May 27-28, 2008
May 27 00:51 Ellison Endorsed for VP May 27 11:27 Educating Obama May 27 12:18 Following In a Long Liberal Tradition May 27 15:52 The Path To The Majority May 28 03:29 Obama Says No to Joint Iraq Trip May 28 16:28 McLellan Tell-All: Fiction Or Fact?
Ellison Endorsed for VP
I was stunned when I read that a website has endorsed Keith Ellison to be Barack Obama's running mate. Here's BTC News's explanation on why they're endorsing Rep. Ellison:
Lots of names are getting dropped as potential running mates for the by no means coronated Barack Obama. Governors Janet Napolitano, Bill Richardson, Kathleen Sebelius and Ed Rendell of Arizona, New Mexico, Kansas and Pennsylvania, respectively, are oft mentioned; so are Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, retired general Wes Clark, and, lord help us, diplomatically semi-sane but domestically reactionary retiring GOP senator Chuck Hagel. The conventional wisdom seems to be that Obama needs to tack (further) to the right with his VP choice.Obama is timid on "progressive issues"? That's news to me. The funniest line thus far is saying that "conventional wisdom seems to be that Obama needs to tack ( further ) to the right." You know these boys are lefties when they think that the most liberal Senator has too many conservative tendencies for their liking. That's who's endorsing Keith Ellison.
Screw that. If we can't have Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, the lone socialist in Congress, or Dennis Kucinich, the BTC News editorial board wants our only Muslim Congressman, Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison.
Ellison is an outspoken advocate of progressive causes; just the thing to balance Obama's timidity on many of those issues. He closes his email updates with a quote from Martin Luther King: "Not only will we have to repent for the sins of bad people; but we also will have to repent for the appalling silence of good people."
Bit by bit, Keith Ellison is becoming known as an lefty extremist. It isn't that he's just a little left of center. John Conyers is his mentor. Yes, the John Conyers who's promised to impeach President Bush after this November's election, something that Rep. Ellison wholeheartedly supports.
The editorial does make one point that I can't argue with:
Perhaps best of all, Ellison would provide a guarantee of President Obama's physical security; anyone likely to wish Obama harm would be absolutely traumatized by the prospect of President Ellison .The thought of a President Obama is scary enough. The thought of a President Ellison is downright scary. Thank God nobody will take these people seriously.
Posted Tuesday, May 27, 2008 12:51 AM
Comment 1 by Walter hanson at 27-May-08 11:53 AM
Silly question since I come from his fifth congressional district. If he is named the VP candidate can he run for a second term?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 27-May-08 12:21 PM
Nope.
Comment 3 by weldon berger at 27-May-08 02:20 PM
The notion that Obama is the most liberal senator is absurd. Your quotation of my piece includes my mention of Bernie Sanders, who is both a senator and far to the left of Obama. By any measure other than that bogus National Journal ranking which no doubt informs your sentiment, Obama is a deidcated centrist who fits into maybe the top third of Democrats on the liberality scale. In absolute terms, he's about on a par with moderate Republicans from the 1960s and 1970s such as Jacob Javitts, John Chaffee, George Romney, Lowell Weicker and others. He's not all that much to the left of Nixon on a number of issues, including health care, and he's to the right of Nixon on some entitlement issues. So unless your contention is that Dick Nixon was a liberal Democrat, you're sadly off the mark.
Relative to most surviving Republicans these days, he will of course seem liberal. So does Genghis Khan. It's not a good parallel, especially as theparty is about to be reduced once again to the role of vicious, ankle-biting Congressional minority which remains their sole sphere of competence.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 28-May-08 09:39 AM
Obama is a dedicated centrist who fits into maybe the top third of Democrats on the liberality scale.You're so full of shit, it stinks. Moderates like Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson voted to confirm John Roberts. Moderates like DiFi voted repeatedly to keep funding the war.
Comment 5 by weldon berger at 29-May-08 12:30 AM
Nice rebuttal, Gary. Citing Joe Lieberman, who is campaigning for the GOP nominee, as a moderate Democrat requires an astonishing degree of boneheadedness. Ben Nelson is, of course, a conservative Democrat, while Feinstein is another of those who, thirty or forty years ago, would have been a moderate Republican: socially liberal but conservative on national security and, to some extent, fiscal issues.
