Confusing Law With Theology

I don't know how I can be surprised by the hypocrisy of the Bush and company anymore but this one takes my breath away...


Excerpt:
On March 14, Sun, a 6-month-old baby with a fatal form of dwarfism, was allowed to die in a Texas hospital over his mother Wanda's objections. Under a 1999 law signed by Bush, who was then governor, cost-conscious hospitals are empowered to decide when care is "futile." The Hudson case is the first time ever that a court has allowed bean counters to override the wishes of parents. "They gave up in six months," Wanda Hudson told the Houston Chronicle. "They made a terrible mistake." Wanda apparently was not "cable ready," as they say in the television world, and she failed to get Randall Terry and the radical anti-abortionists on her side. Tom DeLay never called.

Entire Column:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7305206/site/newsweek/

Bill Bradley Op-Ed: A Party Inverted

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Contributor: A Party Inverted

A Party Inverted
By BILL BRADLEY

FIVE months after the presidential election Democrats are still pointing fingers at one another and trying to figure out why Republicans won. Was the problem the party's position on social issues or taxes or defense or what? Were there tactical errors made in the conduct of the campaign? Were the right advisers heard? Was the candidate flawed?

Before deciding what Democrats should do now, it's important to see what Republicans have done right over many years. When the Goldwater Republicans lost in 1964, they didn't try to become Democrats. They tried to figure out how to make their own ideas more appealing to the voters. As part of this effort, they turned to Lewis Powell, then a corporate lawyer and soon to become a member of the United States Supreme Court. In 1971 he wrote a landmark memo for the United States Chamber of Commerce in which he advocated a sweeping, coordinated and long-term effort to spread conservative ideas on college campuses, in academic journals and in the news media.

To further the party's ideological and political goals, Republicans in the 1970's and 1980's built a comprehensive structure based on Powell's blueprint. Visualize that structure as a pyramid.

You've probably heard some of this before, but let me run through it again. Big individual donors and large foundations - the Scaife family and Olin foundations, for instance - form the base of the pyramid. They finance conservative research centers like the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute and the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, entities that make up the second level of the pyramid.

The ideas these organizations develop are then pushed up to the third level of the pyramid - the political level. There, strategists like Karl Rove or Ralph Reed or Ken Mehlman take these new ideas and, through polling, focus groups and careful attention to Democratic attacks, convert them into language that will appeal to the broadest electorate. That language is sometimes in the form of an assault on Democrats and at other times in the form of advocacy for a new policy position. The development process can take years. And then there's the fourth level of the pyramid: the partisan news media. Conservative commentators and networks spread these finely honed ideas.

At the very top of the pyramid you'll find the president. Because the pyramid is stable, all you have to do is put a different top on it and it works fine.

It is not quite the "right wing conspiracy" that Hillary Clinton described, but it is an impressive organization built consciously, carefully and single-mindedly. The Ann Coulters and Grover Norquists don't want to be candidates for anything or cabinet officers for anyone. They know their roles and execute them because they're paid well and believe, I think, in what they're saying. True, there's lots of money involved, but the money makes a difference because it goes toward reinforcing a structure that is already stable.

To understand how the Democratic Party works, invert the pyramid. Imagine a pyramid balancing precariously on its point, which is the presidential candidate.

Democrats who run for president have to build their own pyramids all by themselves. There is no coherent, larger structure that they can rely on. Unlike Republicans, they don't simply have to assemble a campaign apparatus - they have to formulate ideas and a vision, too. Many Democratic fundraisers join a campaign only after assessing how well it has done in assembling its pyramid of political, media and idea people.

There is no clearly identifiable funding base for Democratic policy organizations, and in the frantic campaign rush there is no time for patient, long-term development of new ideas or of new ways to sell old ideas. Campaigns don't start thinking about a Democratic brand until halfway through the election year, by which time winning the daily news cycle takes precedence over building a consistent message. The closest that Democrats get to a brand is a catchy slogan.

Democrats choose this approach, I believe, because we are still hypnotized by Jack Kennedy, and the promise of a charismatic leader who can change America by the strength and style of his personality. The trouble is that every four years the party splits and rallies around several different individuals at once. Opponents in the primaries then exaggerate their differences and leave the public confused about what Democrats believe.

