Casual Soapbox

The first stop on the southern route of the Bring Them Home Now Bus Tour originating at Camp Casey was none other than my home city of Austin. I went with Harold of Sanity Island and his wife Donna, and got some pictures. Cindy marched from the Texas State Capitol to Austin City Hall, where we were waiting for them in the Outdoor Plaza, facing the 1st Street Bridge.

Speakers included Cindy Sheehan, Jim Hightower, Texas State Rep. Elliot Naishtat, Brooke Beasley and Julie Cuniglio of Gold Star Families for Peace and Jeff Key of Iraq Veterans Against the War. A number of Austin musicians were there, including Eliza Gilkyson.

I was especially pleased to hear Cindy say that the 5000 lbs of supplies she has left over from Camp Casey are to be taken to the Astrodome in Houston where they will be donated toward relief for the evacuees of New Orleans. God bless her for that! I care a great deal about issues of war and peace, but the devastation of the Gulf Coast looms a little larger in my mind at the moment, as I suspect they are for many on both sides of the Iraq issue. My prayers are with the people of the Gulf Coast. Donations can be made here and here.


Some people (like the guy with the sign) think peace protesters are just chicken. Because war is what you do when someone super double-dog dares ya.


Harold of Sanity Island and his wife Donna


Harold and me, wearing the No Nonsense in November shirt I got last week. I got more comments on this shirt tonight than I've ever gotten on a shirt in one day before. Vote "No" on Constitutional Amendment 2!!!


Half the audience is off to meet Cindy's march half-way. They're actually following the guy with the black umbrella.


Protesters stream off to meet Cindy.


A good point. 35% of the Louisiana National Guard and 37% of the Mississippi National Guard are in Iraq.


"We are the land of the free only because of the courage of the brave." -- the sign makes a good and obvious point. I don't see that it helps the pro-Bush folks though.


Another pro-war banner across the street.


Cindy arrives, bringing the throngs with her.


The crowd is much larger now. I'm guessing around 1000 people, maybe more.


Ann Wright of Honnalulu, HI, a member Veterans for Pease, was a career foreign service officer with the State Department who resigned her position in March of 2003 in opposition to the war in Iraq. (from the Bring Them Home Now Tour website.)


Genevieve is an Austin resident who was married at Camp Casey. She also does a mean poetry slam!


Harold finds a good spot to take pictures and video from.


Jim Hightower makes an appearance. He's very well spoken. He should run for something again.


Jim Hightower introduces Cindy Sheehan.


Cindy Sheehan wants to ask Bush, "What noble cause did my son die for in Iraq?" and "How many more soldiers will have to die?" Cindy also let us in on some of her plans, which include deliverying 5000 lbs of excess supplies from Camp Casey to the Astrodome for relief for New Orleans evacuees, attempting a meeting with Tom DeLay in Houston, and moving to Austin to run for mayor.


Not one more! Not one more!


Eliza Gilkyson has such a beautiful voice! She songs a song about what a man of God would do.


This Presbyterian minister starts up the prayer vigil.


The sound of the bell ringing was beautiful. Ask not for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee.

That's how long Gov. Fletcher of Kentucky, a Republican, took to plead the 5th in front of a Grand Jury investigating his corrupt hiring and firing practices:

I'm praying for all the victims of Hurricane Katrina. The situation there is truly horrific. New Orleans' complete evacuation has been ordered. The city is going to flood completely. Looters are taking to the streets. Martial Law has been declared. In Mississippi, the death toll is expected to be heavy. Power is out across Alabama. Health risks could remain for weeks. The National Guard has been called out to help, but 35% of the Louisiana National Guard and 37% of the Mississippi National Guard are in Iraq. I'm trying very hard not to despair.

The devastating impact of this hurricane is impossible to underestimate. The closure of the Port of Southern Louisiana is a big deal for the United States. The port is the busiest shipping port in the western hemisphere and the 4th busiest in the world. Why is the port so busy? Consider that all of this is happening at the mouth of the Mississippi River. The Mississippi river provides the primary shipping avenue for a large swath of the central and northern United States. Energy prices, already high, are going to get higher. If this port is not in working order at the end of September, harvest time in the US, the world's food prices will suffer.


Through all of this, Bush has been on vacation. Today, while the situation in Louisiana and Mississippi was deteriorating, New Orleans was flooding, and the magnitude of the disaster was becoming apparent, the President was playing guitar in California with Mark Willis. He's still in Crawford until tomorrow morning. He should have gone back to Washington days ago. At the very least he should have returned when a Category 5 hurricane made landfall a few miles from the busiest shipping port in the western hemisphere. It's time to get back to work, Mr. President. Your people need you.

