*Please... Cut the Crap

Why Progressives Lose - The Professional Left

I know it may seem to people that I have a personal problem with many on the professional left, but I assure you that is not the case. I know many of them, and actually count a number of them among my friends. Most are generally decent people, who just don't seem to understand how politics works. You can have all the highest ideals in the world, but if your actions don't help implement them, what you're doing is actually somewhat worthless. Worse, depending on how you frame an ideal, you could end up doing more harm than good. 

There are only two keys to progressive success. 

• Tell the truth. 
• Get the best possible candidates into office. 

That's it. That's all we have to do. Of course, these two keys are a bit more complicated than they sound. Always telling the truth means always sticking to proven facts and context, and not simply stating what you believe to be true. That should be easy, because facts tend to have a liberal bias. 

And getting the best possible candidates into office is also more than voting for progressives. There are simply some states and districts that can't elect a progressive candidate right now. That doesn't mean they never can, but after 32 years of neocon influence, it'll take a lot of work. In the meantime, we have to deal with what is, and there are simply not 218 progressive districts in this country. 

Like I said, you can have all the high ideals you want, but you have to deal with reality. 

For about 40 years, the progressive side of the debate has  largely been dormant. We've been extremely ineffective, politically, and that has allowed a small minority of right wing idiots dominate electoral politics for the last 32 years.

And the main reason for this dormancy is because too many of the progressive movement's most vocal “advocates” apparently believe that what Limbaugh, Hannity and Fox News do actually works to make the right more popular, so they try to mimic that, to make the left more popular. They're not entirely wrong. The right's negativity does work, but only with the right. What the right wing echo chamber does makes right wingers love them, but it turns off everyone else.  Given that this is a democracy, certainly you can see the problem, right? If 20% of the population likes you, but everyone else hates you, you're not winning anything.  

Well... that's only true if they vote for someone else. If they stay home, it actually plays to the Republican strategy. 

Progressives must always keep in mind that the number one Republican strategy in every election is to depress turnout at the polls. Because they’re a small minority of the population, making people want to stay home is the only way they can win. There are actually TWO purposes for their disgusting rhetoric; the obvious one is to excite their extremist base with red meat. But the other is just as important; they want to make the people in the political middle, including swing voters who actually decide elections, not want to vote. 

It shouldn't be surprising that, when the professional left tries to mimic the Fox News crowd, the rhetoric, it has the same effect. Right wingers like nothing more than making liberals mad, so they're fired up when we spit venom. Plus, when we're just as negative as the right, it turns off the same people. And when the professional left smashes Democrats in the face, and gives voters the impression that both parties suck, that really gives most voters no reason to come out. 

This is why we lose. The GOP can't win when turnout is low, and when we help them reduce turnout, we are actually undermining our own cause. 

This isn’t just conjecture; the numbers bear this out. When you look at voter turnout figures (Go here, here and here), you can see, clear as a bell, when progressives were effective politically, and when we started losing, and it's tied to turnout. Look at the presidential election years; when turnout was around 60%+ every election, we got people like FDR, Truman, Ike and Kennedy. Since 1980, the ONLY two times we even came close to 60%, in 2008 and 2012, we got the first Democrat to win a clear majority for president since LBJ in 1964, and he did so twice. (Clinton never got more than 50% of the vote.) In the 1950s and 1960s, the off-year elections featured 45-50% turnout, and we had a moderate/progressive majority. In fact, during the 1960s, when we got civil rights and Medicare, Democrats had a supermajority.  And the right wingers who occupied the Dixiecrat and Taft wings of the two major parties had minimal influence in Congress.

That’s not coincidence.

When we’re positive and truthful, we win. When we’re negative and less than truthful, we lose. It’s really that simple. In 2008, we rallied the troops behind Barack Obama, and he won in a walk. Immediately after his election, the professional left retreated into lies and distortions, and we lost in historical fashion in 2010. Again, NOT coincidence.

If we truly want a progressive country, we have to convince a majority of voters that progressive values are a winner. We can’t do that through negativity and falsehood. You have to understand that a large portion of the voting populace doesn't make a decision regarding who to vote for, but rather, whether or not to vote.  If you're an average voter and you're trying to decide whether or not to show up on a cold November day and cast a ballot, and both sides are telling you Democrats suck, even if you already know Republicans suck, why would you show up and vote? 

Yet, that's what happened in 2010, and there are signs of it happening again in 2014. And a lot of the problem is the garbage coming out of liberal blogs and websites that is either untrue or seriously exaggerated, as they do with so many stories, like the NDAA, drones or Obamacare.

Republicans and right wingers lie because they have to. We don't have to. So it's unacceptable when our side does it. 

Good Law Isn't Based on Emotion

If a society is going to solve a problem, it has to set priorities, and it has to at least be able to put emotion aside and tackle the problem logically. The problem with attempting to attack political problems with emotion is that almost everything you do, politically, has to be adjusted, and emotions make it difficult to make the adjustments you need. Issues are emotional. Political solutions simply can't be. 

You can see this when you look at the silliness of the "Drug War." With most drugs, we lost that war a long time ago, because we approached it from an emotional angle. Like Prohibition before it, we went after the problem using emotion, and absolutely no logic.  There is little difference, really, between "Drugs are killing people, so they should be illegal" and "Abortion is murder, so it should be illegal." Neither is a rational basis for creating a law or a legal construct. As was the case with Prohibition, such laws are destined for failure. 

The solution to the drug problem, from a legal and legislative standpoint, is actually quite basic, although not simple. Legalize, regulate and tax, just as we do with alcohol. The amount of regulation will vary, of  course, depending on the drug.

Before Running at the Mouth, Try to Know What You're Talking About

"It is better that ten guilty men go free than that one innocent man be convicted." - William Blackstone

--------------------

You know, I screwed up on April 15. I broke one of my own important rules, and I speculated about something important.

Speculation isn't bad when it's between good friends at a party. But I Tweet publicly, and what I say seems to create a reaction from people. Basically, what I said was that I thought the Boston Marathon bomber was probably an extreme right winger. I immediately walked it back, saying that it was just my first impression, and first impressions are usually wrong, but there it was. It was out there. I considered deleting the Tweet, but I generally only do that when I misspell something, and I follow it up with a corrected Tweet. 

I usually have no use for things like that, and I chided myself for it. But I realized my mistake almost immediately, became defensive about it, and when the perpetrators were identified, I issued a public apology. I would love to say I'll never do it again, but I'm human, I have emotions, and I am not perfect. I will try, however.  

I don't mean to sound conceited, but I wish there were more like me on this. Most people are like me, of course, but those who are not seem to be awfully loud and insistent.

Take this past weekend. Please.

It's Not True That Zuckerberg is Trashing Obama, Supporting Keystone

I will be talking about this sort of thing a lot, because that's what this blog is ultimately about. This is the sort of thing that makes clear why you should always be skeptical about anything you read or hear in today's political climate. 

I woke up this morning, and saw the following Tweet in my timeline:

Now, I do some work for a project that I'm not at liberty to talk about because it hasn't launched yet, but I recognized that the information in the Tweet and the accompanying article is completely out of character for Zuckerberg. I won't claim that Zuckerberg is a full on liberal, and his company's approach to privacy sucks. But his largest charitable/political contributions to date have gone to revive the Newark, New Jersey school system, and to help the poor in the Bay Area. The fact of the matter is, he's been trying to rehab his image since "The Social Network" became a hit, and this wouldn't do that. 

So, when someone makes a claim like the above, it makes me want to look deeper. And as I started digging, I found out that the group in question, FWD.us, is focused on three things; immigration, education and science. Many of the key players in this project actually have high profiles in the development of alternative energy sources, so the accusations made don't quite pass a smell test. 

Sorry, But Max Baucus is About the Best We Can Expect From Montana, Politically

This week, Max Baucus of Montana announced his retirement after this term, and some progressives have been falling all over themselves congratulating themselves, and expressing nothing short of glee over losing him in the Senate.  

Be careful what you wish for, folks. 

Baucus is from Montana. Montana usually elects Democrats, but they're always conservative, based on the standards of many progressives, who like to label "RINOS." And who would expect anything different from Montana. Like the other 49 states, Montana is a unique entity, in that they are extremely independent. This is the problem with thinking in national terms; except for president, there is no national election. Baucus only represents Montana, and Montana politics is a mixed bag, at best. 

They are somewhat progressive on the environment, but if you think 90% of Montanans were probably in favor of universal background checks, you're likely mistaken. They are very much against any kind of gun control. While they were outspoken in their opposition to a "public option" because they don't want the federal government telling them what to do, they are one of the few states actively considering a single-payer system. They are a right to work state, but because of their colorful past history of corruption, they are extremely vocal against Citizens United. 

So, tell me. Is Montana conservative or liberal? 

Like all states, it's a mixed bag, although they lean more to the right overall.

A Progressive Manifesto - Adopt These, We Win

One problem progressives have these days is our horrible sense of PR. 

Most people, meaning the moderates and swing voters we must reach in order to have any sort of electoral success, agree with us on a number of issues. But we do several things that poison us in their eyes. We label them as something we think of as pejorative, like "centrist" (gasp!). Then, we get really wonky, to the point that we obsess over silly details, such as whether or not they "believe" in climate change. Ten, we obsess over more silly details, like whether or not people should use the terms "global warming" or "climate change." We are so obsessive with irrelevant details (to the people we're talking to) we don't even get around to discussing possible solutions to problems.

Put simply, most people already understand the aspects of the problems we face, because they live them every day.  They want to vote for people who'll solve the problems, even if they don't know or care about them as much as you. We have to engage people with solutions, not constantly reiterate the problems. 

How to Discuss Climate Change Without Turning People Off.

As many of you know, I often cruise the lefty blogs, just to see how we're communicating to the rest of the world. So, imagine my surprise when I see the following headline on one of them: "IMF: Fight Climate Change By Ending Subsidies to Fossil Fuel Industry." The article touts a "new" report from the International Monetary Fund, with a whole bunch of numbers and facts and figures regarding government subsidies from around the world. 

The first problem is, it's not a "new" report at all. It's dated January 28, 2013, which is more than two months ago. Calling a report "new" to create a certain sense of urgency is undermined when the reader clicks on the link and finds out the report is more than two months old. Not only that, but when they see that the report's more than a couple months old, it dings your credibility. Not necessarily a lot, but it makes people think of you as someone who's willing to fib to make a point. 

The second problem is, the article and the report are too wonky, and this blogger does nothing to make it less so. The wonkiness of the IMF's report, I understand; they write these reports for wonks. But as bloggers, we're supposed to take the complicated, wonky stuff and translate it for folks. If we're going to be successful politically, we have to make people understand issues, and put them into language they can get behind. Instead, this article takes the IMF language and simply says, "See? We're screwed!"