Actual liberal Democrats have been largely purged from the party during the salad years of the Democratic Leadership Council. By and large, Dems these days are corporate-friendly, center-right drones. Again, the fact that your party has marched determinedly to the right during the past three decades has you, and up until very recently your party's leadership, completely blinkered. Now they're preparing for Armageddon in Congress, while you're sticking to the same old line. More power to you.
Comment 6 by Gary Gross at 29-May-08 02:03 AM
Citing Joe Lieberman, who is campaigning for the GOP nominee, as a moderate Democrat requires an astonishing degree of boneheadedness.Silly me. Why on earth would I think that Al Gore's running mate would be a liberal. You got me there, Weldon. What was I thinking?
BTW, other than the war, what other things has Sen. Lieberman done to not rate as a liberal? Is he too far right on abortion rights? Is he too far right on global warming? Is he too far right on free trade? Is he too far right on taxing the rich?
Educating Obama
John McCain took a dig at Sen. Obama, inviting him on a trip to see "the real Iraq ." This is sure to draw reaction from the Obama campaign since Sen. McCain essentially said that Sen. Obama didn't know anything about today's Iraq. Here's what Sen. McCain said that'll get people's attention:
"Look at what happened in the last two years since Senator Obama visited and declared the war lost," Senator McCain has told the Associated Press. "He really has no experience or knowledge or judgment about the issue of Iraq and he has wanted to surrender for a long time."That's gotta sting Sen. Obama. the American people are going to wonder how he can put together a policy without having seen things firsthand. President Bush has visited Iraq several times and has met with the Iraqi government outside the country. Yet here's Sen. Obama trying to sound authoritative without firsthand information? How can Sen. Obama have any credibility without visiting Iraq?
"If there was any other issue before the American people, and you hadn't had anything to do with it in a couple of years, I think the American people would judge that very harshly."
Sen. Obama trying to set Iraq policy isn't that dissimilar to Sen. Amy Klobuchar voting against funding Iraq and Afghanistan, then issuing this statement :
"America needs a change of course in Iraq," Klobuchar said. The measure "continued an open-ended commitment with no clear transition to Iraqi authority," she said. "My priority is to transition to Iraq authority by beginning to bring our troops home in a responsible way."As I noted in that post, Sen. Klobuchar's statement was almost identical to what she said during her campaign.
It's like time stood still for Democrats as far as Iraq is concerned.
This comment is sure to draw a sharp rebuttal:
"I would also seize that opportunity to educate Senator Obama along the way," he said.You can't be more plain than that. Sen. McCain's essentially said that Sen. Obama doesn't know anything about conditions in Iraq. I don't disagree that Sen. Obama needs to be educated on Iraq.
Posted Tuesday, May 27, 2008 11:28 AM
No comments.
Following In a Long Liberal Tradition
Barack Obama has proven to be very prone to misstatements. You wouldn't know that reading the Agenda Media's articles. This time, he won't be so fortunate. This time refers to Obama's stating that his uncle helped liberate Auschwitz :
Obama also spoke about his uncle, who was part of the American brigade that helped to liberate Auschwitz. He said the family legend is that, upon returning from war, his uncle spent six months in an attic. "Now obviously, something had really affected him deeply, but at that time there just weren't the kinds of facilities to help somebody work through that kind of pain," Obama said. "That's why this idea of making sure that every single veteran, when they are discharged, are screened for post-traumatic stress disorder and given the mental health services that they need ; that's why it's so important."This is utterly laughable. Ace of Spades explains:
Auschwitz of course is in Poland. It was liberated by the Red Army on Jan 27 1945. Poland, on most maps is usually placed to the east of Germany, although we may need to investigate the geography textbooks the Messiah used as a child...By saying this, Sen. Obama is following in a time-tested tradition within the Democratic Party's upper crust. Obama's story that his uncle liberated Auschwitz isn't dramatically different than Bill Clinton recoiling when he heard of black churches burning, Hillary's being named after Sir Edmund Hillary or the memories "seared...seared" in John Kerry's memory that he was in Cambodia on orders from President Nixon on Christmas, 1968.
The Allies were wrapping up the battle of the bulge in late January of 1945 ; the Rhine crossings were still well into the future when Auschwitz was liberated. The first, the Remagen railway bridge which was discovered intact, was crossed on March 7 1945 .