Updates on Katrina as they come in can be found here.

I'll be donating here.

The Red Cross is another good place to donate.

Every Friday night, we Jews pray for peace. It's in every service. One of my favorite songs from services, which is a prayer for peace, kept coming back to me during my trip. The transliterated Hebrew:

And the English translation:

There were so many there who were mourning. Certainly Cindy Sheehan, but many other parents, siblings, and children of those who died in Iraq. Not to mention friends and co-workers. Many are mourning fellow citizens they didn't even know. And that mourning includes sorrow, anger and frustration, but also reverence and respect.

The peace movement in Crawford is very different in that respect from the caricature of peace protesters in place since the Vietnam era. There is a patriotic love and care for the soldiers and their families, as well as for the Iraqi people that is not just incidental, but integral to the movement that is forming. And although Cindy Sheehan was the genesis of it and remains a powerful spokesperson for the peace activists, that reverence and respect seems to be the force driving the movement.

War always hurts the powerless on both sides more than the powerful. That's the way it's always been. And it's one of the reasons why I'm always hesitant about supporting any war, and why my sympathies are easier lent to calls for peace. That said, I have always been very conflicted about this particular war, as I have written here before. I supported the war initially, largely because of the good I hoped would come to the Iraqi people. (I realize this was not the rationale the President used to convince most of us, but it was my rationale.) I think Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin has the right idea -- probably the best thing would be a gradual winding down of our presence in Iraq, beginning soon. And the peace movement that is being generated in Crawford, I believe, can help bring this about.

One thing that really struck me about the Peace protesters was how organized they were, considering they were mostly spontaneous volunteers. The movement has also been integrated tightly into the progressive new media infrastructure as well -- particularly Air America and the large liberal blogs, like Daily Kos, and streaming audio sites like the Brad Show. The Crawford Peace House had lent its support, and coordinated the needs of Camp Casey online. Cindy posted her diary on Daily Kos, and made regular and eloquent appearances on television and radio. And Bush's supporters in the media attacked her personally and visciously. Together, these things tell me this is a serious movement, and its effects will be long term, and probably have yet to be felt.

This gets me to thinking, why did Bush fail to simply meet with her at the beginning? It doesn't seem like a difficult thing for him to do, and it was fairly obvious to me that it would have defused the situation, probably preventing his recent slide in the polls. I can only assume it was arrogance or personal distaste for a meeting so filled with emotional conflict. Either way, I think it was foolish.

The protesters, both the Camp Casey protesters, and the counterprotesters, obviously had a great deal of emotion invested in their protests. The atmosphere was almost charged with electricity -- I think both sides were expecting conflict could erupt at any time because emotions were running so high. At Camp Casey, we were warned several times to avoid arguing with the counterprotesters. And as far as I know, most did. I only saw one incident of an arrest, and it was non-violent. And at Camp Casey I, a counterprotester tried very hard to start a public and emotional debate, but no one at Camp Casy took him up on his offer. I think because he was very insulting in his comments.

I think I had a misunderstanding at first as to why the counterprotesters were there. I thought they were pro-war. But now, I think they were simply pro-Bush. They didn't show up until Bush's approval rating had fallen and it was clear that support for the war was declining. They were only there for the weekend, and didn't offer as large of a sacrifice of time to the effort as the peace protesters. Their slogans tended to be simple, accusatory chants and signs saying "Support Our Troops" and "IM4W" and "Have you forgotten 9/11?". I think they felt the need to be there not because they loved war (who would), but rather because they love Bush, and the war is his. They were his devout followers, and to them, he could do no wrong. It wasn't about the war. It was about the President.

There was little communication between the two sides in Crawford. Bush refuses to meet with Cindy Sheehan. The police have the protesters cordoned off from one another. The crowd at the pro-Bush rally was said to have been whipped up by angry denunciations of Cindy and the peace movement. I don't see much hope for conciliatory interaction between the protesters and counter-protesters. But I have some hope that the caricature of the peace movement will be dispelled as time goes on. Then, hopefully, the American people will come to a consensus that this is a heartfelt foreign policy disagreement with the President, and it's not a protest against the troops or the flag.