Stop Complaining About Dems. In 2014, Voters Will Still Only Have 2 Choices: Them or Disaster

I know many of the people who read this blog would love to see a "third party" pop up. Unfortunately, our system is built in such a way that all a third party does is weaken one of the other two. This is why the progressive movement keeps failing; we keep hoping for things that can't happen, and we look down on those things that can happen. 

It's important for everyone to realize that elections are the most important element in a democratic republic. They are the linchpin for everything. Marching and occupying is not, in itself, an expression of democracy. If such activism is not followed by effective campaign strategy that puts the best available people in office every single time, then it’s pretty much worthless.

That phrase is key. The BEST AVAILABLE candidate. In a democracy as diverse as ours, the best available candidate will almost never be far left, unless he or she represents a full-on left district. Sorry. 

I know, you don't want to hear that. But here's the thing; the reason there are so many right wingers in the government is because they've embraced the electoral process, and they've adopted, and virtually taken over a major political party, like parasites feeding from a host. And we can't really make progress until we get rid of them. We outnumber them; it should be easy.  Yet, it's not, because they tend to be parasites, using the political party apparatus to make themselves more powerful, while we flail on the outside, and expect the parties to do our bidding.

Cutting the Crap on The "Gerrymandering" Red Herring

I can't believe this one's hung on so long. I'm reposting it... well... because some folks still don't seem able to get this, even though it's basic math. 

Originally posted January 3, 2013...

----------------------------

The professional left’s latest chew toy seems to be based on the concept of gerrymandering.  Basically, the argument goes, Republicans kept a majority in the House due to gerrymandering. It’s an interesting concept, to be sure. But what makes it interesting is that they are so SURE they’re right about this, despite the fact that it’s actually mathematically impossible.  This can actually be proved by making a basic challenge; please demonstrate the math that gives a political party with 31% of all voter registrations nationally a Congressional majority over a party with 43% of registrations, at least in the 29 states and the District of Columbia that include party registration with their voter registration process.  (21 states don’t) You can’t. Even if Independents broke 2-to-1 for Republicans, the parties would be dead even, at best. 

Though I could end the argument there, the math itself highlights other problems, especially one constant theme I’ve been highlighting on this blog for years.  Some liberals seem to want to believe that every problem is a conspiracy, and that it's someone else's fault, when the problem rests squarely on our shoulders.  The problem isn't a grand conspiracy, but a failure to play politics in a meaningful, intelligent way. 

The Truth About AUMF and NDAA

Several times throughout his presidency, President Obama has asserted that he has the power to use lethal means (presumably including drones) to take out al Qaeda and the Taliban. His lawyers and the Attorney General have affirmed his assertion that he has that power. 

And every time one of them asserts this power, a large number of very loud liberal pundits scream and yell and blame HIM for having that power and not denying that he has it. Apparently, he’s supposed to simply reject that power, and it will magically dissolve into nothingness. By claiming he doesn’t have that power, according to them, it will cease to exist, and we will all be safe and secure, and there will be no drones from now on, and all will be peaceful and right with the world, forever and ever.

Can I get an amen?

There’s just one problem, and it’s a pretty big one.

UPDATED: Blame GOP, not Reid for Filibuster!

There is an update at the end of this post. 

I am continually fascinated by the number of “progressive political junkies” who want to blame someone for everything that doesn’t go their way; especially those who continuously blame the wrong people. 

Latest example; filibuster reform. Be careful what you wish for, folks.

If you’re blaming Harry Reid because he wasn’t able to transform the filibuster into a “Mr. Smith”-style waste of the Senate’s time, then I suggest you turn in your “political junkie” card, because you're blaming the wrong people. It’s not his fault. I mean, if you imagine 60 Senators rushing to him to demand it, then you're not thinking in real-world terms. And make no mistake; to make monumental changes in the filibuster with 51 votes could have dire consequences. If not now, then in the future. 

As real “political junkies” will recall, we last fought this fight back in 2004. Only then, it was Republicans who wanted to kill the filibuster altogether, and Democrats and liberals who were foursquare against it. Then-Majority Leader Bill Frist wanted to impose a “nuclear option” to stop Democrats from filibustering Bush’s judicial nominees. That would have required just 51 votes for cloture. Sound familiar? Liberals were up in arms about it then. It was the worst idea in the whole wide world. Now? A lot of them are excoriating Reid for not doing the same thing. 

Reid knows what he’s doing. Let me explain.

Help Keep This Blog Different from other blogs, by helping with a donation

There is no professional left here. There are no subsidies from wingnuts. This is all about getting the word out about things, and hopefully getting people to think differently, and get a progressive government. 

The ultimate goal of this blog is to win elections. This blog will become a repository of information that helps us all in our fight to rid the government of the right wing and to eventually lead us to a progressive majority. There is so much more to do, help us do it.  I'm taking on more writers, the podcast is back, and everything costs money. 

Click on the button below, or at the top of the right column, and donate to this blog, if you can... 

Thank you so much for your help...

Once More, With "Chained CPI" Madness, Some Liberals Caught in "Sky is Falling" Mode

(If you like this blog, consider making a donation over in the right column. Thanks...)

I said it before, and I guess I have to say it again; folks on both extreme ends of the political spectrum seem to have an amazing inability to think about more than one thing at a time, and they seem incapable of considering two related concepts at the same time.  We should expect this lack of critical thinking from the far right, but a similar level of cognitive dissonance has  increasingly become a feature of liberal politics, and it’s coming from people who should know better.

As I noted about a year and a half ago, the debt ceiling situation brought out the loon factor on the far left more than anything in years. We were given the choice between a few cuts in Social Security and default, and a significant and loud contingent of lefties actually chose default, despite the fact that allowing default would actually do more damage to Social Security than the cuts the GOP had proposed.

The same thing has happened again, when discussing the “fiscal cliff” negotiations. Some lefties have gone absolutely insane over the inclusion of a “chained CPI” codicil in President Obama’s latest proposal to solve the “fiscal cliff.” I see so many arguments on the left, in which reasonable liberals shrug over it, and others scream about gloom and doom and insinuate that such a proposal would be nearly impossible to kill.  So many libs have excoriated Obama over this proposal, it started making me laugh a few days ago. Some have even suggested that Reagan was to the left of Obama on Social Security, which is historically ignorant.  I also found myself amused by the lefties suggesting that Obama holds all of the cards in this negotiation, and he shouldn’t give the GOP anything, and just let the country go off the “cliff.”

The Country Has a Republican Problem, and WE Can Help Solve It

(If you like this blog, consider making a donation over in the right column. Thanks...)

It apparently takes a good electoral thumping to get Republicans to do a little soul searching.  Key words: a little. The problem is, it can’t last. In part, it’s because they have no soul. But more than that, introspection isn’t what they do, because their core constituency, or "base," won’t allow it.  (Seriously, has their ever been a better name for a political party's core constituents than the GOP "base"? Think about it.)

This is what happens when you cultivate a “base” that not only doesn’t care much about knowledge and intelligence, but that actually despises the concept. The reason current Republicans sound as stupid and bigoted as they do is because they need their stupid, bigoted white “base” to have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning anything.  And since “winning” is the only thing they seem to understand, expecting any sort of moderation anytime soon is a pipe dream. 

Anyone with any political sense at all would have demonstrated alarm over the emergence of an element as radical as the Tea Party within its ranks. Instead, they embraced it, and even nurtured it, because their “base” loved the concepts as discussed, regardless of their ridiculousness.

Look at the current Republican Party, folks. The radicals have completely taken over, to the point that GOP moderates have become independents or, in a number of cases, Democrats. You know why there were so many Blue Dogs in Congress at one time? Because there is no longer a place for actual conservatives in today’s GOP.

And it’s only going to get worse, unless we put a stop to it.

The Veracity of Truth Podcast -- Episode 2

Enjoy our second podcast...

2012-07-18 Veracity of Truth- The PCTC Podcast

Here is the Fox and Friends video mentioned in the podcast, courtesy of Media Matters:

Reaping and Sowing: The GOP Should be Dying. Why They're Not.

I've written and rewritten this post a number of times over the years. I think the first time was in 2002, when the original Daily Weasel was kicking ass and taking names and it's still true. The GOP is largely dead. If it seems as if it's taking a long time for the current incarnation of the GOP to die, look in the mirror, folks. If not for the political incompetence of progressives, we could have shut the door on the GOP far right in 2004 at the latest. Really, if we had any political chops at all, we could have gotten Carter a second term and never had to deal with them in power at all. 

I'm not sure many progressives understand what's actually happening with the Republican Party these days. Progressives love to whine and complain about what they call "Blue Dogs," and their seemingly poor fit in the Democratic Party, but the fact of the matter is, we can't do anything about them until we get rid of the current Republican leadership. What you don't understand is that Blue Dogs are a sign that there is only one viable party for reasonable people these days. With this version of this column, I hope to begin to tell you how to make the current incarnation of the Republican Party go away for good, and save this country from the extremists who control so much of the debate.

The first step is to stop calling these people "conservative."

Don't Waste Time On Cranks! Ignore Them, Move Forward

If there seems to be a large number of right wing troublemakers out there who take great pleasure in creating blog after blog full of misinformation and outright BS, and who seem hell-bent on trying to pick fights with us, you're not mistaken. There are a lot of them. They operate in swarms, and they're annoying. But they're only dangerous if we enable them. So stop enabling them.

There are two major reasons for the swarm, and they're both somewhat related. The main reason is what I've  been telling you all along; the Republican Party has been taken over by a psychotic fringe, and they only way they can win elections now is to depress turnout. The other is, well, money.

There are more of them out there, and you can blame Bush for screwing up the economy. All of these little gnat-like creatures are competing for a chance to be paid by the fat cats who fund this crap. They share a delusion that, by successfully smearing liberals on the 'Net, and by pushing the most ridiculous misinformation they can think of, they can out-crazy all of the other nut-bags for a chance at a piece of the purse that low-lifes like the Koch Brothers dangle in front of them, and by getting in their good graces, they'll be able to move out of that single-wide and they won't have to eat ramen noodles for dinner. 

Seriously, Folks? "Progressive" Kos Wants GOP Teabagger to Win?

The neocons have held a disproportionate share of the government and basically have run things for the last 32 years now.

When do we progressives get tired of that?

When do progressives, as a whole, stop listening to the professional left, and realize that most of these people know exactly nothing about how politics works? I’m getting really sick of these people saying things that demonstrate a complete numbness as to how politics actually works.

