Pass This Line Around

Via Talking Points Memo, a spokesman for a Democratic congressman.:

Toyota has more credibility on car safety than [congressional Republicans] have on ethics

I want to hear this come out of the mouths of multiple talking heads by the end of the week.

He Makes a Good Point

Ramsin Canon at the Gaper's Block blog Mechanics aruges that we really don't have a good idea of what constitutes a 'good' Democrat, and this lack is a major problem when it comes to defining what the party is for and how we are to judge it.

There is a flaw in the motto "Elect More, and Better, Democrats." This motto of the liberal netroots--as a handy shorthand for the current generation of liberal activists--was laid out originally by Markos Moulitsas and adopted to various degrees by the other major netroots networks and organizations.

The flaw is the word "better". With no real left ideology (and therefore, no attendant analysis of the current political and economic situation) there is no real way to gauge what makes a "better" Democrat. With no definition of "better" in this context, we are left with "Elect more Democrats;" not only this, but without an ideology--an analysis--we can't gauge legislative progress--meaning we will never know when we have "enough" Democrats. Electing more Democrats is not a worthwhile goal until we know what makes a politician a "good" or "better" Democrat.

That is to say, without a party-independent movement capable of providing analysis of current political and social crises, we'll end up with a constant tension between those who think espousal of particular issues, versus partisan loyalty, define "progress", "the left" or "progressivism".

It's worth a full read, which you should go give it.

GOP State Rep Pisses Off Every Single Academic In Illinois

Out of sheer political grandstanding, State Sen. Larry Bomke (R-Springfield) has introduced a bill with the sole purpose of forcing UIC to fire Bill Ayers.

State Sen. Larry Bomke...wants Ayers removed from his university post under a proposal that says anyone who has committed an act of violence against the governments of the United States or Illinois cannot work at a public university.

Here's a hint: professors and other academics are really touchy about politicians saying what can and cannot go on in academic settings. It has to do with the whole free flow of ideas thing and all. Thankfully, the Dems control the state legislature, so this will go nowhere. Considering that this guy represents the Springfield area, itself home to UIS and to SIU's Medical School, I'm amazed that he thinks that the political calculus for this stunt will end up on his side.

The Sad State of Illinois Politics

I've long said that citizens of Illinois are disappointed, but never surprised, when we find out that yet another of our politicians is corrupt. But still...damn, a sitting governor arrested for trying to sell Barack Obama's former senate seat, among a long list of charges.

I'm not surprised at the corruption, just that the man's that stupid.

At least we'll have an open Democratic primary in 2010.

EDIT: Subject-verb agreement is a good thing.

Thank God

Gov. Blagojevich (D-Idiot) is "not interested" in appointing himself to Obama's soon-to-be-vacant senate seat:

What the governor says he's looking for: someone who shares many of the Democratic ideals he and Obama share, including health care expansion, creating jobs, cutting taxes for working class people.

The governor said he hopes to have a decision made by New Year's, but there is no timeline.

Names being bandied about Illinois political circles include Democratic Reps. Jesse Jackson Jr., Luis Gutierrez, Jan Schakowsky and Danny Davis, Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan, Comptroller Dan Hynes and Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, who is close to Obama. Some are promoting themselves while others are mentioned due to the offices they hold and the political landscape in 2010, when Democrats must defend the seat.

Another name mentioned is real estate executive Valerie Jarrett, a close Obama friend and top adviser, who could help Blagojevich with blacks, women and the White House if he seeks re-election. Yet another: Tammy Duckworth, an Iraq war veteran who narrowly lost a congressional bid and now serves as Blagojevich's Department of Veterans' Affairs director.

I've read elsewhere (don't remember where, though, else I'd link it) that Mayor Daley would like nothing more than to kick Rep. Jessie Jackson Jr. into the Senate, since Jackson's been making noises about being Mayor of Chicago himself - the hope being that he'd like his new job too much to come back to Chicago and challenge Daley. If that's true, then I wouldn't be surprised to see it happen. What Daley wants, Daley gets.

Late Election Roundup

Hi there, paltry readership.

I spent my afternoon and evening as a Poll Watcher at Cunningham 5 at PAR, and then watched the returns come in at Matt's place. And, though it's been said many times already - Yay Obama!