Feast your eyes upon a buffet of Republican Governors roasted and skewered and glazed with a scandal compote. Our newest course, Kentucky Governor Ernie Fletcher, who today has pardoned nine underlings, throwing a wrench into the investigation of his adminstration's hiring and firing practices. And in the same breath, he announced he will be testifying before the Grand Jury, but would not speak while there. How is this possible? Why, by making use of the 5th Amendment protection against incriminating oneself. Survey USA had his latest approval rating at 34%. Impeachment for dessert anyone?

The interview I did for Kyle at Am I Patriotic about my trip to Crawford can be found here. After listening, please go vote for Kyle at Podcast Alley.

I almost forgot -- here are the pictures of the pro-war demonstrators:


The Yellow Rose storefront was the Pro-War side's version of the Crawford Peace House.


The guy with the flag tries to goad the Camp Casey I folks into a yelling match.


A mini-parade going past Camp Casey I and the Pro-War Camp.


The Pro-War folks.


I assume this is the Pro-War folks' shuttle. The Camp Casey shuttle of this size only went to from Camp Casey II to the Crawford Peace House.


The sign reads, "Perhaps it's providence. If so, democracy is a prerequisite."


I thought the sign saying "Who's paying you Cindy?" was totally inappropriate. She is not being paid to be there. She is there because her son died in a war that she feels was unjustified.


The complete counterprotest. I wasn't present for the much larger rally held at a nearby football field in support of Bush and the war.

Just got finished being interviewed by Kyle Shank for the Am I Patriotic Podcast about my trip to Crawford. It should be up later tonight. I'll post a link then.

Camp Casey II from the shuttle. The Press calls it the "Cirque Du Soleil Tent". I've heard it also looks like the Denver airport.


Crosses and Stars of David comemmorate fallen soldiers.


Joan Baez sings "The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down".


Cindy Sheehan announces she's taking her fight to Washington after August 31.


Harold has better zoom on his video camera.


The tent village at Camp Casey II.


The empty boots were haunting.


Terri Hendrix of San Marcos, TX entertains the crowd with a song about media consolidation. An unusual topic, but a very lively song.


The faces of the fallen.


The faces of the fallen go on and on.


I think this soldier's father was among the protesters.

The crowd at Camp Casey I.



The crowd at Camp Casey I in the other direction.


America deserves an honest answer. Is Bush capable of giving one?


No peace rally would be complete without a rendition of Bob Dylan's classic, "Blowin' in the Wind". This group was more on pitch and easier to understand than Dylan himself. I don't suppose that's very difficult though.



A display showing the faces of the first 1000 soldiers whose lives were lost in Iraq.



This display is updated to keep the total count of American casualties in Iraq.



The Gold Star Families demand accountability. The Bush Administration tends not to demand accountability of those who screw up. Instead, they give them medals (George Tenet), raises (Karl Rove), and promotions (Condoleeza Rice).



The flag flies at half-staff, honoring the fallen.

Police cordon off the protestors to protect right from left and left from right.


A meeting of Camp Casey I denizens, the gist of which was "Obey the rules."


This guys was amazing. He was spouting off awesome anti-war poetry off the top of his head. Truly incredible.


A protestor arrested? I don't know why -- she was shouting, "But I didn't do anything!" I heard there were other arrests as well today, but mostly of pro-war activists who got carried away.


As you can see, shuttle service was "sporatdic" and certainly not "on time". We spent the better part of the day on or waiting for shuttles.

Harold of Sanity Island and myself at the Crawford Peace House. Thanks again for driving Harold!


A memorial rock garden at the Crawford Peace House.


The Brad Show streaming live from a tent to the side of the Crawford Peace House.


I don't think Brad was expecting this... Brad was taking questions/comments from the audience, and Randi Rhodes, of the Randi Rhodes Show on Air America, just waited her turn. I think Brad was pleasantly surprised.


More Randi and Brad.


And one more.

So, I was in Crawford today along with Harold of Sanity Island (Thanks again for driving Harold!), and here's the first picture. I'll be posting more tonight here, and cross-posting at Am I Patriotic.

The banner speaks for itself. The young lady was giving out free bottled water from an ice chest. It was much appreciated.

I'm going to Crawford to see the hoopla for myself tomorrow. Look for a report with pictures posted here soon!

Another day, another evening sweating uncontrollably on the deck of Mother Egan's, talking politics with like-minded folks, and enjoying free popcorn, chips and salsa. This time I was there for a fundraiser for No Nonsense in November, an organization dedicated to fighting Ammendment 2 on the November 8, 2005 ballot here in Texas. I was pleasantly surprised at the turnout. It looked to me like over 100 people were there -- more than at the Keep Austin Blue meeting yesterday evening. My partner and I made a donation and got a nifty T-shirt.