Politics itself is NOT ideological. If you think it is, then you need to learn the difference between ideology and politics. While our ideology (and common sense) tells us we need to wean the country off fossil fuels, politics delineates the strategy by which you actually wean the country from fossil fuels. Our professional left understands ideology really well, and they know how to press lefty buttons so that you’ll keep reading them and giving them money. But very few of them understand politics.

One of the latest examples of this is a short piece written by Markos Moulitsas on his “Daily Kos” blog. Check out the title:

Why I want Bob Kerrey to lose

Why Are So Many "Progressives" Helping Citizens United Win?

I am so tired of having to write this sort of piece. I need to be in full campaign mode, as does everyone else who calls themselves either "liberal" or "progressive." There's a point, every other year, when you put aside your whining about your pet issues that most other people couldn't care less about, and put yourself fully behind the most progressive candidate available to you. Yes, I'm sorry to say, because we elect our representatives through democratic means, it's unlikely that many of the candidates we choose from will be raging lefties. But that doesn't mean you don't have a choice. 

There are less than five months to go. That means we have less than five months to create a meme that will encourage swing voters to show up at the polls and vote Democratic. 

There is only one issue this election year, and probably for the next few election years, and that is money. I'm not talking about the deficit and the national debt. I'm talking about campaign financing.

Now, as I've said previously, money itself is not as influential with regard to electing people as many assume. if it was, we'd have had President Perot a long time ago. I think we can overcome the influence of money during election campaigns. But what we can't necessarily overcome would be the influence that will absolutely accompany a President Romney once he takes office and starts preparing to win a second term.  If the professional left continues to be anything less than enthusiastic about a second Obama term, Willard Romney could squeak by and become president, and he will believe it was the post-Citizens United money that put him there. The Kochs are apparently prepared to spend $400 million to help Romney, and if you don't think Romney will be made to feel beholden to them for that contribution, well, there's this bridge in Brooklyn I could sell you for a song.

Look at the Entire Playing Field! Stop Engaging in Reactionary Politics

The Chesapeake Bay Bridge is the only efficient way most people in Maryland, Washington, DC, and some parts of West Virginia and Virginia have available to get to the “Eastern Shore” of Maryland, Virginia and southern Delaware. There are two spans. The Southern-most span opened first, in the mid-1950s, with two lanes. The bridge became so incredibly popular, however, that a second span with three lanes was added in the early 1970s. You only pay a toll as you head east on the bridge. Over the years, the bridge has become far more crowded, as you can imagine and as it became more crowded, the back-ups to get onto the bridge have become progressively worse. In response to the interminable lines at the toll booths most Friday evenings during the summer, the Maryland Department of Transportation has added a lot more toll booths. You know, because more toll booths means shorter lines, right?

Wrong.

Essentially, some :expert decided that more toll booths was the answer, but at best, that decision was reactionary, and without much thought, because it has actually led to worse delays and longer traffic jams. And they're worse for a very foreseeable reason. There are now ELEVEN toll lanes before the eastern entrance to the bridge, but there are STILL only TWO eastbound lanes on the bridge itself. That means we essentially have ELEVEN lanes of traffic merging into TWO on heavy traffic days, and it’s that attempt to merge that causes the terrible jams that currently exist. The real solution -- the non-reactionary solution -- for the huge traffic jams would be to CLOSE most of the toll lanes when traffic is heavy. But imagine the public reaction if there was a backup on the Bay Bridge, and only four toll lanes were open. The politicians who have to make the decisions would be skewered.

And that, in a nutshell, is the problem with politics these days. Politicians are faced with reactionary opinions, offered up by professional pundits, whose main goal is to stoke the fires among the populous, and who seem incapable of looking at the big picture. Reactionary opinions are, by definition, uninformed. You can't possibly understand a situation without considering it carefully. For example, if you had just been in a three mile backup before the Bay Bridge, and saw that seven toll lanes were closed, you'd assume that was why traffic was clogged, and you'd be on the phone with your legislator demanding they all be opened. But when I explained to you that eleven toll lanes makes traffic move faster when it's slow, but has the opposite effect when traffic is heavy, because the effect of eleven lanes of traffic merging into two has the effect of clogging the pipeline, so to speak, you would calmly see that, and realize that MDOT officials were SMART to close most of the toll plazas. 

Uninformed opinions seem to weigh too heavily on the system these days. Yes, I’m referring to teabaggers, of course, who have such strong opinions on the Constitution despite having never read it. But a lot of it comes from our side of the aisle, too. While most liberals are very level-headed and reasonable, and trust President Obama, we have a number of pundits – whom the Obama Administration has rightly dubbed “The Professional Left,” who have a lot of pointed opinions about everything, but who seem incapable of looking at the big picture, and considering the political repercussions of what they demand. Their attitude is very strident, and very sure, but in the end, it’s also very reactionary and (usually) wrong.

Consider the consistent whining from the professional lefties when it comes to President Obama’s “kill list.”

Learning From Our Mistakes: A Recall Post-Mortem

If we progressives learn nothing else from the aftermath of the Wisconsin recall election last night, we have to learn that strategy is far more important in politics than emotion. As I said in a previous post, politics itself is not personal, and taking an emotional approach to it will almost always result in frustration and loss. Just because you think a cause is right doesn’t mean everyone else thinks so. More importantly, you have to understand that not everyone has the same priorities as you, and they don’t resent the same things you do. We’re all different, and we think differently. Politics is about seeking out the common ground and appealing to people using that.

I knew I had to write this piece last night, when my Twitter feed was filled with puzzlement over the fact that exit polling showed Walker surviving recall, even as a majority of Wisconsin voters favored President Obama in November. This was seen by many liberals as a "contradiction." But it's not a contradiction at all. In order to believe it's a contradiction, you have to believe that everyone who cast a vote for Walker was actually in favor of Walker. 

Cut Your Strings, Stop Being Puppets!

We all have that friend or relative who is so incredibly serious about everything, it makes us laugh. If  you don’t know someone like that, there’s a good chance you're that person within your family or group.

Anyway, this is the person we all love to tweak when we’re in a somewhat aggressive mood, right? I'm not personally mean, but it’s fun sometimes to wind them up by saying something about a subject or issue that you know will make them react,  then sit back and let the fur fly. I have one friend who goes absolutely ballistic whenever I say something negative about President Obama, so I say something bad about him whenever I’m in the mood to wind her up. I don’t mean what I’m saying, either; it’s just fun to watch her go off. She gets very animated and goes on about all the good things the president has done, and she doesn’t even notice my reaction until she sees the grin overtaking my face. It's then that she realizes how silly she’s been (I mean, after all, I wrote a pretty big list of the president’s accomplishments), and she smacks me on the back and tells me to stop it.

This could very well be the best analogy to what the far right does to us continuously. Except for one thing: our side never seems to notice their grin, and never realizes we’ve been had.

"We Have Met The Enemy, Libs, And He Is (Too Often) Us"

If you want to know why the progressive movement keeps spinning its wheels, and why the right wing minority keeps on making policies and having their way, the answer is really simple, and it’s right in front of your face every single day.  

It’s called winning elections. At the very least, it’s making sure the worst people don’t win elections.

We live in a democratic republic. That means “we, the people,” elect those who will make policy and spend our tax money for the next 2-6 years. The people we elect will also have a say in appointing those judges and unelected officials who will interpret the laws and put them into effect. That also means, if we don’t get the most votes, we don’t get to make, or even influence, that policymaking. You don’t win, you don’t play.

Yes, my fellow liberals, that means we have to become popular. Funny thing is, as unpopular as the right wing already is (and they really are!), this task should be easy. Yet, we keep losing elections, because we seem to go out of our way to be as unpopular as possible. The right wing’s message is gloom and doom, because that’s what sells to their ever shrinking base, but too many of the loudest voices on our side have gotten it into their head that shouting gloom and doom from a liberal perspective is the way to win elections.

And I’m sorry, but that’s just crazy. If you don’t believe me, consider our electoral record over the past 32 years. Three-quarters of the electorate is NOT right wing, and yet we keep losing elections. How is that possible?

Progressives for Progress

Why do so many self-described "progressives" not seem to notice that we've been standing outside the political fence for the better part of a half century? The loudest part of the progressive movement seems to like standing outside and shouting at those inside, to see if they'll listen. We hold marches and we parade up and down and we make as much noise as we can, but we don't seem to bother to look up and evaluate the actual progress we're making. 

If the screaming faction of the progressive movement would shut up for a second, sit back and evaluate for a while, they would realize that, for at least the last 32 years, the country has regressed, not progressed, which means we're doing something wrong. 

Progressives and "Manufactured Outrage"; Why We Lose Elections

An apparent specialty of the professional left and a large number of their minions is the manufacture of outrage.  Look at lefty blogs, and there is no end to the demands for outrage over something. Check out their Twitter streams; they are always fishing for subjects they think might piss you off, and get you reading them day after day. Their followers will demand that you be outraged, too. Whenever I post my comprehensive list of President Obama’s accomplishments, invariably, I’ll get a few stray “progressives” reminding me that I should be outraged that Obama killed an American citizen, and that Bradley Manning had to be naked in his cell for an hour or so, referring to that as torture because, well, the word “torture” is designed to evoke more outrage.

Outrage may make for a decent marketing tool, to attract like-minded people to your blog, but it’s useless as a political tool.

The other night, a prominent far lefty told a bunch of us that we should be outraged because an NFL investigation showed that the New Orleans Saints had a bounty program, where they were paid money to injure other players.  Apparently, this “progressive” doesn’t follow football as closely as I do, because I remember Baltimore (yes, I said Baltimore) Colts players telling me about similar instances back in 1976. But this “progressive” went so far as to demand that the team’s operations be suspended for a year.  I responded by asking him about all those people who depend on the Saints organization for jobs, but received no answer back. Obviously, the statement was a trial balloon of source, to see if it generated enough outrage. It didn’t.

If You Think Both Parties are the Same, You're INSANE

Those of you who have been reading this blog for a while know; that this blog is a bit different from other lefty blogs. Yes, I take on the Right Wing Fart Machine and will continue to do so. But frankly. a small but loud portion the progressive movement has a tendency to be just as bad as the right wingers when it comes to flinging rhetorical bullshit. These people are loud, obnoxious, and they like to portray themselves as the “only true progressives." This, despite the fact that they constitute a small minority within the progressive movement, and often, they;re rhetoric actually hurts our cause. 