So far, it looks like the Constitutional Convention is losing, as is the School Sales Tax - both "yay"s for me. Sadly, the City of Champaign referendum to fund general assistance did not pass.

I'm gonna vegetate for a bit, then head to bed. I may have something more profound to say later. If not, Yay!

Obama Wins Dixville Notch, NH

15 votes to 6.

(No link, I watched it on the teevee.)

About Bloody Time

The Chicago Tribune has endorsed the hometown favorite, Sen. Barack Obama, for President. From the endorsement:

This endorsement makes some history for the Chicago Tribune. This is the first time the newspaper has endorsed the Democratic Party's nominee for president.

The Tribune in its earliest days took up the abolition of slavery and linked itself to a powerful force for that cause--the Republican Party. The Tribune's first great leader, Joseph Medill, was a founder of the GOP. The editorial page has been a proponent of conservative principles. It believes that government has to serve people honestly and efficiently.

With that in mind, in 1872 we endorsed Horace Greeley, who ran as an independent against the corrupt administration of Republican President Ulysses S. Grant. (Greeley was later endorsed by the Democrats.) In 1912 we endorsed Theodore Roosevelt, who ran as the Progressive Party candidate against Republican President William Howard Taft.

The Tribune's decisions then were driven by outrage at inept and corrupt business and political leaders.

We see parallels today.

The Republican Party, the party of limited government, has lost its way. The government ran a $237 billion surplus in 2000, the year before Bush took office -- and recorded a $455 billion deficit in 2008. The Republicans lost control of the U.S. House and Senate in 2006 because, as we said at the time, they gave the nation rampant spending and Capitol Hill corruption. They abandoned their principles. They paid the price.

We might have counted on John McCain to correct his party's course. We like McCain. We endorsed him in the Republican primary in Illinois. In part because of his persuasion and resolve, the U.S. stands to win an unconditional victory in Iraq.

It is, though, hard to figure John McCain these days. He argued that President Bush's tax cuts were fiscally irresponsible, but he now supports them. He promises a balanced budget by the end of his first term, but his tax cut plan would add an estimated $4.2 trillion in debt over 10 years. He has responded to the economic crisis with an angry, populist message and a misguided, $300 billion proposal to buy up bad mortgages.

McCain failed in his most important executive decision. Give him credit for choosing a female running mate--but he passed up any number of supremely qualified Republican women who could have served. Having called Obama not ready to lead, McCain chose Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. His campaign has tried to stage-manage Palin's exposure to the public. But it's clear she is not prepared to step in at a moment's notice and serve as president. McCain put his campaign before his country.

Coming from the Tribune, that's rather damning. Combined with Secretary Colin Powell endorsing Obama this morning, this has to be a bad start to the week's news cycle for McCain.

The Sillier Side of the Election

Weebl, of Weebl and Bob, was initially swayed by Oldy McDodderington's choice of running mate, but Bob, with the help of one of Hopey McChange-Pants's rallies, was able to bring Weebl around. Go watch and be amused.

Using and Abusing Advertising Tropes

Via SusanG at DailyKos comes this video from MoveOn. It's both effective and hilarious.

Keating Economics

Here's the documentary the Obama campaign put out on the web to counter the Bill Ayers BS.



There's sitting on a charity board with a reformed extreme leftist, and then there's this... which do you think the American people will actually care about?

Will the Real Challenger Please Stand Up?

So it's one month and a day before the election, and the Democratic Candidate for the 15th Congressional District in Illinois is still a big question-mark. I have heard precisely nothing out of Steve Cox's campaign, and the campaign "news' page is still blank. He doesn't even have a position statement about the economy, which is the issue of the election. As best I can tell, he intends to ride Obama's coattails into office which, in a gerrymandered GOP-friendly district like the 15th, seems like a daft thing to do.

That said, here's some oppo research I offer up to the Cox campaign (not that either one will see it, as next-to-no-one reads my blog). Rep. Tim Johnson (R-IL15) said of the recent bailout bill:

"I remain highly suspicious of this request and frankly resentful of the presumption that taxpayers should be put on the hook for irresponsible decisions by Wall Street money changers."

