Rahm Emmanuel in a nutshell

Rahm Emmanuel is Barack Obama's Luca Brasi.

Without the mafia ties of course.

Though he does have his own awkward relation ship with fish.

Joe must go

Joe Lieberman must go, you know why. In this helpful video from last June Josh Marshall explains how:



My letter to Senator Boxer:

Dear Senator Boxer,

After his disgraceful behavior during this election cycle Senator Lieberman has no place in the Democratic caucus, and certainly has no place as a committee chair.

As my Senator, and as a member of the Democratic steering and outreach committee I am counting on you to do the right thing.

President-elect Obama has said that we need to reach out and listen to those who disagree with us, and I wholeheartedly agree.

That does not mean, however, that we need to reward them with committee chairmanships.

Sincerely,

Steven Kang
www.stevekangsblog.blogspot.com

If your Senator is on this committee please take a moment to write.

Hillary's Speech: What she needs to say

When Hillary Clinton addresses the Democratic Nation Convention tonight she needs to say the following:

"I, of all people, understand the disappointment, and yes the hurt felt by my supporters. But if you support me, if you support the goals which I've spent my life pursuing, then you must support and vote for Barack Obama."

Anything less is unacceptable if either Clinton seeks to have a political life within the Democratic party.

My bet is that Hillary understands this as well.

[UPDATE: Mission accomplished, great job Hillary!]

Would you torture?

By the way, as a public service to Democratic presidential candidates (and Republicans too, if they would only listen), a good response to the Jack Bauer terrorism question does exist:

1. As president I would use every and all means available to the the most powerful nation on the planet to prevent and respond to any attack on the United States.
2. That being said, I would never seek short-term political benefit from using means that denigrate the memory and sacrifice of all those American patriots who have died in the name of liberty.

Further points can follow about the unlikelihood of the "24" scenario, the ineffectiveness of torture as a means to elicit truthful information, and the corrosive effect torture has not only on its victims, but on those that practice it, both the torturers and the nation they represent.

But the most powerful points must be made first, let me repeat:

1. As president I would use every and all means available to the the most powerful nation on the planet to prevent and respond to any attack on the United States.
2. That being said, I would never seek short-term political benefit from using means that denigrate the memory and sacrifice of all those American patriots who have died in the name of liberty.

Your CaliBlogger will never vote for or support any candidate who would say less.

UPDATE: I posted the above in the comments section over at Kevin Drumm's site in a discussion of the ethics of torture and asked for better suggestions, here's a response I received from lampwick:

What's wrong with your hypothetical response is that it's not emotionally satisfying at all; it's cliched and cerebral, like Dukakis' reaction when asked about how he would respond to news that his wife had been raped.

An emotionally satisfying answer would be 'No one under my command will torture enemy prisoners. Period. End of discussion' or 'Many Americans believe in the existence of the devil. Torture is pure evil, it is the devil's work, and I abhor and reject it.'

Cliched and cerebral? Moi?

But seriously, while I don't believe l's first suggestion to be sufficient for a hypothetical debate setting (as opposed to orders to one's generals, where it would be entirely appropriate) I think the second suggestion has some merit, especially when trying to appeal to that apparently large majority of Americans who believe in Evil with a capital E.

Democratic debate: South Carolina

I've been busy, busy, busy, with the day job, and that's a good thing. However it does mean I tend to watch major events at 11:00 PM on dvr than live. So it was with the first Democratic presidential debate from South Carolina.

(New York Times debate transcript)

I've purposely avoided much commentary on the debate as to leave my first impressions as unspun as possible, and I'll be interested to see how others viewed the affair.

So, off the cuff, and in no discernible order, my thoughts...

First, and foremost, damn these folks are good, and so vastly superior to chimpy that I am tempted to wish for Adam Sandler's fast-forward remote. January 2009 can't come to soon.

Hillary wasn't smarmy. In fact when discussing specific policy issues she came off as nothing less than extremely competent.

Best response: wearing Republican antipathy as a badge of honor. I don't know how that would play with independents, but given the level of contempt with which Democrats view the current corporate-Christianist iteration of the GOP, that thought should play well with the base. It played well with me. She's still not my first choice, but she certainly didn't hurt herself.