Of course it goes without saying that the media has thus far failed to call the Messiah on this apparently obviously outrageous lie. Unless Obama's "uncle" was serving in the Red Army, its a pretty safe bet he was many hundreds of miles from Auschwitz on its day of liberation.
Sen. Obama's uncle didn't help liberate Auschwitz. Bill Clinton didn't remember black churches burning. Hillary was born years before Sir Edmund Hillary scaled Everest. Kerry wasn't illegally in Cambodia at the orders of "President Nixon" on Christmas, 1968 because Nixon wasn't inaugurated as president until January, 1969.
Sen. Obama is the ultimate empty suit. In addition to claiming that his uncle helped liberate Auschwitz, he also made a major gaffe during his Memorial Day speech:
On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes, and I see many of them in the audience here today, our sense of patriotism is particularly strong.Memorial Day is when we memorialize soldiers who paid the ultimate sacrifice. Hopefully, someone can explain the difference between Memorial Day and Veterans Day before that holiday rolls around. Here's what Wiki says about Memorial Day:
Formerly known as Decoration Day, it commemorates U.S. men and women who perished while in military service to their country.Compare that with what Wiki says about Veterans Day:
Veterans Day is an American holiday honoring military veterans.Sen. Obama is proving on a nearly daily basis that he knows next to nothing about America, whether we're talking about American history or American foreign policy. I've seen liberal presidential candidates before. I'm used to the things they've said. Sen. Obama goes well beyond the usual vapidity, though. As the Lady Logician says, "I think he's just out-Tuzla'd Hillary." I couldn't agree more.
Posted Tuesday, May 27, 2008 12:20 PM
No comments.
The Path To The Majority
The Republican Party isn't the majority party here in Minnesota nor in our nation's capital for a variety of reasons. I'd submit that the biggest reason why we aren't the majority party is because we stopped being the party of ideas. Here in Minnesota, though, we're taking corrective action, action that doesn't rely on the state party.
Instead, what a group of activists have done is turned the MOB (Minnesota Organization of Bloggers) into the Activists' News Network. Many of our state legislators stay in touch with what's important to working class people by reading blogs like True North , Powerline , MDE , SCSUScholars , Let Freedom Ring , Ladies Logic and Shot In The Dark . Our House GOP leadership reads the blogs on a daily basis, as do their staff.
The House GOP Caucus has used this to stay in touch with what's important with activists. That's important because the activists/citizen journalists stay in touch with their neighbors, co-workers and friends. I can't emphasize this point enough. If the GOP wants to return to majority status anytime soon, it has to start with listening to what the people are saying.
It's my contention that the reason why earmarks have proliferated at the rate they have is in direct proportion to the RNC and other Beltway 'alphabets' not having a coherent or appealing agenda. To get an appealing agenda, the RNC must listen to the people living in the Heartland because what's importatnt in the Heartland is dramatically different than what's important to the Beltway's opinion shapers.
The reality is that the RNC, much like the Minnesota GOP, has become a strategist-driven, top-down organization. Grass roots activism is frowned on. We're told that only moderates can win in certain districts. That's insulting. Conservatism at its finest is about common sense. I refuse to believe that common sense isn't appealing, especially when common sense is combined with verifiable facts.
After the 2006 midterm elections, I wrote two posts about how to rebuild the GOP. One of the things I said was a must was for the GOP to start picking principled fights. At the time, I was thinking in terms of national politics. What surprise me was that the Minnesota House GOP Caucus started the 2007 session fighting for time-tested conservative principles.
The first example of the House GOP Caucus's feistiness was supplied by Rep. Laura Brod, who had the audacity of offering tax cut legislation as amendments to a tax conformity bill. The DFL didn't want to vote against tax cuts in the first week so Speaker Margaret Kelliher ruled Rep. Brod's proposed tax cuts not germane to the tax leegislation.
That afternoon, I sent an email to Rep. Brod, thanking her for pushing a pro-growth conservative agenda. A month later, Reps. Brod, Dean and McNamara met with members of our local GOP. What we told these legislators was that we wanted them to keep pushing the legislation and to let us know what they were proposing. King Banaian, Leo Pusateri and I made sure that people heard about that agenda. We also started covering the town hall meetings.