These “progressives,” who tend to be referred to as "professional left" or "emo left" are usually white, they tend to have college degrees, and they tend to have above-average-sized bank accounts, and they seem to think they know more about what it’s like to be poor and working class than those who actually are poor and working class. I saw an exchange recently on a lefty blog, in which a white "emo lefty" actually attempted to imply that his sociology  degree had equipped him with the knowledge to understand what a black man in America faced. I wish I was kidding. 

Some Far Left "Progressives" Handing Elections to the Right Wing; It MUST Stop!

Don't forget! My blasphemous new novel, "Not Another Savior!" is out and on sale... religion will never be the same. I hope. 

First off, I am a PROGRESSIVE. A real progressive, not one who merely talks a great game.  I have been a progressive since I was a young kid.

I want social justice for everyone. I think all people are basically the same at their heart, regardless of skin color, hair color, sexual orientation or religion. I don’t believe that respect is earned; but that disrespect is. I believe in complete freedom, up to the point that it starts affecting others negatively. To that end, I believe that all people and businesses should have the right to make products and sell them, with as little interference as possible from the government, but with as much regulation as is necessary. I think the “drug war” is a complete joke, and an affront to the Constitution I hold dear. I also think reproductive choice should be guaranteed, for the simple reason that free people can’t allow the government to make medical decisions for them, and the government has no right to force a woman to stay pregnant against her will. Everyone should have the same rights, regardless of sexual preference, as long as what they’re doing is completely consensual. I respect all religious beliefs, but I also believe that religion and politics must remain separate for the protection of both.  I believe that everyone within our borders should be able to see a doctor and receive treatment when they’re sick, and that no one should lose everything they have worked for all their life, because they happen to develop a health problem.

I am a true-blue, died in the wool, hard core liberal/progressive. I have spent my life trying to do my little part to move this country in that direction. That’s last part is what makes me an actual progressive. Having all sorts of high ideals doesn’t make one a progressive; the desire to move the system in that direction – THAT is what makes me progressive. Got it? Good.

Mr Obama is IN Washington; Help Him Help You!

Over the last week or so, I have heard a large number of progressives cite "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" as their ideal political movie. Ya know, cuz they wish President Obama was more like Jimmy Stewart’s character, Jefferson Smith. 

As an old movie buff, I love this film. I love watching almost everything Frank Capra ever did. But the progressives who "wish Obama was like him" miss the point of the film. If you think the film is about an idealistic individual who rises up and upsets the corrupt old guard, Frank Capra is up there looking down on you and wishes he could slap you, because you're way off. Senator Smith didn’t win by himself. In fact, when he was taking the corruption on by himself, he was losing, and losing badly. For some reason, some people think the ending has him “winning” the filibuster by making his opposition crack.

Um, not quite.

Learning the Right Lessons From the Budget Battle

In reading leftie blogs and watching my Twitter feed over the weekend, I’m afraid a lot of progressives are taking the wrong lessons away from the first stage of the budget battle in Washington this year. 

The issue isn’t that so many useful programs were cut and that the GOP are bastards. If you didn’t know the GOP are bastards going in, turn in your membership card.  We should already KNOW that when the denizens of the current incarnation of the GOP get into office, they will screw the poor and anyone else they can, in order to funnel money to their rich benefactors. That is not a shocker.  What’s shocking is that we keep letting them do it.

And that’s the issue. In a nutshell, what you should be learning from this budget fiasco is that allowing the current incarnation of the Republican Party to hold office right now is a very dangerous thing. And we should be looking at the only solution available to us at the moment; electing more Democrats.

Yeah, I know the drill; a lot of Democrats are “too conservative.” Those “Blue Dogs” screw up everything.  And if I hear “Obama doesn’t fight enough” one more time, I think I’ll scream.

What the hell do you expect from him? Do you expect him to go on TV and call Republicans ugly and insult their mothers? He's the President of the United States, for Chrissakes. 

Why Are Progressives So Politically Tone-Deaf?

You may get sick of reading this from me, but one of the main reasons progressives are always on the outside looking in is because we don’t seem to know anything about how politics works. I will repeat it until it's no longer the case. I don't know about you, but I'm sick of waiting for a large portion of the progressive movement to get their heads out of each other's asses, and start doing things that benefit the poor, working and middle classes, instead of whining about shit that simply doesn't matter. 

Yesterday presented us with a prime example, when President Obama penned an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, entitled “Toward a 21^st-Century Regulatory System."

The liberal blogosphere went batshit. First, they lamented the fact that he would pen a column for The Wall Street Journal in the first place. How DARE he put some of his writing in the newspaper of record of the enemy? I'm waiting for the pissing and moaning that awaits when they find out Obama's being interviewed by Bill O'Reilly during Super Bowl coverage. 

The Solution to the Problem -- Fewer Republicans!

Let me put this simply.

If you plan to vote for anyone who has an affiliation with the Republican Party Tuesday in the current climate, you’re a damn fool. Hear me? And if you believe that Democrats are a problem, and you’re “disappointed” in them for not doing more, you’re also a damn fool. Either that, or you’re listening to damn fools. And for you so-called “independents,” get a clue; if you vote for a Republican, then you’re buying into the party line on both sides of the line. Is that what makes you so “independent”? Your gullibility?

I’m going to have more to say about this after the election, but stop listening to “progressives” and “liberals” who call Democrats spineless (or something similar, usually something relatively misogynistic) and ineffective.  THEY are not the problem.

As I pointed out earlier on this blog, THREE HUNDRED SEVENTY FIVE BILLS have been passed by the Democrats in the House, and those bills sit languishing in the Senate. Now, some “progressives,” will tell you it’s the Democrats’ fault. They blame it on those infamous “Blue Dogs.” I’m sure you’ve heard the complaints about Democratic “spines” in the liberal blogosphere.

But that’s NOT the problem. You heard me – that is NOT THE PROBLEM, and anyone who says it is the problem is phenomenally ignorant. Yeah, I know, a lot of supposedly well-educated libs have touted this line, but the very concept is insane. It’s based on the premise that somehow, Democrats are supposed to go before the press and call Republicans a “bunch of poopy-heads” or something similar, I guess. Or maybe it’s based on the fact that left-wing pundits have the same goddamn problem that right wing pundits have, in that they want solutions to problems to be really complicated, so that they come off looking like geniuses.

Of course, a solution to the problem is simple, folks. Think about it.

Who's More Conservative Between Obama and REAGAN? Are You Kidding Me?

There is a truly disturbing column in today's HuffPost from a guy I normally think makes a lot of sense, Cenk Uyger. The article is HERE, and this is how he starts it off:

 

Who is more conservative - Ronald Reagan or Barack Obama?

 

If you think that's an absurd question, you're not alone. We had this discussion on The Dylan Ratigan Show when I was filling in for him on MSNBC and both of my guests thought it was absurd. A conservative website led with the headline that it was absurd (though they did not present one single fact to back up their claim). Except as it turns out, based on the facts, it is a really hard question to answer. And it would be absurd to claim otherwise.

 

Please, Cenk, add me to the chorus of those who think the very question is absurd. 

Note to Progressives: Bullcrap is Bullcrap, Whoever writes it. (Coakley's It. Period.)

I’ve taken on so many right wing articles over the years, I think it’s time I took on a left wing blog for a charge.

I have received a certain article from four different “progressives” thus far, and every time I read it, the first word that comes to mind is "bullshit." It's from a blog entitled "Single Payer Action," and the breathless crap coming from it just really pisses me off. The article is basically about why you should NOT vote for Martha Coakley if you live in Massachusetts, or why you shouldn’t care whether or not Coakley should win election tomorrow if you don’t live there.

Before I get started ripping this piece of crap apart, let me reiterate two things;

One, if you live in Massachusetts, and you do NOT vote for Martha Coakley, you’re a damned fool. It’s unlikely that not having her vote on health care would completely derail reform, but it will make it far easier for Republicans to filibuster everything. It’s not just about health care; Republicans are trying to block everything, and having 41 votes will make that job easier for them.

Second, I am all for a single payer health plan and we do have to work in that direction. In a perfect world, I would love to see us scrap the entire health insurance system and start over. But it’s not going to happen all at once, and anyone who thinks it can has a screw loose. Keep in mind three things; 85% of Americans have health insurance; about 90% of those people get it through their employer, who pays the bulk of the cost; and most people won’t get sick in a given year. To expect a groundswell of support for scrapping the whole system and starting over puts you in Never-Never land, people. It’s just not happening.We will have to work in that direction, step-by-step.

Now, about this article…

First off, the centerpiece of this garbage is a Powerpoint presentation from an idiot from the Cato Institute who's selling a book. The premise of the book and presentation is that Barack Obama is bankrupting us, in order to “enrich() his Wall Street friends, corporate lobbyists and union bosses."

Um, right.

What Did You Expect?

What did we expect, people? I really need to know.

The second biggest problem with health insurance reform – excuse me, health care reform – no, wait, it is health insurance reform – is the incessant play-by-play by thousands of people with opinions, but seemingly having no concept of how the process works. Every single goddamn thing a Senator does with regard to the health care bill is being put under a microscope and analyzed as if it was the single factor that will determine whether or not millions of people get to live or die. The “new media” is proving something; make no mistake about that. They’re proving that bloggers are, by and large, not journalists, and only see those facts that make their preconceived notions true.

Basically, it seems that everyone’s position on health insurance reform is based on the opinion of whomever he or she has chosen to believe at any given moment. We have the Republican side, who plainly doesn’t give a shit about health care one way or another. Oh, sure, one could say they’re just trying to stop Democrats from doing anything good, but that’s just silly. The fact of the matter is, they had twelve years to fix health care and didn’t lift a finger, except to figure out a way to funnel tax money to Big Pharma. The reality is, they just don’t care.

We Have to Be Patient, Progressives

I know there's a growing impatience with the Obama Administration among progressives.  And I see a lot of articles and blog posts out there expressing a growing sense that he's abandoning his principles for political expediency. There's this crazy notion that 30 years of neocon politics can be made to go away with a wave of his hand; that he can simply bring everyone in this often bipolar country together for a chorus of Kumbaya, which all of us who have ever had a brush with the wingnuts knows is pretty much impossible. But if he's going to keep the moderates on his side -- and make no mistake; we need them on our side -- he has to at least look like he's including Republicans in the process, even if they choose to bite his hand.

 

Believe me, my son sits in a tent in Kandahar as I write this. He joined the Army because he felt as if the only way he could pay for college would have been that way, or to leave college with a six-figure debt. I truly wish the president could snap his fingers and all of our bad neocon dreams will go away immediately.But that's not how life works. A lot of things about the neocon view of things have seeped into the culture, and it will take a phenomenal amount of work to reverse them.