Obama struck me as a bit flat, but I have to wonder, given the accounts of his soaring oratory, whether my expectations were a bit high. From reading press accounts one expects to hear Martin Luther King channeling Abraham Lincoln whenever he opens his mouth.

On the other hand he also didn't strike me as light on specifics (his main criticism to date). I wonder if his tendency to re-frame specific issues within their wider context (a good thing to my mind) tends to muddy his reactions among some viewers and the press.

Edwards won points in my book for not taking an obvious cheap swipe at Hillary, though he was mightily tempted by host Brian Williams. One hopes he would would be a little more willing to do so when debating Republicans.

He also has made great use of his time since 2004 to study issues and develop specific ideas on where the US should be going and the steps needed to get us there. He clearly seems the most wholly formed of the candidates.

Richardson also seemed to have some quite specific views on how best to deal with the challenges America faces, and though a little workmanlike, I've always been fond of the step 1, step 2, step 3 format for laying out policy objectives. It's a little dull, but it's also very clear.

Perhaps he was a little limited by the rapid-fire nature of the debate format, but I think Richardson still needs to find a way to use these opportunities to highlight the strongest overall resume among the field. He did manage to refer to his executive experience, but I think he needs to elucidate why that's so important, especially now given all the recent revelations as to how our MBA president is currently mis-managing the government.

Biden clearly gave the best response of the night by responding to Williams' question about his legendary loquacity and penchant for gaffes and whether he could provide sufficient focus for the American people to trust him with the presidency, answered with a simple "yes".

In fact it occurred to me, as it did with Kerry 3 years ago, that Biden would greatly benefit if his staff could arrange for a 30 second clock whenever the senator opens his mouth. Certainly his responses tonight, short and to the point, and clearly demonstrating his years of experience, were all the more impressive for their unaccustomed brevity.

Chris Dodd also was very strong on policy, though I found myself in agreement with most of his policy stances, I have to wonder, to be blunt, whether the country is really interested in electing another old white male as president this time around. I know how superficial that sounds, but there you go.

In times past I might have supported him as an older, mentor-type veep for a younger, more charismatic, though more inexperienced president. I suspect the results of the Bush/Cheney model have, however, poisoned that idea for some time to come.

Mike Gravel seemed to be working on sewing up the crotchety old man vote, which is too bad because I agree with his further left of center stances more than I do the more moderate front-runners.

But this is politics and presentation matters and coming off as the kind of guy who yells a kids riding their bikes on the sidewalk only plays into the "angry left" meme so well developed by the GOPers.

Dennis Kucinich seems to be solidifying his place as the Ralph Nader of the Democratic party: the guy you know is right about the issues, but who you also know will never be elected in this country in a million years.

Not surprisingly, Mrs. CaliBlogger, who is rather further left than yours truly liked him the most from a policy perspective.

My final thought for the moment is that while it was great to get the opportunity to hear from folks I never get to hear from, Dodd, Gravel, and Kucinich, and Biden greatly benefits from that 30 second clock thing, none of them (except maybe Biden) gave me an excuse to support them over the top tier candidates. And while it is early still, I find myself looking forward to smaller forums where the candidates can more fully explore the challenges this country faces after years of Republican corruption.

Bottom line though, I am now more than ever confidant that whoever wins the Democratic nomination will be worthy of my full support.

And that's a good feeling to have.

Patience on Iraq

I seem to be recommending a lot of articles from the Washington Post of late, but I suppose that's because I consider it a must read for those interested in national and international affairs.

Which is not to say that I agree with all their writers, and sometimes REALLY disagree with their editorial stances, but by and large they manage to present a broad range of views from people who, truth be told, have mad DC their home beat.

Today's recommendation is from Harold Meyerson who (along with EJ Dionne) is one of the Post's most reliable reasonable progressives.

No one has ever described David Obey as phlegmatic. The Wisconsin Democrat, who chairs the House Appropriations Committee, combines long-standing liberal passions with a keen sense for the deals that must be cut to turn those passions into law. And on occasion, people who don't share Obey's assessment of where, and whether, the deal should be cut have been subjected to an Obey outburst.

Last week, as he was working to build support for amendments that would impose a 2008 deadline on U.S. combat activities in Iraq, Obey was accosted by Tina Richards, an antiwar activist and mother of a Marine. With YouTube immortalizing the encounter, Richards asked Obey why he was supporting the supplemental war appropriations bill to which the amendments would be attached and why Congress couldn't just defund the war and bring the troops home now.