That's how we turned the MOB into the Activists' News Network. Our local BPOU (Basic Party Organizing Unit) chapter regularly links to our posts to keep the activists informed. Other BPOUs across the state are doing the same with their bloggers.
This has served two important purposes, the most important being that people can't credibly argue that "there isn't a dime's worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats." Each day, we prove that there are billions of dollars worth of difference. the other important benefit from this is that we're daily emphasizing the fact that we have a positive agenda. We're arguing that the House GOP shouldn't be returned to majority status because we stink less than the DFL. We're arguing that we should be returned majority status because we have an appealing, pro-growth agenda.
Frankly, if I were elected to be the next chairman of the RNC, the first thing I'd do is call for a nationwide listening tour. We can't rebuild the GOP if we don't listen to what's important to the average Joe. Listening would then informs their opinions. Equally important is that it tells the people who showed up that their opinions matter. Nothing is as energizing to a person as knowing that they're important.
The minute we start inspiring people around a coherent, appealing agenda is the day that everything will come back together. GOTV operations get more robust, campaign coffers will fill to overflowing, candidate recruitment will pick up, elections will be won.
Most importantly, it will have been accomplished by doing the right things for the right reasons. Once that day arrives, and I'm bullish that it will happen sooner rather than later, great things will start happening again. I'm bullish about that because Americans are a nation of achievers.
Finally, let's keep in mind this Ronald Reagan piece of wisdom: It's "amazing what we can accomplish when we don't care who gets credit" for the long list of accomplishments.
If the thought of a reformed Republican Party appeals to you, then it's time to help make it happen. There's no usefulness to be a passive activist.
Posted Tuesday, May 27, 2008 3:55 PM
Comment 1 by TwoPuttTommy at 28-May-08 10:09 AM
Well, it's about time you stopped listening to republiCon Ron, who has been coverin' up GOP State Finances by filing amended reports to previously amended reports at an unprecedented rate.
Is Ron Carey the most inept Republican State Chair, or is he ciminally culpable?
The truth will come out.
Unless, of course, Average Joe's in the party continue to act as enablers.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 28-May-08 04:03 PM
TPT, What made you think that I ever listened to Carey?
Comment 3 by Lady Logician at 28-May-08 06:38 PM
"Well, it's about time you stopped listening to republiCon Ron..."
Honestly TwoPutt - if you would get out of MDE's lair for two seconds, you would know that there are more than a few "average Joe's" out here who don't think that Ron Carey is the greatest thing since sliced bread...
LL
Comment 4 by Walter Hanson at 28-May-08 06:56 PM
Amen Gary! Imagine if we can go to the polling place and know that our candidates when they say they will defend our borders and not give amnesty does it!
Imagine if we had Republicans who will attack global warming as a joke just like Democrats who attack the war.
Those candidates will win in a landslide. Instead we're in trouble because on key issues they want to behave like Democrats instead of listening to the Republicans. Especially the conservative Republicans.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Obama Says No to Joint Iraq Trip
According to this post at TPM , Barack Obama has turned down John McCain's offer of going on a joint trip to Iraq. Here's the Obama campaign's official explanation:
"John McCain's proposal is nothing more than a political stunt, and we don't need any more 'Mission Accomplished' banners or walks through Baghdad markets to know that Iraq's leaders have not made the political progress that was the stated purpose of the surge. The American people don't want any more false promises of progress, they deserve a real debate about a war that has overstretched our military, and cost us thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars without making us safer."Sen. Obama has essentially accused Sen. McCain of grandstanding on this life and death issue. I'd doubt that anyone would believe that Sen. McCain is capable of grandstanding on this important of an issue. The biggest thing that Sen. McCain has going for him is his reputation of being an honorable man, especially when it comes to military matters.
I'd further suggest that Sen. Obama's statement smacks of extreme arrogance. Notice the certitude with which Sen. Obama says that we aren't safer as a result of the war. That's pretty extraordinary considering the fact that he hasn't visited Iraq since he started preparing for his run at the presidency. How does he know that Iraq isn't better off now that the surge has changed the landscape? Does SEn. Obama think that the Anbar Awakening is a figment of Sen. McCain's imagination? Does Sen. Obama think that the Maliki government meeting 12 of the 18 benchmarks isn't significant?