 

I hereby beg progressives to have patience. President Obama hasn't abandoned his principles; at all; if anything, he's done just the opposite. He's living by them, and the end result of his presidency will be something pretty special. Don't let your ADD get the best of you; it's better to do something right than to do something fast.

Let's Be Careful Out There: Don't Blow Reform, Progressives...

As anyone who has read this blog knows, I am a huge proponent of the inclusion of a public insurance option in any health reform moving through Congress.  I keep wracking my brain, and I simply cannot figure out how to keep the private insurance companies in the game without a government option to keep the risk manageable. In a perfect world, I'd love to see a single-payer government plan, but we can't honestly afford the transition at this point, so a "perfect world" will have to wait. In the meantime, a government  health insurance option is a necessity. But we cannot afford an obsession.

 

I was around in 1994, and let me assure you; Harry and Louise didn't kill the Clinton health care plan, progressives did.

 

Yes, folks; the reason we are no closer to a universal health plan now than we were in 1994 is because of US. And I'm starting to see signs that it might be happening again.  I'm starting to get nervous again, for the first time since this process began.We simply cannot blow it this time.

Why I'm Not Always Nice...

(Don't panic. If you came here to see my deconstruction of the wingnut health care lies, it's right here...)

====================================================================

I hate to burst some bubbles out there, but I'm generally one of the nicest people you will ever meet, if you should ever meet me. The passion you see in these posts is real. I truly believe this country can do better, and that we, as a people working together, can do anything. But  I honestly believe that sometimes requires us to bust some heads, rhetorically speaking. (I'm also non-violent). And I will admit to a few things with which I have little patience, and you'll see that in spades as you read this blog.

 

You see, I've been confronted with my horrible personality so many times in e-mails and comments the last few days that I'm not sure whether to laugh or laugh harder. So many people take issue with how I refer to certain people, and the ridicule I routinely use to excoriate liars and the terminally stupid, who get way too much face time in our national discourse.  Strangely and perhaps sadly, many of the people who take offense are liberals. Stephanie Miller refers to them as "stick up the butt" liberals, and I can't disagree with that term. While I can't and won't speak for her motivations behind the names, I claim a specific strategy behind the way I refer to people. In other words, there really is a method to my madness.

In 1969, We Moonwalked and Chewed Gum at the Same Time; What Happened to Us?

Today is the 40th anniversary of the day man first walked on the moon. I'm sure everyone who was alive then knows where he or she was when the live, grainy black and white video showed two men first climbing down a ladder and jumping onto the moon. It was a triumphant day, to be sure, for all of humanity. I know how cool it was to a dorky 11 year old kid who was an absolute space freak. I was excited by the space program. I watched every liftoff and every splashdown; I knew the name of every astronaut, and for a while, I could tell you which astronauts flew in every single Mercury, Gemini and Apollo mission. Here's a strange thing, though; I was never really into science fiction and fantasy to any great degree, even back then. I was astounded by what human beings were capable of when they put their mind to it, and put their nose to the grindstone to solve all of the problems related to doing something incredible. The space program made one proud to be an American, but more than that, it made one proud to be a human being. No other  species has the capacity to think about and solve problems to the extent humans do.

And yet, 40 years later, Americans seem to have forgotten that. The day we walked on the moon seems to have marked the exact moment that the United States gave up.  It was as if we proved to the world that we were the greatest, technologically advanced society in the history of the world, and then stopped right then, at that moment. 

Patience, Liberals; Obama is Your Friend

This year, Barack Obama won a huge victory, the GOP's far right is on the verge of being forced back to the fringes, where they belong, and Obama will have two houses of Congress with significant Democratic majorities to deal with.  And part of the reason for his victory was that liberals finally did what they should have done in 2000 and 2004, and supported the best of the candidates who could win.

 

Now is the time for patience, liberal brethren.

 

This is the beginning of a reform movement, folks. But I must stress that the turning away of a large portion of the right wing is the BEGINNING of that process, and is not the process itself. This will be a long haul, that will take at least a quarter century to happen. And that requires patience; a lot of patience.

 

I watch and read a lot of liberal commentary, and I am distressed at the way so many on the left are questioning everything Barack Obama does. I mean, if I hear one more supposed "expert" question Obama's choices of former Clinton staffers as appointees, and ridicule them because they don't see that as "change," I think I may just throw up on them.

 

Here's some history for you to use as background. After the less-disastrous-but-still-messed-up first Bush presidency, the populace elected Bill Clinton president by a huge margin. At the same time, they gave Democrats 57 seats in the Senate, and a significant majority in the House.  In other words, Clinton's election in 1992 was much like this year, albeit less of an absolute disaster than the second Bush.

 

So, basically, there was euphoria, there was talk of a major reform movement, etc, same as we’re hearing now from liberals, including me. And yet, two years later, Republicans took both the House and the Senate, and even though Clinton won a second term in 1996, he still failed to get a majority of the vote, and Democrats lost even more seats in Congress. In fact, it took 12 years to take majority control in the House and 14 years to win back a majority in the Senate.

 

Why did that happen? Because the first two years of the Clinton presidency were just about the greatest ClusterF*** in the history of American politics.  Clinton, in trying to be bold, and new and progressive, screwed himself, by surrounding himself with people who had great ideas, but had no idea how to get anything done.

 

Politics is about the process. Essentially, the core of our government is Congress, which is made up of 535 people, representing 435 distinctly different districts. Each member of Congress has to perform for his or her constituency, or he or she will not be there very long. Because of this, processes have developed, which have to be followed, if a president is going to enact any of his agenda.

 

In other words, you can have the biggest and boldest plan in the history of the country, but if you don't have people in your administration who know how to get the agenda through Congress, chances are, your agenda will remain on paper.

 

That's where Clinton screwed up. Apparently, in 1993, he believed that he was so enormously popular, that he could just mention a program, and Congress would jump to attention or something. And he hired a Cabinet and a staff who had no experience dealing with Congress, and getting things passed through Congress. Clinton and his people eventually learned, but it took three years and a loss of Congress in order to do it.

 

President Obama cannot afford to wait two to three years to move his programs through Congress, and he apparently learned from the Clinton Administration that, in order to get things passed, he needs people around him who can work the system. What you're seeing are not "Clinton retreads," you're seeing experienced people, who know how to get the job done. Obama will pack his Cabinet with experience for the first two years, and surround those people with deputies who reflect his vision, who will spend the first two years or so learning the ropes. Then, as the experienced people peel off and separate, by the second or third year, he will have largely his own team in place, and they'll be ready to take over seamlessly.

 

The President sets the tone, and the president himself decides the policies of his administration. Just because you're seeing a lot of Clinton people in his Cabinet and staff, does not mean we're looking at a third Clinton term. In the last 40 years, we have only had two Democratic presidents, and let's face it; the Carter people who are still around are probably a bit long in the tooth by now.

 

As I said, this is a long process, and Obama is only the first step in this, and we have to learn to have a little patience. Putting experienced people in top government positions, even if they do have ties to Clinton, or even Bush, is a smart move, and it's likely to prevent the same sort of shortsightedness that led to the Republican "Revolution" in 1994.

 

Let's trust Obama, until he gives us reason not to.

It Really Is the Economy, Stupid -- This Time, Let's REALLY Change It!

You know, one of the greatest frustrations in being somewhat liberal is the tendency for others of my ideological ilk to demonize individuals, and to focus on specific people as "the problem."

Our economy is damn close to a total meltdown, and we're closer to being a Third World country than at any time in our history. In a system that purports to be capitalist, we the taxpayer are now expected to bail out these "Captains of Industry" to the tune of $1 TRILLION, just to prevent the collapse of the economy.

Let me make something clear here, folks. This is not the fault of a few select individuals; it's about ideology. This election represents a turning point for this country. It's not about Republican vs. Democrat, it's not about Obama, or McCain, or Bush and Cheney, or Palin. This election is about repudiating an IDEOLOGY; an ideology that has kept us stagnate since the far right took over the government in 1981, that has managed to make the economy look better than it was with a series of bubbles and an unprecedented amount of debt, and which has pushed us to the brink of economic annihilation.

A good economy makes things and sells them for a profit. A good economy provides good jobs for as many people as possible, and pays them enough to create a good life. A good economy encourages entrepreneurship.

We do not have a good economy, and we haven't for at least 35 years. We started to recover in the right way under Bill Clinton, because he guided programs that propped up the bottom rungs of the economy, and he encouraged manufacturing and increased trade. But overall, our economy has been shipping most good jobs overseas, pay has been largely stagnant since the mid-1970s, and the level of actual entrepreneurship is so low as to be frightening. And has anyone even begun to comprehend the amount of debt we hold as taxpayers? We'd better start thinking about it, because that debt has to be paid back at some point. And the higher that debt goes, the harder and more expensive it will be to borrow money later. And since we're currently counting on borrowed money just to make ends meet in the current right wing economic environment, that will eventually cause us serious problems in the near future. 

And no matter what the people on the right tell you, make no mistake; it's not liberal policies, or free-spending liberalism, that is causing our economic problems.

The culprit is a right wing Republican ideology, which takes money from the poor and hands it to the rich. They still push the completely discredited concept of "trickle down economics," even though it's been nearly 30 years, and the only thing that's "trickled down" to the poor and working classes is the urine from the rich fat cats who have made out like bandits on your dime, and who are proceeding to piss all over you.

This election is about returning us to an economic model that worked, and abandoning the failed economic policies of a generation of right wing Republican theory that has proven itself to be both economically and morally bankrupt. Again; this isn't juast about a difference between Obama and McCain;this is about  complete change in mindset; to making people count again.

Stop Jerking That Knee and Become a Skeptic!

I can't tell you how many times in the last few weeks I've heard from another liberal about something Barack Obama supposedly said that was apparently outrageous or scary or somehow out of character. Liberals are often absolutely hysterical over many of their perceptions of Obama's positions on issues, and their screeching can be heard all over the blogosphere.

But then a funny thing happens. I actually look up what Obama actually said, and I think to myself, "Is that all?" Basically, what I'm finding is that a lot of people are hysterical about information that isn't actually true. For example:

• Barack Obama isn't in favor of expanding faith-based initiatives because he just loves combining government and religion. He's not planning to send tax money to churches for their basic operations. In other words, he's saying it's possible to assist churches in helping the poor and the sick, without violating the separation between church and state.
• Barack Obama hasn't reneged on his promise to extract us from the Iraq occupation, just because he says he will continually re-evaluate, based on what military experts tell him. Keep in mind, Bush SAYS he's listening to generals on the ground, but he's not; he only listens to those generals whose opinions he agrees with. He's fired every military expert that said anything he didn't like, remember? Basically, Obama's talking about responsibility. We broke the country of Iraq, and we owe it to the people there to pull out, but to pull out in a responsible way, that results in the least loss of life possible.
• Barack Obama has not abandoned his desire for campaign finance reform. The problem is, there's a large contingent of people who think the only way to reform the campaign finance system is by public financing, and the fact that he decided not to finance his campaign using tax money is seen by many as tantamount to treason. It completely disregards the reality that many of us feel that the public IS financing Obama's campaign, and he's actually demonstrating a campaign financing structure that works and is strangely not controlled by incumbent politicians, which would be the case in a public financing scheme.