Obey erupted. "We can't get the votes," he shouted. "Do you see a magic wand in my pocket? We don't have the votes for it."

"We're trying to use the supplemental," he explained, "to end the war." Obey has since apologized for blowing up, but that hasn't deterred some antiwar bloggers from condemning him as some loony warmonger. In a similar vein, other antiwar protesters now ring Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco home, calling on her to bring the troops home now.

In effect, what the protesters are doing is making the unattainable perfect the enemy of the barely-attainable good.

And I have to agree.

To be clear I certainly understand the frustration many feel about a war that should never hae been started in the first place.

But short of staging some kind of coup d'etat I expect progress to be made only incrementally.

And yes, it is criminal that more American soldiers and innocent Iraqis will die while congress' wheels slowly grind, but it is important to remember that the guilt for these deahs lies not at the feet of those who are slowly but surely pushing the wheel, but at those who got us here in the first place.

As Mr. Meyerson points out either more Republicans (and blue-dog Dems) will join the growing consensus against the war, or they will be replaced in 2008.

I know it seems a long time, and for those who die it will be, quite literally an eternity, but it's important to remember that Bush has spent 6 years digging this hole (and continues to dig away). It will take time for Democratic leadership to dig us out.

A Democratic Plan for Iraq

Top house Democrats today revealed their plan today for forcing President Bush's and the Iraqi government's hands towards a resolution of the Iraq occupation.

And though Republicans and Bush himself will no doubt fall back to their talking points about timetables and "letting the commanders on the ground" make the decisions, the plan seems to actually put forth a reasonable path towards excavating ourselves from the hole that BushCorp™ has dug for us.

It remains to be seen whether Bush and the Republicans will have the wisdom to use the opportunity they're being offered.

Here are the key features of the proposed plan and their importance.

Date Certain
Regardless of the any other provisions of the bill (called "U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans Health and Iraq Accountability Act"), troops withdrawals are to begin by March, 2008, ending by August of that year.

Requires adherence to Bush's benchmarks
This requires that Bush certify that the Iraqi government meet the benchmarks that he himself set up when authorizing the current escalation surge. Two deadlines are involved here. By July 1, 2007 Bush must certify that "progress" has been made towards his benchmarks, failure to do so triggers a withdrawal window within 6 months. And by October, 2007 the Iraqis must have acheived Bush's benchmarks else it triggers a 180 day withdrawal window with the last Americans leaving by March 2008.

The key importance of these provisions is that they force the Iraqi government to do something it has been loath to do in the past, its job. It gives the Iraqis a choice and an opportunity: they can continue their internicine squabbling and parochial pursuit of tribal (as oposed to national) interests, or they can put their bickering aside and become the founding fathers of a new Iraq. (For an extended revery on the value of timetables see here).

And the timetables also help Bush force Iraqi co-operation while giving him a chance to save face (I know, he doesn't deserve to, but it may be necessary unless Democrats are somehow able to put together a veto-proof majority). As with Musharraf in Pakistan, the administration can use the Democratic congress as a sword to hold over their heads. "Look Nouri, I'd love to give you all the time in the world, but these Democrats..."

(Really) Supporting the Troops
The bill requires that the Army adhere to its own rest and readiness standards.

In large part Bush has been able to continue fighting this war by extending tours of duty and cutting short training and equipment for an Army now strained to the breaking point. Bush can still over-rule this provision, if he can publicly and specifically justify his actions. In other words, he has to tell the American people why he's short-changing the troops.

Further the bill provides for obviously much needed improvement for funding for military and veteran healthcare. The ongoing Walter Reed scandal alone shows the obvious necessity for this provision.

Fighting the Real War on the 9/11 Terrorists
The proposed Democratic plan provides for increased funding for the war in Afghanistan.

One of the many casualties of Bush's misguided Iraqi adventure was and is the fight against the people who actually attacked us on 9/11 and their Taliban supporters in Afghanistan. With al Qaeda and the Taliban resurgent, and Osama bin Laden (you remember him?) still on the loose Democrats are seeking to address problems that should have been resolved long ago, but were left undone by Bush's rush to war with Iraq.