In such a system tactics trump strategy. Candidates don't risk talking about big ideas because the ideas have never been sufficiently tested. Instead they usually wind up arguing about minor issues and express few deep convictions. In the worst case, they embrace "Republican lite" platforms - never realizing that in doing so they're allowing the Republicans to define the terms of the debate.

A party based on charisma has no long-term impact. Think of our last charismatic leader, Bill Clinton. He was president for eight years. He was the first Democrat to be re-elected since Franklin Roosevelt. He was smart, skilled and possessed great energy. But what happened? At the end of his tenure in the most powerful office in the world, there were fewer Democratic governors, fewer Democratic senators, members of Congress and state legislators and a national party that was deep in debt. The president did well. The party did not. Charisma didn't translate into structure.

If Democrats are serious about preparing for the next election or the next election after that, some influential Democrats will have to resist entrusting their dreams to individual candidates and instead make a commitment to build a stable pyramid from the base up. It will take at least a decade's commitment, and it won't come cheap. But there really is no other choice.

Bill Bradley, a former Democratic senator from New Jersey, is a managing director of Allen & Company.

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

The GOP Threat to Democracy

A democracy functions best when it supports a diverse range of ideas and independent actors within the political system. Our Founding Fathers certainly seemed to acknowledge that thought when they institutionalized the "free marketplace of ideas" through such principles as the separation of church and state and the system of checks and balances between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government.

Such a basic premise of our democratic system, however, is now under dire attack due to to the irresponsible behavior of prominent members of the Republican party and their fellow travelers in the conservative media.

In recent years, the forces on the Right have successfully sowed popular distrust of the media, the so-called "Fourth Estate" (after the three branches of government mentioned above). As a result, the popular press, now dismissed as a liberal shill by its critics, regularly practices self-censorship and avoids hard-hitting investigative journalism in favor of safer, sensationalist pap. How else to explain the recent coverage of the Terri Shiavo case, wherein the news so breathlessly reports on the private lives and personalities of the main actors, and yet has devoted so little space to an analysis of the long history of court cases and the legal issues involved? But the greater concern for us as Americans should be the fact that fewer and fewer people seem willing to even trust the news outlets to which they have regular, free access. If we no longer trust the commercial news media, then where will people turn for their information and opinions? Talk radio?!

Our public education system, too, has been much ridiculed of late. Schools from the high school level on down have generally been portrayed as "failed" experiments, eschewing basic education for multicultural cheerleading and self-esteem promotion; our colleges, meanwhile, are depicted as close-minded hotbeds of anti-American, liberal indoctrination.

Coupled with their insidious assault on the popular press and public education, the GOP has launched a third assault on the last true independent bastion of responsible dissent: the federal courts. Suddenly, and despite any empirical proof to support their sweeping contention, the media is flooded with shrill cries of a "runaway judiciary" and "activist judges subverting the will of the people!" There is even a move afoot in conservative circles to call on the Republican-controlled Congress to exercise its Constitutional authority and simply do away with the entire federal judiciary below the level of the Supreme Court; supporters claim that this is the only way to teach an "obstructionist" judiciary a well-deserved lesson. Our very own lunatic-on-the-Right Congressman Steve King supports stepping in aggressvely to impose limits (whatever these might be) on what he has arbitrarily branded a "supremist judicial deity."

[As an aside, I suspect not a few judges among the "supremist judicial deity" troubling the Republicans are themselves staunch conservatives nominated by Republican presidents in years past. Fortunately for them, Republicans like Steve King seem untroubled by their logical fallacies and inconsistencies of fact.]

Thinking people of the world unite! We must work harder to protect and promote those venues -- the popular press, the public schools, the courts, etc. -- wherein competing voices and viewpoints can still be heard. We must help people better understand that disagreement is a sign of a healthy democratic polity, not of a society allegedly spinning out of control. Above all, we need to point out that sincerity of belief is not necessarily the equal of carefulness of thought.