See, here's the problem...

Reframe This!

Here are a few statements that some of you may find surprising, but they are actually almost inarguably true:

• In their daily lives, a majority of blacks have far more in common with white evangelicals than they do most self-described white progressives.
• The debate over abortion was lost even before Roe v. Wade, when we allowed right wing radicals to frame the debate in a way that made it very difficult for us to argue the issue logically.
• The average American is more concerned with being able to make a living and keeping his family fed, clothed and educated, than he or she is with whether or not the government is tapping his or her phone.

Now, the above statements seem kind of random, but they're not at all. They all point to the number one reason why progressive politics has taken a backseat to neocon blather for the last 30-40 years.

The average liberal/progressive had no idea what the average person thinks, or why. And that, my friends, is exactly why we've been standing on the outside of politics, and wishing we had a better seat. While the right wing has been eating political steak for the past 30 years, we've been largely fogging up the glass as political outsiders.

Let's take each of the above statements one at a time and address them.

Demand Leadership This Time!

How far we've come in a lifetime.

I turned 50 a few weeks ago, and when I think about what's happened during that time, historically speaking, it makes me smile.

When I was little, and I had just learned to read -- I was about 4 or 5 -- and my dad took me to the bathroom at the beach. The hand painted sign on the door read "Men," but poorly painted-over, I could make out another one a little to the left; and arrow and the word "coloreds." That would have been about 1962 or 1963.

About eight or nine years ago, I was doing research for a lawyer at a law firm. I had to peruse real estate ads Baltimore newspapers from 1963. What I saw shocked me somehow, as advertisements for homes and jobs clearly read "No Coloreds!" and "Whites only!" and some even read "Coloreds only!"

I felt chills as Barack Obama became the presumptive Democratic nominee the other night. I watched the entire speech, and I was proud of my country. Say what you will about the United States, but there are still few countries in the world in which someone with his background could compete with a woman of Hillary Clinton's background for the leadership of the entire country.

And then I considered the fact that this country has been moving forward consistently, making significant social progress despite the fact that most of our leadership the last 40 or so years has been little more than pathetic.  Imagine how great this country could be with good leaders running the show.

A Plea from Michael Moore: PA, END THIS THING!!

My Vote's for Obama (if I could vote) ...by Michael Moore

April 21st, 2008

Friends,

I don't get to vote for President this primary season. I live in Michigan. The party leaders (both here and in D.C.) couldn't get their act together, and thus our votes will not be counted.

So, if you live in Pennsylvania, can you do me a favor? Will you please cast my vote -- and yours -- on Tuesday for Senator Barack Obama?

I haven't spoken publicly 'til now as to who I would vote for, primarily for two reasons: 1) Who cares?; and 2) I (and most people I know) don't give a rat's ass whose name is on the ballot in November, as long as there's a picture of JFK and FDR riding a donkey at the top of the ballot, and the word "Democratic" next to the candidate's name.

Seriously, I know so many people who don't care if the name under the Big "D" is Dancer, Prancer, Clinton or Blitzen. It can be Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Barry Obama or the Dalai Lama.

Well, that sounded good last year, but over the past two months, the actions and words of Hillary Clinton have gone from being merely disappointing to downright disgusting. I guess the debate last week was the final straw. I've watched Senator Clinton and her husband play this game of appealing to the worst side of white people, but last Wednesday, when she hurled the name "Farrakhan" out of nowhere, well that's when the silly season came to an early end for me. She said the "F" word to scare white people, pure and simple. Of course, Obama has no connection to Farrakhan. But, according to Senator Clinton, Obama's pastor does -- AND the "church bulletin" once included a Los Angeles Times op-ed from some guy with Hamas! No, not the church bulletin!

This sleazy attempt to smear Obama was brilliantly explained the following night by Stephen Colbert. He pointed out that if Obama is supported by Ted Kennedy, who is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is led by a Pope who was in the Hitler Youth, that can mean only one thing: OBAMA LOVES HITLER!

Yes, Senator Clinton, that's how you sounded. Like you were nuts. Like you were a bigot stoking the fires of stupidity. How sad that I would ever have to write those words about you. You have devoted your life to good causes and good deeds. And now to throw it all away for an office you can't win unless you smear the black man so much that the superdelegates cry "Uncle (Tom)" and give it all to you.

But that can't happen. You cast your die when you voted to start this bloody war. When you did that you were like Moses who lost it for a moment and, because of that, was prohibited from entering the Promised Land.

How sad for a country that wanted to see the first woman elected to the White House. That day will come -- but it won't be you. We'll have to wait for the current Democratic governor of Kansas to run in 2016 (you read it here first!).

There are those who say Obama isn't ready, or he's voted wrong on this or that. But that's looking at the trees and not the forest. What we are witnessing is not just a candidate but a profound, massive public movement for change. My endorsement is more for Obama The Movement than it is for Obama the candidate.

That is not to take anything away from this exceptional man. But what's going on is bigger than him at this point, and that's a good thing for the country. Because, when he wins in November, that Obama Movement is going to have to stay alert and active. Corporate America is not going to give up their hold on our government just because we say so. President Obama is going to need a nation of millions to stand behind him.

I know some of you will say, 'Mike, what have the Democrats done to deserve our vote?' That's a damn good question. In November of '06, the country loudly sent a message that we wanted the war to end. Yet the Democrats have done nothing. So why should we be so eager to line up happily behind them?

I'll tell you why. Because I can't stand one more friggin' minute of this administration and the permanent, irreversible damage it has done to our people and to this world. I'm almost at the point where I don't care if the Democrats don't have a backbone or a kneebone or a thought in their dizzy little heads. Just as long as their name ain't "Bush" and the word "Republican" is not beside theirs on the ballot, then that's good enough for me.

I, like the majority of Americans, have been pummeled senseless for 8 long years. That's why I will join millions of citizens and stagger into the voting booth come November, like a boxer in the 12th round, all bloodied and bruised with one eye swollen shut, looking for the only thing that matters -- that big "D" on the ballot.

Don't get me wrong. I lost my rose-colored glasses a long time ago.

It's foolish to see the Democrats as anything but a nicer version of a party that exists to do the bidding of the corporate elite in this country. Any endorsement of a Democrat must be done with this acknowledgement and a hope that one day we will have a party that'll represent the people first, and laws that allow that party an equal voice.

Finally, I want to say a word about the basic decency I have seen in Mr. Obama. Mrs. Clinton continues to throw the Rev. Wright up in his face as part of her mission to keep stoking the fears of White America. Every time she does this I shout at the TV, "Say it, Obama! Say that when she and her husband were having marital difficulties regarding Monica Lewinsky, who did she and Bill bring to the White House for 'spiritual counseling?' THE REVEREND JEREMIAH WRIGHT!"

But no, Obama won't throw that at her. It wouldn't be right. It wouldn't be decent. She's been through enough hurt. And so he remains silent and takes the mud she throws in his face.

That's why the crowds who come to see him are so large. That's why he'll take us down a more decent path. That's why I would vote for him if Michigan were allowed to have an election.

But the question I keep hearing is... 'can he win? Can he win in November?' In the distance we hear the siren of the death train called the Straight Talk Express. We know it's possible to hear the words "President McCain" on January 20th. We know there are still many Americans who will never vote for a black man. Hillary knows it, too. She's counting on it.

Pennsylvania, the state that gave birth to this great country, has a chance to set things right. It has not had a moment to shine like this since 1787 when our Constitution was written there. In that Constitution, they wrote that a black man or woman was only "three fifths" human. On Tuesday, the good people of Pennsylvania have a chance for redemption.

Yours,
Michael Moore
MichaelMoore.com
MMFlint@aol.com

It's Just Not That Simple...

One constant theme throughout Saturday's protest in Washington was this notion that Democrats are somehow just as culpable as Republicans when it comes to stopping the Iraq occupation, because they somehow hold "the power of the purse" and apparently haven't used it sufficiently. According to these folks -- and there seemed to be a lot of them -- this is due to the mere fact that they now hold a slim majority in the House and Senate. As this "conventional wisdom" goes , because they are now the majority party, Democrats can just cut off all funding, and thus force the president to simply stomp his feet, scream "aw shucks!" and bring the troops home.

 

Standing next to this too-large contingent of lefties is a group who is slightly more realistic, and suggests that Democrats just need to keep on sending bills to Bush and make him keep vetoing them. Their reasoning says that doing such a think would "show" everyone… um… what, exactly? That he's obstinately sticking by the war, regardless of what anyone thinks? Yeah! That'll show…. Um… whom, exactly? Is there anyone in the country who doesn't know this already? Constantly sending the president bills to veto over and over is just childish, and wastes time that could be spent on actually doing their jobs.

 

Stopping the appropriations process really isn't all that simple, anyway. It's not a matter of stomping your feet and saying "no more money, Mr. President." It's far more complex than that, and to expect it in the current environment is just plain silly and simplistic. Democrats hold a bare majority in the House, and several bills have gotten through there already. The Senate is another story, however. Under the circumstances, Democrats are effectively in the minority in the Senate, at least when it comes to Iraq. On Iraq, Democrats have exactly 50 votes in the Senate, and only since Tim Johnson returned from brain surgery; before that, they had 49. Meanwhile, the Republicans have 49 plus Lieberman, and Darth Cheney holds the tie breaker. The Democrats can't just vote away the war; they really do not have the votes. Republicans may hate this war, and there may be a point in the future in which Republican Senators hate the war enough to start voting against it, but to expect them to vote to cut off funding, well… it's just not realistic.

 

Even if Congress was able to cut off funding as of right now, there is no guarantee that such an action would have the desired effect, anyway. Approximately $500 billion has already been appropriated for Iraq so far, and that amount has been appropriated outside of the Defense budget, where there are tens of billions in discretionary dollars every year. It is unlikely that every dollar appropriated previously has been spent; there is probably a significant reserve built up, to keep the contractors happy for at least a year or two more. Therefore, even if the funding were to magically end right now, the war wouldn't necessarily end due to a lack of funding.