Final thoughts (for the moment)
As the top US commander in Iraq, general David Petraeus has just pointed out, the problems in Iraq cannot be resolved by the military alone, but require the Iraqi government to do the work required to come together and bring a measure of security to their country.

And though, to our everlasting shame, the US invasion was the catalyst for the civil war now enveloping that country, it's becoming increasingly evident that our military presence there is not ever going to be a solution.

Therefore the only rational course of action is to stop the waste (I'll use the term if no-one else will) of American lives and resources in an unwinnable situation, while at the same time providing the Iraqis with both incentives to come together, as well as the sure knowledge that they MUST do so in order to survive.

Bush has continued to refuse to make this admittedly hard, but necessary decision. By doing so he has ceded the administration's responsibility for setting policy for the men and women fighting in Iraq. It is therefore incumbent on Congress to force his hand.

Let us hope he takes this opportunity.

Hour 1 for Democrats

I remember when Republicans swept into congress halfway through Clinton's first term. I remember the sinking feeling that the promise of Clinton's election was at that point all for naught.

Or at least it would fall short, far short of its potential. With a burgeoning economy and the end of the cold war establishing American pre-eminence Clinton had been given the opportunity to position America as a beacon of hope here at home and a force for good in the world abroad.

Instead we got Kenneth Starr, Whitewater (does ANYBODY know what that was about, even now?) and Monica Lewinsky.

Sigh.

As Democrats take control of congress for the first time since 1994, the challenges facing the US are rather different. Mired in Iraq, impotent in the rest of the world, with an economy that does nothing but widen the divide between haves and have-nots, the Democrats will have to do more than just hound a president they loathe.

Not that they shouldn't do that, they just need to do much more.

And while efforts to provide an actual check on presidential excess, raise the minimum wage, wean the US from its dependence on non-renewable energy sources, reign in pharmaceutical costs, back stemcell research and shore up homeland security are all important tasks, no task is more important, and most importantly no task is more do-able than ethics reform.

Without risk of presidential veto, without needing the assent of obstructionist Republicans (though if they were wise they would help, not hinder), the new Democratic congress can fix much that ails this government, or at least make it easier to do so, if they make real progress against the pay-for-play atmosphere so prevalent in Washington.

And while the effort to reign in lobbyists is all well and good, the best thing congress can do for itself is to severely curtail the use of earmarks.

And while an outright ban would be preferable, an easier and more politically acceptable soultion to this problem exists: disclosure.

Publish (preferably on the internet)

• *The name of the sponsoring congressman
• *The names and memberships of those special interest groups supporting the earmark
• *Analysis of what those special interest groups and their members stand to gain from the earmark
• *List all perks and donations to the sponsoring congressman and any of his favored PACs, charities and relatives by said special interest groups and their members.

Shine the light of day on slimeball behavior and the behavior will either stop, or those who insist on continuing their corrupt ways will be rooted out and then booted out.

So instead of government for special interests, the final result will be a government of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE, and FOR the PEOPLE.

And that has a nice ring to it.

Grown-ups back in charge in congress?

Once upon a time Republicans liked to characterize themselves as the daddy party, the stern, clear-sighted paterfamilias who could defend our borders and balance our budgets and keep the nasty little kid nations in line.

Democrats where, of course, as belonging to the mommy party, sympathetic and well intentioned, but not hard-nosed enought to DO WHAT MUST BE DONE in this cold, cruel world.

Now I'm not EVEN going to get into a discussion of the sexism underlying those perceptions, except to point out, that like all such dunderheaded mis-characterizations, they are simply not true.

Regardless, the Republicans have clearly abandoned any claim to fiscal responsibility, and so I was very happy to read that Democrats are taking up the slack.

From the Washington Post:

Democratic leaders declared a temporary moratorium on special-interest provisions known as earmarks as they attempt to cope with a budget crisis left by the outgoing Republican-led 109th Congress.

What an incredible move. Seriously.

Not only are the Dems showing that they're serious about addressing the GOP-created budget crisis, they are also curtailing one of the most corruption-prone practices in government.

And, as Kevin Drum points out:

Since most of the earmarks are probably slated for Republican districts, this is both good policy and good politics.

Nice.

And since the budget crisis was caused by GOPers in a snit about losing the last election, I find it quite appropriate that their pork projects are now off the table.

Ah schadenfreude, sweet, sweet schadenfreude.