The recent, failed Right-wing witch-hunt against a Sioux City judge demonstrates that the tide has not yet turned completely against us. There is still time to do your part. If nothing else, take a lesson from Max Spain and Virginia Hood: get involved, be strong, and always make your convictions heard!

Peace!
Historian

Two Great Democratic Friends are Gone

Max Spain

While we're deeply saddened at the loss of Max Spain, it's hard not to smile at the memory of the man. Over the decades he was a fearless advocate and spokesman for what he believed in. Max fought the good fight for the Communications Workers, for the Labor movement, and for the Democratic candidates and issues he supported. A family man with a wonderful wife and children, the man had real character -- and he was a real character, too. Feisty in his frequent 'Letters to the Editor' in the Sioux City Journal, Max never left you without knowing what he knew to be the truth. A great mind, a great man.

--&--

Virginia Hood

It is hard for those of us who have been active in the Democratic Party to imagine any campaign without Virginia Hood. When the presidential candidates came to Sioux City, they always called Virginia first. She had the ear of Senators, Governors and would-be Presidents for the last few decades, never letting them off the hook when she knew they were on the wrong track. Ask anyone who served as Woodbury County Chair, and you will hear story after story about the amazing Virgina Hood and the classic battles we all fought together. The Heavens are probably receiving the benefit of her informed opinion at this very moment.


Our thoughts go out to the families of Max Spain and Virginia Hood in these difficult times.

EVERY republican Must Go!

From John Emerson: '...the big fact of today's political world is that there are no good guys on the other side of the aisle, and that Democrats should quit looking for them.'

The only good Republican politician is a retired Republican politician.

From "Bull Moose" Blog: Conservatism R.I.P.

"All pretenses of limited government conservatism have been cast aside with congressional intervention in the Schiavo case. The era of big government conservatism is in full swing. That is, if it can be called conservatism, at all."

Read it all at:
Bull Moose

Community Development budgets to be dismantled

Message from Bill Himes, one of our Central Committee members:

"I came across this information concerning President Bush’s proposed 2006 budget. The president’s budget would cut spending by $1 billion and dismantle community Development as we know it, consolidating it along with other several other programs and moving them from under Housing and Urban Development to the Commerce Department. Currently the 2006 budget passed by the House goes along with the president’s request. The Senate’s version is a little better. It’s unclear whether the Senate’s will survive in the eventual House-Senate compromise budget. In the last 3 years CDBG funds have provided nearly $5 million to improve conditions in our city. Please read the attached Information and use the sample letter that is attached or compose your own to mail your thoughts to your elected officials."

Here is a link to OMB if you want to check out the details of the proposed budget. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/

CLICK HERE for a Word docmument - contains things you could use to write a Letter To the Editor.

The Sioux City Journal listens to Rumsfeld

Did you read the Monday, 14 March, Journal article titled "So many good things are happening"? Reporter Michele Linck interviews U.S. Army Capt. Dawn Lenz Longwill, a 1993 East High graduate, who is home from Iraq. Capt. Longwill had been stationed at one of Saddam's palaces converted to division headquarters. It's hot, intense duty but there are Filipinos and Sri Lankans (Halliburton contractors?) to cook the chow and do the laundry. Capt. Longwill's Iraqi exposure seems to be limited to one convoy a week and Iraqis working at the headquarters. Sadly, one Iraqi couple were brutally killed by insurgents solely because they worked for Americans.

Out of the blue Capt. Longwill states that good things are happening in Iraq - schools are open, hospitals have doctors and medicine again (after we bombed the hell out of them?!?). There is no indication that Capt. Longwill knows any of this first hand. What is clearly indicated is that Sec. Rumsfeld visited Capt. Longwill's headquarters and urged the media to report more on "the progress being made." Capt. Longwill and Michele Linck have done their duty! I just hope that our "democratization" of Iraq is going as well as Sec. Rumsfeld and the Sioux City Journal want us to believe.

