believe in stewardship of the land - who are basically liberal - that's what we have to do.

I mostly agree with Stoller's diagnosis - our country and our world are run by thieves, and that's causing a lot of enormous problems. But is his prescription any good?

I'm basically a "structuralist" - when political and economic structures are in place, the people who fill those structures will basically perpetuate them, rather than change them - or use them to change the world outside them. In simpler terms, most people are paid to do a job, and they are satisfied if they get their job mostly done so they can keep it. That's what the term "9 to 5" used to mean - show up, get it done, and go home to live the rest of your life.

Using this "structuralist" analysis, changing the people who lead major institutions isn't going to produce any significant change. Ivy League universities will turn out skilled lawyers, bankers, scientists, and academics, no matter who leads them. Banks will finance businesses that appear to be profitable, no matter who leads them. And weapons manufacturers will make deadly weapons, no matter who leads them.

If we want to change our politics and our world, there's little point in changing the people who run major institutions. (I would of course make the exception of our political institutions, where the difference between electing Democrats and Republicans in our generation is the difference between regulated capitalism and neo-fascism.) Instead we have to think creatively about how to change the structures themselves.

Our suicidal (both economically and environmentally) dependence on oil is largely due to the structure of our transportation system. Our cities used to have electric cable cars like San Francisco, but the auto companies bought them up and shut them down so everyone would have to buy a car. We need to get back to a system like that, and draw more people from suburbs back into cities. We also need to encourage businesses to let more workers telecommute, since it's now so easy to do most everything at home. If we do this, we will reduce the power of the oil thieves who elected Bush and Cheney specifically to steal Iraq's oil.

Similarly our food system needs to switch from large-scale industrial production to smaller-scale, sustainable local production. If we do this, we will reduce the power of the agribusiness thieves who contribute enormously both to global warming (through fertilizers) and global poverty (through insane biofuels like corn ethanol).

I'm surprised Stoller doesn't make this point, since he's one of the leaders of the movement for Net Neutrality, which is fighting to preserve the open architecture of the Internet - arguably the single most important structural change since the invention of the ~~personal~~ computer.

Update 1: I see Stoller posted a link here. Let me return the favor by linking to his very creative thinking about how the Health Care for America Now coalition "could and should become a much broader fight than one about health insurance" by focusing broadly on health, not just narrowly on medical insurance:

if HCAN took on what it means to be healthy, the playing field broadens dramatically. Rather than a giant denouement around a bill in Congress, with a loss or a win, the coalition can fight on the Agriculture bill, in the Transportation bill coming down the pike early next year, and can team up with businesses to move forward on healthier infrastructure. With important books like The End of Food hitting the shelves, this issue is poised for an explosive fight on the internet, as health intersects quite dramatically with the carbon intensive agricultural system we use (which also has national security implications).

With a broadened mandate, HCAN could go to the states, through agencies, and hit at individual companies that aren't expecting it, like Florida Crystal and Walmart, for peddling sugar (there's an alliance with progressive foreign policy elites there as well). The internet might explode in support of the innumerable obvious and interesting fights HCAN picks.

Brilliant - I hope it inspires more creative thinking along these lines.