On Brand Recognition

Your CaliBlogger has been in sales and marketing for far longer than he'd care to admit. But one thing I've (sorry about the third person intro, I must've been channeling the Bull Moose there for a sec') learned is the importance of branding.

Brand recognition can be a critical asset in making a sale if the organization's reputation is a good one, and a deal breaker if it's bad.

What brought this to mind was a headline from Raw Story: We have to destroy their brand which quote is from their interview with House minority leader Nancy Pelosi.

The full quote:

“So we’re going after them, we have to destroy their brand,” she added. “And I think when it comes to Social Security, their brand is tainted. And now we can move in with a positive way with our brand.”

Ms. Pelosi's comment is interesting in that it points out a major problem Democrats face when challenging Republicans: While the Republican message can be expressed in three short phrases: cutting taxes, free markets, pro-military, Democrats have no analagous rallying points. When Democrats discuss what they believe in, what develops is a litany (a word Ms. Pelosi herself uses) of issues covering the economy, education, healthcare, environment, civil liberties, immigration, abortion, unionization, war et cetera, et cetera.

This puts Democrats at a distinct disadvantage. Without any unifying principals Democrats are forced to rely on either pandering to each individual subgroup, or rely solely on the personal popularity of a candidate in order to win elections.

Without any unifying principals Democrats are condemned to seeming merely opportunisitic or demagogic in our stances on any given subject.

So, as far as branding goes, as Ms. Pelosi points out, Democrats face two challenges: "destroying" the Republican brand, and establishing a Democratic one.

Both are doable, though the second is easily the most important.

Destroying the Republican brand can be accomplished in two ways. First is by re-branding Republicans for what they truly are, a party slavishly dedicated to the interest of corporate business interests and all those whose money comes from investments rather than work. Secondly, and the current leadership seems intent on helping us with this, we must continue to point out the degree to which Republicans are catering to their most extreme elements, something they're forced to do to provide a smokescreen for their corporate pandering.

The scond task, establishing the Democratic brand, is simple to articulate, yet difficult to achieve. Given the Republicans' servitude to corporate power, the obvious Democratic stance should be to position ourselves as the representatives of those who actually work for a living.

The elements and inferences of this stance are already part and parcel of most Democratic positions, or else they should and can be. Some are obvious: support for unionization and worker rights, stewardship of the environment which we all must share, protection of the rights of individuals in their homes, their businesses, their bodies, their beliefs. Some are less so: support and respect for the men and women who make up our military (like, for instance, not sending them off to die in unneccesary wars), support for the small and medium sized business owners who are the backbone of our communities, and daily face the perils of corporate competition.

The problem with making such a stance more than a platitude is of course (drumroll please)

money.

So long as Democrats are forced to suckle at the corporate tit in order to raise the campaign contributions vital to getting elected, Democrats, and especially those running for state-wide or national office, will continue to be beholden to corporate interests. And to be clear, I'm not talking about the quid pro quo, pay to play sort of corruption (though I suspect that to be a greater problem than we allow ourselves to admit), I'm talking about the simple fact that, if the Democratic party allows corporate contributions, then that money will go to those registered Democrats who harbor pro-corporate tendencies.

True campaign reform is, then, a key.

On the positive side are moves, like that seen in Arizona, for public financing of elections. Another plus is the continuing development of net-roots/grass-roots organizations, which had such an enormous, if not completely successful, impact on the last election cycle.

But campaign reform is not enough. So long as politicians can except ANY form of corporate inducement, corporations will seek to provide the same.

Politicians must be prohibited from accepting anything provided of financed by corporate interests, including "fact-finding" tours to golf destinations.

Most critically, and most controversially I suspect, politicians must be prohibited from accepting any remuneration, gifts, or EMPLOYMENT, from any corporate interest AFTER they've left office.

Now I realize that some fairly tricky personal freedom issues arise from this last proposal especially, but remember this, running for office is a choice. And every choice neccessitates the rejection of some alternatives. If someone wishes for a spot on the corporate ladder, then by all means go apply at GE. But if someone wishes to serve the public in a leadership position, then that position must be as unsullied as possible by the taint of non-public interests.

And, if Democrats are going to successfully brand themselves as the party of/for those who work, this must be especially true.

[x-posted at Daily Kos]