 

That said, imagine that the funding were suddenly cut off. Such a circumstance could potentially create a political minefield for Democrats, politically speaking. Any increase in violence could be turned against Democrats in Congress, for cutting off funding. This administration has been handed more than a half trillion dollars for this war, but hasn't been able to find the 20 billion or so it would take to provide body armor for all of the troops now; a reduction in funding would assure that they still don't get what they need. Halliburton, Bechtel and ExxonMobil will continue to make money from this war; make no mistake about that. Refusing to fund the troops isn't just a jingoistic Fox Noise Talking Point™, folks; the net effect of cutting off funding could be just that.

 

That is what the Democrats can't do. There is a lot, however, that they can do, although they need our help.

 

Many individual Congressional Democrats are doing a lot. They make speeches on the House and Senate floors, and they go onto talk shows and discuss the war. They tell everyone who will listen to them that this occupation is illegal and immoral and that it needs to stop. And they are doing that. Congressional Democrats have been all over the news this year, trying to drum up support for their bids to end the war.

 

If this war is going to end, we have to get more Republicans against the war, to the point that even THEY want it to end. That takes a hell of a lot more than a series of polls saying the American people don't like it. There has to be a groundswell that is so overwhelming that Congressional Republicans can't ignore it. That will take letter writing campaigns unlike any seen in years. I am not talking about e-mail, folks; I'm talking about letters. No petitions, no mass mailings in which you simply have to sign your name to a form letter. I'm talking about writing letters to Congress and your local newspaper, in which you express your disgust with this occupation, and its effects in the United States and the world.

 

We have to create a groundswell that makes the average person look up from their busy lives and say "You know, you're right! Iraq is a quagmire and a debacle!" to the point that they, too, write their Congresspersons and make their feelings known, as well.

 

The fact of the matter is, we don't have the votes to simply cut off war funding. That means, we have to create the votes. We have to make sure that 18-20 Republican Senators feel that they have no choice but to vote to end this thing. That's our mission, folks. If we can't get enough votes to override a veto, then there is nothing Democrats can do right now. Take this lesson into 2008, though, and make sure Democrats have enough votes next time. Right now, we have enough votes to stop the government hemorrhaging, and little more.  We need 60 votes in the Senate; more if a Republican like Bush is in the White House. 49-50 just won't cut it right now.

 

Constantly passing bills that are destined to die is not progress. Expecting miracles isn't progress. Progress takes a lot of work, and it requires a lot of passion. Not fake passion, but real passion.

Liberal ADD -- Let's Find a Cure...

I attended today's protest in Washington, DC, and once again, I have been able to pinpoint the problem with the left, and why we have such a huge problem getting our point across to a majority of voters.

 

Collectively, we have the worst case of ADD I have ever seen.

 

Now, the protest had been heavily promoted for a couple of weeks, and it was very clearly a protest against the Iraq, un, war. 

 

Okay, let me interrupt myself for a minute, because I have to make another point. (Is ADD contagious?). We are NEVER going to get a majority of the American people behind us if we always let the idiots on the right control the debate. And the fact that we are still using the term "war" when describing the occupation of Iraq, demonstrates a major problem on our part. We are not involved in a "war." The "war" was won more than four years ago. So, when we refer to what's happening in Iraq as a "war," we actually give the right wing their talking points. We have to stop doing that.

 

Now, back to the protest.

 

It was an interesting protest atmosphere; a lot of people, massed in several areas around the Mall and the White House; I was at Lafayette Park, across from the front of the White House, where several thousand people gathered at about noon to begin. Now, keep in mind; the flyers passed out all week identified the protest as a protest on Iraq. Most of the signs were about Iraq. It was a very good turnout for an sort f protest, and this one was ostensibly over Iraq.

 

I say "ostensibly," because the left's collective ADD was kicking in big time. If passersby were supposed to be impressed by the turnout, they were probably confused by the incredible lack of focus. This is a partial list of subjects covered by the speakers at the park, at a protest of the Iraq occupation;

 

• The Iraq "War" (of      course)
• Bush's shabby treatment of      Veterans and their families… (no problem, that fits)
• The Democrats' failure to stop      war funding… (not possible, and simplistic, but still… the theme fit)
• Racism (this war is very      racist, so okay, that fits)
• Cuban terrorists being allowed      to enter the United States…
• A call for an end to Israeli      Zionism, and for a Palestinian homeland.
• A call for an end to gun      violence in the United States...
• Economic Justice for the poor      in the United States…

 

And that's just the people on the stage. Milling through the crowd were people excitedly advocating for socialism, precisely the Socialist Party of the United States. I stood and listened in as three of these people tried to recruit members from the crowd, and not one even mentioned the Iraq occupation.

 

Then there were the PETA members, passionately pushing veganism on all who would listen, which wasn't many. One guy was obviously only listening to one vegan because she was really cute, but given what he was staring at, I didn't envision him giving up dairy anytime soon.

 

Another group of folks were advocating for the release of Mumia Abu-Jamal, and yet another group was informing us of Global Warming because, well, no one's ever heard of that before.

 

And I haven't even mentioned the contingent of Libertarian Ron Paul supporters, who were sitting bored along H Street, and the cult-like Lyndon LaRouche supporters, who show up at every protest, and never seem to be discouraged by the fact that their cult never catches on with anyone.

 

Do you know why the right has been able to make so many political inroads in the last generation or so? It's because they're disciplined. Their followers are dumb as shit, but the people leading the right wing are an incredibly disciplined group, capable of focusing like a laser on those issues that its "base" finds important.

 

Now, I'm not talking about marching in lockstep on every issue. I don't want us to be like them in that way. But let's focus our efforts on issues one at a time. If we're going to teach the general public about what's really going on in the world, and how best to fix it, we have to focus on one thing at a time. Yes, war, social and economic justice and the environment are in many ways interrelated, but talking about all of them at the same time tends to simply confuse the hell out of people. Our goal in every protest march or in every blog article should be to teach people what we believe, and that is impossible to do if our views bounce off the walls like a box of superballs. For example, how many of those people we have to reach would continue to read an article on impeaching Bush and Cheney, if every other paragraph was about global warming and the genocide in Darfur? And make no mistake; we must stop holding protests and writing articles for ourselves; if we don't start reaching the masses, we'll never be successful in changing the climate in Washington, and saving the lives of our soldiers.

 

The next time we set aside a day to protest the Iraq quagmire, such as the March on Washington set for September 29, we have to put aside all other issues for that day, no matter how important they are to us every other day, and focus on the one. Learn everything you can about the war, and how to end it, and focus every fiber of your being on that. Then, a couple of weeks later, hold another rally and focus on the other topic close to your heart, even if it's veganism. By focusing on one topic, we are less confusing, and we teach more people those things they need to know.

 

And before you know it, we'll be living in a progressive country again.

 

You Wanna Know Why Progressives have No Power?

From: Pelosi's Stand Blocking Impeachment in the House is Killing the Democratic Party - The Smirking Chimp.

It's just the Constitution that's suffering because of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's nutty and unprincipled "impeachment-off-the-table" position blocking any effort to impeach President Bush or Vice President Cheney for their many crimes and abuses of power.

Her position on impeachment is killing the Democratic Party too, by driving away not just progressived members of the party, but independents who voted for Democrats last November expecting some action in defense of the Constitution.

I see this anger welling up among progressives and independents everywhere I travel, as people say they've simply had it with the Democrats. The support of the party for a bill continuing funding for the war through September was terrible. The Democrats' rush to pass a bill granting Bush the authority to spy without a warrant on Americans, and to expand the power to spy domestically well beyond phones and internet to even include break-ins was a last straw.

My own little call for people so sign an "I Quit This Party" petition has seen a jump from 300 to now 400 signers. (Sign up on the column to the right.) When it gets to 500 I'll be sending the list off to Pelosi, as well as to the offices of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean.

Four or five hundred party defectors may seem like small loss, but it reflects a larger trend across the country.

Okay, this is how stupid progressives are at times. A democratic body, like the Democratic party, isn't doing exactly what you want it to do, so you LEAVE IT??

Let's see... let's set up a hypothetical.

Say you have a group of 200 people. Of that group, 50 are true progressives, 100 are moderates, and 50 are conservative; 110 are against impeachment, while 90 are in favor of impeachment.

Now, 10 progressives LEAVE the party. Can someone PLEASE explain to me how reducing the number of progressives in the Democratic Party makes them more progressive?

Wouldn't it make more sense to encourage more progressives to JOIN? This is a democracy after all; doesn't it make more sense to INCREASE the numbers on our side?
It's NOT POSSIBLE.

The REASON the Democratic Party has drifted to the right over the last 40 years is because progressives have this fantasy that they can start a third party and revolutionize politics, which is patently absurd. Progressives, at best, make up 15% of the population; there are probably fewer of us than there are wingnuts. Progressives don't cause Democrats to cower in fear because they might leave; they already LEFT!

See, here's how politics works.

You recruit good progressives to run. You run them as Democrats, because the bulk of the population, for better or worse, will vote for a Republican or a Democrat, period. The Wingnuts will vote for pretty much anyone with a "R" next to their name, and do so in lockstep, so we really have to counter that effect.

Therefore, leaving the Democratic party, or even threatening to leave the Democratic party, is just the ultimate "biting off our nose to spite our faces" moment, and it's the main reason progressives are generally like the kid looking at the puppy in the pet store window, but never really getting it. We've had a generation of wingnut politics now, and this is exactly why.

Now, as for Pelosi "taking impeachment off the table;" she said that almost a year ago for Chrissakes! In fact, she said it on 60 Minutes on October 22, 2006. I am unaware of any active movement led by Rep. Pelosi to actively derail any impeachment articles, currently.

I would also add that Pelosi really doesn't have much of a say as to whether impeachment is on the table or not. The Speaker of the House doesn't have the power to stop Articles of Impeachment from ever going to the Judiciary Committee and then to the floor. What's stopping it right now is a lack of co-sponsors, and a lack of support. In other words, instead of dwelling on something Pelosi said on October 22, 2006, we'd probably be much more effective if we inundate our Congresspeople with letters (and I do NOT mean e-mails!, and I do NOT mean every goddamn Congressperson in the House!) and urge them to do the right thing.

I would also remind you that rushing into this would be a profoundly stupid idea. You only get to do this once, maybe twice, and politically speaking, they had better pass the articles. Not only that, but if you want to  convict, you have to swing at least 19-20 Republican Senators to vote to convict Bush and Cheney, which will take a hell of a lot more than just "Well, you've seen what they did!" there will have to be a lot of evidence.