Accordingly, he voted against the bill both times. However, this is a reversal of his previous position - remember the Bankruptcy Bill of 2005? The one that was supposed to "prevent bankruptcy abuse" but really was the credit card companies whining that they were getting screwed over for giving every schmo and his dog a credit card but came crying to the government when people who should never have been given more than $50 of credit had their debts forgiven by the bankruptcy courts? The entire point of that bill was to put people - ya know, taxpayers - "on the hook for irresponsible decisions by Wall Street money changers," and guess how Tim Johnson voted on that bill? He voted for it.

Let me type it again slowly, for those who did not read it the first time: Tim Johnson was for putting taxpayers on the hook for the bad decisions of financial executives before he was against it.

And yes, anyone who clicks through and reads the full text of Rep. Johnson's statement knows that I took him about 80% out of context. However, it would make a great political attack ad, and we all know that Cox needs all the help he can get right now.

All's Fair...

Every time the McCain camp tries to smear Obama by association, the Obama camp should drop a Keating Five reference in the course of steering the conversation back to the economy. Not only does it more damning than anything the GOP has on Obama, but it has a bonus of applicable to the state of the nation.

What He Said

The Stranger at Blah3.com is the person I cite as my own personal blogfather. His "question-mark campaign" of simple flash videos set to music introduced me to the nascent blogosphere and got me interested in reading political blogs. More recently, he pointed out how well-managed Obama's PR outfit is:

Obama and his advisors seem to understand that campaigns run on a very tight wire, and campaign operatives are so ready to spring at any perceived slight by the opposition that they'll often react before they weigh the situation. To their credit, Obama's team has made precious few of these impulsive moves - to the contrary, they're more likely to create the illusion of inaction if it means not making a mistake. And as situations develop, Obama's team will let the tension build to the point where McCain's campaign are ready to pounce at anything.

A good comparison point is the way michael Jordan would play basketball in crunch time. When Jordan brought the ball up the floor, he'd often slow down his motion to draw his defender in. The longer he slow-walked, the more the defender would tense up waiting for Jordan to make his move. And the longer Jordan would wait, the chances of the defender making a mistake would increase. Then all it would take was a head-fake, a feint, or a full step, and the defender would get faked out, commit a foul or move the wrong way and give Jordan the room to make his move. Two points, maybe three with a foul. Worked just about every damn time.

That's how Barack Obama is running this race. His campaign will lay back for days at a time, letting McCain and Palin showboat and level outrageous charges. It drives some of his supporters absolutely batshit. You can see it on the blogs. A week does not go by where Obama supporters are not on a comment thread, demanding that he fight back, swearing that McCain is running away with the race due to Obama's inaction or refusal to fight back or not responding quickly or forcefully enough. These people don't realize that Obama is playing a different game on a different level - certainly at a much higher level than McCain's Boys are used to playing.

He's been slow-walking the ball since the convention, and you can bet money that McCain's campaign has been tuned into every speech, reading every interview, looking for a slip-up that they can capitalize on. And they get so focused on trapping Obama that when he shows a head-fake - 'lipstick on a pig' - that they dive in and whack him on the wrist.

Two points. And it's worked just about every time.

As with everyone I link to, you should read their entire posts, not just my excerpts.

Edwards Wimps Out

So sayeth the N-G. See the post below as to why.

Winning, Losing, and the Winds of Change

Sara at Orcinus has a post up on Hillary Clinton's primary loss and what it means from a feminist and progressive standpoint. It's probably not what you think it is, either, so go read it.

Someone Said the "I" Phrase!

Former presidential advisor Karl Rove refused to respond to a subpoena from the House Judiciary Committee and this time they're not pussyfooting around.

"A refusal to appear in violation of the subpoena could subject Mr. Rove to contempt proceedings, including statutory contempt under federal law and proceedings under the inherent contempt authority of the House of Representatives," Conyers and Sanchez wrote.

Normally, contempt proceedings against the executive branch fail, since congress chooses to let the Justice dept handle prosecutions in Federal courts under statutory contempt rules and most administrations will call off their lawyers rather than prosecute themselves. However, statutory contempt is merely congress fobbing its contempt powers off on the other two branches of government. Each house also has inherent contempt powers, which means that the body of congress so defied can try the case themselves and hold that person until the end of the session. This can be repeated at the beginning of each session, and the Supreme Court has upheld this power as valid and integral to the functioning of the Legislative Branch.