Sen. Obama's credibility will take a beating because he speaks with such certitude. People might've given him the benefit of the doubt if he'd recently visited Iraq. If there's anything that the American people don't like, it's a know-it-all who hasn't done his homework. If Sen. Obama wants to speak with such certitude, he'd better know everything there is to know about the subject.
Voters will be merciless if they think that Sen. Obama speaks with certainty without doing his homework. There's an adjective for people like that. That adjective is haughty, which, not so coincidentally, is the word people used to describe John Kerry.
Posted Wednesday, May 28, 2008 3:30 AM
Comment 1 by Ratgurl at 28-May-08 03:20 PM
Seriously? Obama actually has to GO TO IRAQ t know how well the military is doing? Who's the brainiac that wrote this article? Don't you know there are a multitude of military generals CONSTANTLY keeping tabs on the Iraq situation? Wow! If you can't see what posturing McCain is doing by flying over to Iraq on the taxpayers dime & posing for pictures, you are a complete & utter idiot. Obama sees what a waste of money such an opportunistic event would be & so he chooses to do his job HERE and focus on the election, instead of being a total poser!
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 28-May-08 04:09 PM
Don't you know there are a multitude of military generals CONSTANTLY keeping tabs on the Iraq situation?
How do these generals know without firsthand knowledge? It's worth remembering that Sen. Obama doubted the veracity of Gen. Petraeus' reports, who's since been vindicated.
Isn't it a bit ironic to doubt Gen. Petraeus's accurate report but then trust generals stuck in Washington who don't have firsthand knowledge?
Finally, I'd say that your posturing statement is foolish considering the fact that Sen. McCain's plan is the one that's working.
Comment 3 by Lady Logician at 28-May-08 06:36 PM
I love how the left only listens to the generals who are stuck in DC (and have no clue as to what is going on in theater) as opposed to listening to the generals who are dealing with the DAY TO DAY ACTIVITIES in Iraq!
LL
McLellan Tell-All: Fiction Or Fact?
Scott McLellan's book is getting alot of buzz this morning, mostly on the basis that it sounds like it's written by the Daily Kos. I'll reserve judgment on whether the snippets now being discussed are reflective of the book until I read the book but I don't need to wait to pass judgment on this quote in the AJC's article :
"President Bush has always been an instinctive leader more than an intellectual leader. He is not one to delve into all the possible policy options, including sitting around engaging in extended debate about them, before making a choice," McClellan wrote. "Rather, he chooses based on his gut and his most deeply held convictions. Such was the case with Iraq."Based on what Bob Woodward wrote in "Bush at War", McLellan's take simply doesn't hold water. Woodward wrote about how President Bush would toss out a subject with his national security team and let them argue about their positions to get the benefit of multiple perspectives.
It's also worth noting that Dr. Rice said that she appreciated President Bush's ability to "ask the third, fourth and fifth questions" on foreign policy subjects.
At this point, I don't find that portion of McLellan's book credible but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on the book until I've read the entire book. One thing that I won't give him the benefit of the doubt on, though, is his capabilities as a press secretary. Frankly, he was brutal, possibly the worst press secretary in White House history. Many was the time that conservatives complained about his press briefings, which I later nicknamed as the "fetal position briefings."
There was a night and day difference between his briefings and Tony Snow's briefings. McLellan would accept the premise of the reporters' questions; Tony wouldn't. McLellan just kept repeating the same answer; Tony would first challenge the premise, then recite statistics to refute the premise.
Don't think that Mr. McLellan didn't notice that Tony Snow was a media star for the White House. Compared with McLellan being kept out of sight as often as possible, that had to hurt his ego pretty good.
In an interview Tuesday, McClellan said he retains great admiration and respect for Bush. "My job was to advocate and defend his policies and speak on his behalf," he said. "This is an opportunity for me now to share my own views and perspective on things. There were things we did right and things we did wrong. Unfortunately, much of what went wrong overshadowed the good things we did."That's quite the telling quote. Why didn't Mr. McLellan think that it was his job to challenge the premise of the reporters' questions? His job wasn't to be the Washington press corps' punching bag. It was to get accurate information out to the American people. He failed miserably in that capacity.
Posted Wednesday, May 28, 2008 4:29 PM
No comments.