Defending the Caucuses

IOWA IS "LIBERAL" ONLY IF YOU HAVE NEVER LIVED HERE

By Jim Hutter, Ph. D. © 2005
Assoc. Prof. of Political Science, Iowa State University


Iowa is fly-over land to those who live on the East and West coasts. To print and broadcast reporters, Iowa is a cold week in January once every four years. And Iowa is a favorite whipping boy for those who want the DNC to strip Iowa of its first-in-the-nation precinct caucuses.
But Iowa is NOT one of the most liberal states in the nation. Nor is its politics dominated by special interests.
Prior to his run for the Democratic nomination in 2004, Howard Dean said, "If you look at the caucuses system, they are dominated by the special interests in both parties….They represent the extremes." (Washington Post 1/14/05)
After more than a year spent meeting Iowans, Dean concluded that his previous assessment of Iowa politics was wrong. Recently, while running for DNC Chair, Dean has said that he sees no reason to remove Iowa from its first place position.

Is Grassley a Liberal Dove?
Iowa Democrats are dovish even by Democratic standards….Even the state's Republican senator, Charles Grassley, voted against the 1991 Persian Gulf War," wrote Peter Beinart (Washington Post 1/14/05). Being against a war is liberal?
Suggesting that Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), whose 2004 presidential support score was 94 percent pro-Bush, is a liberal dove boggles the minds of Iowans.
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (1/11/04) perpetuated the Iowa-is-liberal myth, saying: "Iowa's voting-age population [is] heavily tilted toward the Democratic Party's liberal and labor base." Actually, Iowa Republicans usually outnumber Democrats, and no-party registrants often outnumber both. Al Gore barely carried Iowa in 2000; Bush43 barely carried it in 2004. Where's the tilt?
This fallacy is regularly repeated in the media. A generation ago it was said that because Iowans opposed spending more money on defense, they were liberal doves. No, they were opposed to spending so much money!

Actual Caucus Results
As for Iowa Democratic caucus-goers being liberal extremists, here are the actual caucus winners, beginning in 1968: Edmund Muskie, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, and Dick Gephardt (who edged the more liberal Paul Simon and Michael Dukakis in 1988). In 1992, Iowa's own Tom Harkin won, followed by Clinton, and after a vigorous contest, Gore handily beat the more liberal Bill Bradley in 2000.
Widely portrayed as a liberal, Dean did not win in Iowa in 2004; he crash-landed in third place with 18 percent, far behind John Kerry (38%) and John Edwards (32%) and ahead of Gephardt (11%) and self-proclaimed ultra-liberal Dennis Kucinich (1%).
So where is the liberal bias of Iowa Democrats? Neither George McGovern, nor Fred Harris, nor Mo Udall, nor Ted Kennedy, nor Dukakis, nor Bradley, nor Kucinich ever rode a liberal wave to victory here.

Iowa a Bad Influence?
What about the "special interests," meaning Iowa's labor unions? This is an agricultural state more than a manufacturing state. Iowa leads in the production of corn, soybeans, and hogs, not automobiles.
Except for the firefighters union, which went with Kerry, labor split its endorsements between Gephardt and Dean. Neither candidate survived the Iowa caucuses. We have well-organized unions, but they do not dominate Iowa politics.
As Dean found out, neither is Iowa the state where the candidate with the biggest organization always wins. But Iowans' enthusiasm and organizational experience helps all candidates put their best foot forward.
In 2004 the number one issue guiding Iowa Democratic voters' choice was electability. Not who was the most liberal or who had labor's support or even who had the best field organization.

Ask the Candidates
Perhaps the politicians who campaigned in Iowa know best the value of the Iowa caucuses. Joe Biden spoke in a private residence in Ames in 1988 to 75 or so Democrats. He told them that on the day before he had been in Des Moines talking to a labor group. He was amazed that he got many questions on foreign policy and domestic policy "but not one question about labor!"
When he dropped out of the race later, Biden flew back to Des Moines to thank the many volunteers and staff who had made him an early front runner, extolling the Iowa experience.
On Monday night before Election Day 1988, Dukakis stopped in Des Moines just so he could thank Iowans, some 2000 of whom met him at the airport about 2 a.m. That was the value of the Iowa caucuses to Dukakis even though he had come in third.
Iowa has retail politics. Meeting candidates in their homes and schools and churches, Iowans take their caucus responsibilities seriously. The local news media provide extensive coverage for a year. It's a pretty level playing field.