Also, politically speaking, Pelosi is in an unusual situation, in that the impeachment call is for both Bush and Cheney. Such a move, if successful, would make her president, if only for a short time. Politically speaking, there would be consequences for her taking such a potentially self-serving step as introducing, or even actively helping along Articles of Impeachment. Ethically speaking, there might be questions if she led the charge. They will never come from her, and she really shouldn't even co-sponsor them, truthfully.

IOW, the thing to do is join the fricking Democratic Party, and move it left, and write your Congressperson, and ask them to co-sponsor articles of impeachment. Leaving the Democratic Party is what spoiled children do when they don't get their way.

In other words, it makes us look like Wingnuts.
You look at stuff like this, and it's no wonder the left has been impotent for 40 years...

"The Media" is Not the Problem!

Could we please get off this kick of blaming "the media" for everything?

There is a lot wrong with this country at the moment, and it's really easy to blame "the media," but it's just not that easy. This crap started back before most of the current "media" even existed; it actually started right after the 1964 election, and accelerated with Nixon, but the current era of government stupidity began with the 1980 elections, when the country voted in its first wingnut president, Ronald Reagan, and the whole "smoke and mirrors" era began in earnest.

In 1980, there was no cable news, there was no Fox, there was no national right wing talk radio. Yet, the country managed to be conned into believing that reducing taxes on the rich and corporations would actually increase tax revenues; that fat black women with ten kids living on a couple of hundred dollars a month were a common phenomenon, and a major problem, thus causing an incredible drain on the Treasury; that everything the government touched turned to crap, and that private industry did everything perfectly; that the best way to build the economy was to infuse it with fake money; that deficit spending was no big deal, since we were borrowing most of the money from ourselves; that the government should stop regulating commerce, despite its constitutional mandate to do just that, and instead increase its regulation of individuals and personal activities it didn't like. 

All of this garbage was established before "the media" became what it is today. So, why this obsession with "the media" as the reason for all of our ills? Does the journalistic profession largely suck? Of course it does, but there have always been several strata of reporters, and with the dawn of the electronic age, we're no longer stuck with the idiots at our local paper; we have our choice of idiots from news organizations all over the country. I grew up in Baltimore, back in the day when we had two newspapers, and there were three local television stations, each of whom programmed about 2 hours of news per day. Washington, DC was just 40 miles away, but it might as well have been Chicago. On a clear day, we could pick up DC TV channels, but they didn't program very much news, either.

These days, we're inundated with news choices. Our local TV stations program as much as 5-6 hours per day of news, and there are five 24-hour news channels. Of course, to fill the time, far too much of the "news" on these five channels consists of opinions, and there is a lot of disinformation out there. But with the dawn of the Internet, there are a plethora of outlets to provide the antidote to such disinformation and errant opinion. There should be more of it, to be sure, and I think we should re-regulate the broadcast spectrum, to make sure of a diversity of opinion. But put into perspective, the problem is not "the media;" it's us.

There has always been right wing media. Before Fox Noise, there was William Randolph Hearst.  There have always been right wingers on the radio; long before Limbaugh, there was Billy Sunday. In other words, things have always been this way, with regard to the media. And while "the media" seems more ubiquitous now, but the fact of the matter is, so is most entertainment programming. My cable system has more than 200 available channels, and fewer than 10 (including 3 C-SPANs) are news/information channels. It's hard to believe that they have all that much influence. In fact, if you look at the numbers, they don't.

The most popular cable "news" channel is Fox Noise Channel. Their most popular program is The O'Reilly Factor. The O'Reilly Factor boasts a total audience of just over 2 million viewers most nights.

The most popular radio talk show is Rush Limbaugh's, with Sean Hannity nipping at his heels. Limbaugh's show boasts 13.5 million listeners; Hannity boasts 12.5 million.

That means more than 98% of Americans do NOT watch Fox Noise, and more than 90% of Americans do NOT listen to either Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity.

Moreover, of the top 10 newspapers in circulation in the country, only USA Today and the Wall Street Journal can be said to have a right wing bias of any kind, and that is largely isolated on their op-ed pages, to their credit. The Washington Post has ten times the circulation of The Washington Times. The Nation has higher circulation numbers than The National Review, and The Progressive has a higher circulation than The Weekly Standard.

In other words, perception has once again trumped reality. And in this case, it's our fault.

You see, the right wing is a distinct minority in this country. They don't have the most votes, they don't have the most money -- what they actually have is the most bullshit. And progressives are largely the most gullible people in the world, because we actually help them get their message across, without even realizing it.

The most obvious example, of course, is the debate over reproductive choice. We lost that debate not long after Roe v Wade was decided, and it wasn't "the media" that caused it. I mean, the debate has never been anything other than "who gets to make choices regarding pregnancy; the woman and her doctor, or the government?" Yet, we let them make it into a debate between "pro-life" and "pro-choice," and we let them redefine the debate as being about "when life begins." Basically, we gave them their argument.

What does that have to do with the media? Nothing. It's one of the most perfect examples of exactly how lame we are when it comes to getting our point across to the masses. "The media" is not the problem; it's the inability of liberals and progressives to articulate a vision that the average person can get behind. It's not that Rush Limbaugh is such an effective media personality -- at the peak of his popularity, in 1992, his first candidate, Pat Buchanan, couldn't get anyone to notice him, and his second candidate, Bush 41, only got 38% of the vote, and he was the incumbent! Even with the supposedly "immense" right wing media machine behind them, then Republicans had to cheat to get the White House in 2000 and 2004, and managed to eke out a bare majority during a time when the Democratic Party was at its lowest ebb in almost a century.

The problem isn't that the right wing dominates "the media;" it's that we don't speak up loudly enough. We spend far too much of our time trying to out-shout right wing clowns, and not enough speaking to the people who actually decide elections; the men and women who work hard each day, who happen to like wrestling and NASCAR, and who are struggling to pay their bills every day, because their right wing heroes tell them one thing, while simultaneously screwing them. We have liberal pundits advising us to "write off" the entire South, largely because it's "too difficult" to actually convince these people that we're right. That's our problem, not "the media." When someone has a reasonable disagreement with our point of view, we tend to lump them all together, and write them off. When the Democratic Party doesn't do what we want, we become "independent," and we back candidates that can't possibly win, and claim that we're "voting our conscience."

Every time I listen to a call-in show, or talk to a liberal who likes Dennis Kucinich, the liberal asks the same question; "Why is Kucinich considered a second-tier candidate? is it because he doesn't have the good looks of an Obama?" Then, they go on to blame "the media," as if "the media" chooses the candidates. Yes, "the media" has their favorites, and yes "the media" has some influence. But look around you; even much of the liberal media is more drawn to Obama than Kucinich. And the reason he's not an attractive candidate is actually deceptively simple:

He doesn't listen.

He is a typical liberal, in other words. He knows what he believes, and he articulates that well. That is not a leader. It's great that he is vegetarian, if that's what he wants to do, and it's great that he's against the war, and has voted against all sorts of funding bills. It's wonderful that he's pro-environment. He's a great guy. But when one listens to him objectively, one gets a sense that he doesn't know or care what matters to the average person, who is working two jobs just to pay the mortgage and the utilities every month. And that, in a nutshell, is the problem with liberals in general. We don't listen, and we don'tspeak to the average person. In fact, we largely see the political "center" as a bunch of sell-outs with no core belief system. We look at them with disdain, as barriers to political success. Well, they're not a barrier, folks; they're the key.

Listen to the rhetoric from a too-large segment of the left regarding the Democratic Party, and you would think that every single politician with a "D" next to his or her name was some sort of "evil-doer" because some of them don't vote in lockstep with everything progressives supposedly stand for. Doesn't that sound remarkably like the kind of thing we usually accuse the wingnuts of being like? And what are we doing to fix the problem, anyway? Spamming Congresspeople with mass e-mails won't work; what would you do if you got a few hundred e-mails all looking the same? How about writing your Congressperson a handwritten (or typed, if your handwriting is really bad) personal letter? How about writing a series of them, about different issues? How about getting other people in your area to write them, and let them know what's up. A few dozen carefully written letters about an issue will get them thinking. And when they're on the floor, and they want to say something controversial, they would love to be able to point to loads of support from their constituents.

And if you want the Democratic Party to reflect your values, you actually have to become active within the Party. Register as a Democrat, attend meetings, start your own caucuses, and shake things up. Political parties are the ultimate democratic mechanisms; they reflect the people inside. It's not even a little bit realistic to stand outside the party and expect to scare them into voting your way. And if nothing else, we really have to become more realistic.

If we want to change things, standing outside and shouting at people isn't going to work. In fact, it will almost always have the opposite effect of the intended; people won't listen to us. And given that we live in a democracy, having a majority of people behind us is kind of a necessity if we're to push forward our agenda. I know a lot of people have this image of revolution, in which the powerful just capitulate, give in, end the war and give everyone health insurance. It's a powerful image, but unfortunately, we occupy the reality-based community, and we have to work toward certain things. We have to get a majority of people behind us. That's not "selling out;" that's democracy. That means we have to use "the media," and not simply piss and moan about it and write it off.

"But, how can we use 'the media,' when the rich Republicans own everything?" you whine.

Well, let's start with the fact that they don't own everything. Clear Channel owns about 1200 radio stations, which is about 9% of the total number of stations, and most of their stations play music. I do agree that media consolidation is a huge problem, and should be addressed, and I do think that large companies are locking out progressive talk from many markets. But instead of whining about the problem, why aren't we using our significant clout to petition OTHER stations to carry progressive talk radio? Of course, when they start carrying progressive talk, we have to do our job and make sure advertisers know that we appreciate their support, and make them rich for supporting it. Don't just listen to the damn stream passively; actively support progressive talk. If you're listening to a stream from another city, because your city doesn't have it, let some of the local radio station owners know that you would much rather listen over the air. Go to potential advertisers and let them know you would appreciate it if they supported progressive talk.

Trust me, folks; there's a market for anything in this country. As George Carlin once famously pointed out, the artificial vomit went on sale because the artificial dog crap sold so well. If we let advertisers know that there is a market for it, there will be progressive talk, regardless of whether there is a "fairness doctrine" or not. We must stop sitting back and waiting for politicians to do the "right thing," and then whining and complaining when they don't. They don't know what the "right thing" is, oftentimes, until the people tell them.

And stop looking at "the media" as the problem. The problem is us, and our tendency to choose martyrdom over political common sense. Most people are not news junkies, and don't listen to everything Sean Hannity says and act on it. We have to appeal to the masses, and as long as we find that distasteful, we will continue on the fringes.

"The Media" isn't the problem; we are.