Unsurprisingly, his lawyer is playing dumb with the media (who, for the most part, is likely dumb themselves on the issue):

Luskin noted in May that his client had already received a separate subpoena from the Senate Judiciary Committee. "While the [House] committee has the authority to issue a subpoena, it is hard to see what this will accomplish, apart from a 'Groundhog Day' replay of the same issues that are already the subject of litigation," the lawyer wrote, referring to a movie in which a person lives the same day over and over again.

As Mr. Luskin knows full well (or should, if he's taking Rove's money), the reason for the House to issue its own subpoena is that it allows the inherent contempt proceedings to occur in that house. Inherent contempt trials are conducted by the presiding officer of the house so offended. Cases in the senate are presided over by the President of the Senate, a.k.a. VP Dick Cheney, who has political reasons to oppose letting anything Rove's done come to light. Inherent contempt trials in the House of Representatives are presided over by the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, who is much more likely to play ball on the issue. Knowing those to things, which venue would Democrats prefer such a trial to occur in? I'll give you two guesses, but if the first isn't the House of Representatives you have a moral obligation to strike yourself in the head with a brick.

Right now, though, while I listen to the sound of a thousand bricks thumping, all I can hope for is to see this threat of Inherent Contempt be acted upon.

Bush Administration Outrage Number 3.56 Billion

Teresa Nielsen-Hayden at Making Light has a post up on how the Secret Service is systematically underprotecting the Democratic candidates. It's too long and excerpt-heavy already for me to give you a snippet, so go read it yourselves.

My Congressman has Cohones

They may require a micrometer to measure their diameter, but Rep. Tim Johnson (R-IL15) definitely has at least a pee-wee pair, as evinced by his actually staying in the chamber to vote "Nay" on the contempt resolution against Harriet Miers, former White House Counsel, and Joshua Bolten, the White House Chief of Staff. It looks like he managed to overcome his day-job as Bush Administration lapdog and actually stand up for something. Maybe next time he can stand up for what's right, but at least he's taking steps to improve himself.

Too bad that it looks like the House leadership isn't being smart about the contempt citation and exercising the chamber's Inherent Contempt powers. Rather than waiting for the courts to sort things out, Inherent Contempt would toss their asses in jail a lot faster, barring any sudden desire on their parts to cooperate.

Go Vote

Go directly to Vote
Do not pass Go, Do not collect $200 (because that would be illegal)

Today is Super-Duper, Gee-Williker, Ain't-it-swell? Tuesday. One or both parties may, may end up with a candidate. Maybe. I'm merely happy that my primary vote this time around actually means something. However, it's still important to go out and vote, since, even though the state is foregone for Obama, Democratic primaries award delegates proportionately. That means that Clinton can, and probably will, snag a few Illinois delegates, though probably very few of the state's superdelegates.

If you don't know where your polling place is, and you live and are registered to vote in beautiful Champaign County, IL, you can go to the Champaign County Clerk's office website and check your registration status. Polls open bright and early at 6 AM and close 7 PM. As always, the wait is generally shorter the earlier in the day you go. If you are in line when the polls close, you are still entitled to vote, but you must remain in line to do so. (This isn't as big an issue in the primary as it is in the general.) While you're there, pick up your little "I Voted" sticker so you can guilt trip your friends into going into the polls as well. Again, this skill is of increased utility in the general election, though it doesn't hurt to practice now.

Also, while I was looking at my specimen ballot, I noticed that the Democratic party in the 15th District has managed to dig up a new challenger to Rep. Tim Johnson (Bush Lackey-IL15). His name's Steve Cox, and I have no clue who this guy is. He doesn't have a website up yet, which doesn't bode well, but at least it's better than things were a couple months ago when the Dems weren't even fielding a candidate.

UPDATE: I should hone my Google-Fu a bit more, as I turned up a bio of Steve Cox on the Champaign County Democrats website. Would be nice if this could be the first hit on a Steve Cox IL search. Oh well, I guess this link is the start...

UPDATE, Part Deux: If you have moved since you last registered to vote, but are still in the area, you should be able to go to the polls and request a "Federal Ballot," which includes only the races for President, Senator, and Representative. Still, if you didn't update your registration, it's better than not voting at all. I'm not sure quite what the rules are on it - whether you can go to any precinct, or just your old and/or new one. If you have a question, I'd suggest contacting the county clerk's office.