The Blame Game
Some blame Iowans for having a veto over who will be the nominee, while others blame Iowans for never picking the next Democratic winner. Just as wrong is calling this a state of ultra-liberals and labor union members. Iowa helps to winnow the field, suggesting which aspirants are the most serious contenders.
Instead of blaming Iowa and its caucuses, perhaps we should blame the media, which went bonkers over Al Gore's "stiffness" and then had a feeding frenzy over the "Dean scream." Or blame the Democratic Party for treating the likes of Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton as serious contenders for the nomination, although both made welcome contributions to the 2004 debates.
Or blame the fact that the primary schedule was so bunched up that the race was over by March. Blame proportional representation, with supporters clinging to long-defeated candidates all the way to the national convention rather than building a crescendo of support for the eventual winner. And certainly blame the national conventions for no longer being conventions but just celebrations of who won.
But don't blame Iowa.

The Law of Unintended Consequences Strikes Again!

Just in case you might have missed the article that the Sioux City Journal buried in Section D of Wednesday's paper... Fears of serving (and possible dying) in the Iraq war are now resulting in reduced levels of recruitment for the U.S. Army, according to recent market research-firm studies commissioned by the government. The article disclosed that an August 2004 study by GfK Custom Research Inc., for example, found that "Statistically, the fear factor is about twice as strong among potential recruits as a whole than it was in 2000." Well, thank heavens for common sense among at least one segment of the U.S. population! One wonders how the Bush Administration will spin this uncomfortable fact (knowing them, however, they'll likely just ignore it).
Peace!
Historian

Democrat's Reading List

An old friend suggested that we start a "Democratic Reading List" online that would show some of what we're reading now, and take suggestions from everyone of other great reads. You can find it on "Reading List" page on www.woodburydems.com.

One of the great finds on that list is "Liberal Opinion Week," a weekly digest published in Iowa that has 40 to 50 articles from the major newspapers and magazines in America. Great editorial cartoons, too! You can get a FREE sample issue by calling 1-800-338-9335 or go to their website Liberal Opinion Week

Who is Paul Jackson?

Today's front-page story in the Sioux City Journal about long-time Republican political activist and former Republican Party County Chairman Paul Jackson was a real eye-opener for me! Not having grown up in Sioux City myself, I guess I can count myself fortunate for not having come into contact with the man. Then again, maybe it was just the lousy job the Journal did on the story that got to me. I realize the Journal is a conservative shill for the Republican Party, but didn't somebody over there realize how poorly Jackson was likely to come off in their article?

In the article, entitled "All Politics: the Blunt World of Paul Jackson" (SCJ 3/6/05), Jackson comes off not so much "blunt" as merely obnoxious. Confusing gratuitous insults for reasoned discussion, and gross generalizations for considered assessments, Jackson seems to represent all that's wrong with the sorry state of political discourse in America today. This is all the more ironic because Jackson professes to involve himself in politics because of the perceived "apathy" of the average American voter. But if political discourse of the Paul Jackson variety simply consists of disjointed insults and vague threats, then is it any wonder that the average voter is turned off by politicals? What, one wonders, does Jackson feel is so motivational about his [mis]labelling the political candidates he dislikes as "liars and despots?"

Jackson's wife is quoted as saying he's "doing it for the people." Jackson himself complains that "People just don't understand what I'm about ... I just speak my line." Well, what the people really need is someone who will elevate the quality of political discourse in the country through a careful identification of crucial issues and the proferring of arguments backed up by real evidence. As for Jackson's own petulant-sounding lament, well, it always amazes me how some individuals excuse their own rude behavior with protestations of misunderstood higher motives. Frankly, I think I do understand him: he's a whiny Old Fart who seeks validation through provoking angry reactions from others. In other words, it's all about him!

Could Jackson's mistakenly referring to former Democratic governor Harold Hughes as "Howard Hughes" further testify to a basic disinterest in the facts?

Could blaming his own election defeats on outside meddling and "the race card," and not himself, indicate an immature worldview?

Seriously, what do we call it when someone engages in constant name-calling, blames others for their own failures, and boasts that they (and they alone) have all the right answers? A mature adult, it ain't.

If Paul Jackson represents the best that local Republican politics has to offer, then it's no wonder that Democrats occupy most local political offices!

Peace!
Historian

The Passive-Aggressive Art

It's been four months and haven't we all moved through some of the stages of grief from the election?

Denial: "Oh this sooooo can't be happening. We lost? No way! The machines were rigged. They didn't count all the ballots."

Anger: "I live in a RED STATE? I CAN'T live in a RED STATE!"

Bargaining: "I will give up red meat, smoking, martinis, and carbs if I can just wake up and find out Dubya ain't President anymore."

Depression: "Four more years and we're only six weeks into it? Pass me that steak, my smokes, and my Cosmo. (heavy sigh)."

But the last stage? Acceptance? I refuse! But how to get away with being a Refusenik in a locale where half our neighbors think so differently from us and gloat so much? Isn't there anything we can do to make ourselves feel better? YES!

May I introduce to you Sticker Shock. The main point of Sticker Shock is to find Passive-Aggressive ways to be a pain to Republicans on the micro level. Here are some actual ideas Liberal friends of mine have implemented to deal with the emotional scars we bear from the last election.

1. The Triple D: The Deliberate Door Ding. So you drive a beater vehicle (or not) and you pull up next to the Lexus covered with Bush stickers in the parking lot. Make sure to park close and fling your door open. If anyone sees you, claim "the wind took it." It's Iowa. There's always wind. This tactic brought so much joy at a parking lot in Des Moines, that the Liberal Girl who discovered the Triple D "let the wind take it" on the back door, too, while getting her daughter out of a car seat. Those are MY kind of Family Values!

2. Ergonomic Exercise. Liberal Girl also discovered that a way to enliven an I-80 road trip was to exercise her middle digit everytime she saw a Bush sticker.

3. Deface Something. A friend in DC reports that he draws mustaches, horns, and blacks out teeth on the pictures of Administration leaders during the train ride to work. He also adds derogatory word balloons. He then leaves his "art" on the train for others to enjoy. Sure, we don't have trains, but the waiting room at the dentist's office will work fine!

4. Dawdle. Today an SUV plastered with anti-Democratic bumper stickers was pulling out of a parking spot. I walked very slowly past her as she backed out, reading her stickers, then walked slowly in front of her straight down the middle of the driveway so she couldn't get around me and I sloooooooowwwwllly meandered to deliberately inconvenience her. It felt sooooooooo goood. Better than chocolate!

5. Trash Talk. Coming back from lunch a couple of weeks ago, three Angry Liberal Ladies tossed their empty beverage containers in the bed of a pickup truck covered with Bush stickers. Use your imagination. Be a little naughty. It's OK. They already hate us.

6. Talk Back. Democrats are way too nice and too respectful of other people's opinions. If you feel a good rant brewing up and can't find a like-minded Democrat to spout off to, don't feel like you have to hold it in the next time some dumb guy at a party goes off on gay marriage or Clinton's sex life. Make sure to mention war casualties, the deficit, Social Security roulette, or your favorite issue. Take a tip from our buddy Bill O'Reilly and just don't let them get a word in edgewise. Call them stupid and lazy. They like and respect words like stupid and lazy because they show resolve! Remind them that it doesn't make any difference if they think you are wrong because you are strong and showing resolve! Give yourself bonus points if you can work in that you are a regular church-goer.

7. B.S. Bingo. Make up a bingo card of all the truly nauseating Bush-speak you can think of then turn on Fox-TV and daub away. Good words to include are: Faith-Based, Free Mispronunciation Space (impordant, supposably, misunderestimate), Liberals, WMD, threats, freedom, democracy, self-reliance, accountability, overtaxed.

Does anyone have any other cool passive-aggressive ideas? Share them! Revenge is a dish best served cold, so be coughing up some cold cash to your local Dems, the DNC, a candidate you support, or a cause you believe in. Write your legislators. Call your senators. Stay involved. Anything less would be, well, stupid and lazy!