The unnecessary and discriminatory ballot measure would ammend the state constitution to prohibit gay marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships (all already prohibited by law), and could be used as an excuse to prohibit common law marriage as well because of its overly broad language. It could endanger health care benefits granted to domestic partners and common-law spouses granted to employees of local and state governments. And it could have unintended consequences in other areas, as similar ballot measures did in Ohio and Utah cases where courts ruled the domestic violence laws no longer applied to unmarried couples.

The first speaker was Travis County Commissioner Karen Sonleitner, who spoke briefly in opposition to the ammendment. I was encouraged to see a Texas elected official involved so early in this campaign. Although I'm not particularly familiar with her, her appearance here was significant to me, and if given the chance, I will definitely support her in the future.

The second speaker was former Texas State Rep. Glen Maxey, who is the campaign director for No Nonsense in November. He mostly spoke about the campaign strategy, and how hopeful he was that we might be able to pull out a victory here. He pointed out that this will be a low turnout election, so who wins will depend mostly on whose supporters come out to vote. He also noted that people who are most likely to vote are those who are angry, and those who are specifically asked to come out and vote.

Maxey also noted that in College Station, TX, the inaugural fundraiser for No Nonsense in November garnered over 100 attendees. This is especially encouraging considering that the Bryan/College Station twin cities are one of the most conservative and Republican areas of the state. Combined with the large turnout at this fundraiser, I tentatively find my hopes rising that we might actually be able to win this thing.

I was also pleasantly surprised to meet John Courage there. Mr. Courage is a teacher in Bexar county who is running for Congress in Texas District 21, my district, against Lamar Smith. I specifically heard him describe himself as a liberal Democrat. Since Lamar Smith is a toady and footstool for Tom DeLay, I wish Mr. Courage luck in unseating him.

The best thing about last night was that this was a family event for me. My partner was there, as well as my brother and his fiance. And I can't help but feel proud of all of them for being there, and for feeling as strongly about this offensive ballot measure as I do. Of course, they were all 30 minutes late, leaving me to shmooze by myself with 100 people I didn't know. But if they hadn't, I wouldn't have gotten to talk to a wonderful lady named Becky, who was straight and cared immensely for what, as she said, is an important civil rights issue.

Again, Mother Egan's proved to be a great place for an event like this. There was plenty of room on their deck for everyone, and if not seating for everyone, at least seating for most people. They could use some fans out there -- Austin in August can get kind of warm, don't you know? The free chips and salsa were good. The free popcorn was incredible. We took our leftovers home with us.

Last night, a sweltering summer evening here in Austin, I went to Mother Egan's over on 6th street with my good friend over at Austin Action and his wife, and a co-worker to a meeting of Keep Austin Blue, a local Democratic club that I believe formed out of the vestiges of the Austinites for Kerry, Clark, and Dean clubs. The meeting was outdoors on their side deck, and although it was hot out, a cold beer and then a very cold glass of water helped with that. Someone brought a deck of playing cards I thought were very funny. They had famous pictures of women with Bush's face morphed in. Of course, when I describe them now, they seem like a pretty cheap joke, but hey, what can I say, I like cheap jokes.

There were three speakers. The first was Diane Henson, who is running for the Third Court of Appeals. She spoke about the importance of the position as an alternative to the ever-more-conservative Bush-appointee-filled federal courts. As an issue example, she mentioned Title IX, which she supports and points out that John Roberts, Bush's appointee to the Supreme Court, doesn't seem friendly to Title IX.

The second speaker was Daryl Slusher, a former Austin City Councilman. He spoke of the importance of paying attention to local issues, and reminded us that if not for the resistance of local activists to state-level conservatives, Austin might resemble Houston, Dallas, or San Antonio, instead of being the blue island in a sea of red that it is today. He was also coy about his future political intentions, not answering a question about what office he would run for next, but rather saying that he would say something about that soon.

The third speaker was Rep. Eddie Rodriguez who represents south and east Austin in the Texas State House of Representatives. He criticized the failed special session, and talked about the importance of affordable housing. Unfortunately I had to leave before the end of his speech, but I did notice pedestrians stopping to listen to some of what he was saying about affordable housing.

Mother Egan's rather impressed me. They had plenty of space on their deck for the meeting of about 50-60 people. The waitress was very nice, although she seemed a little overworked. The Shiner Bock I had was excellent, and although I didn't have any food, I saw others eating full and colorful plates of, I think, pasta. I find this encouraging as I'm likely to go to another event at Mother Egan's tonight and I don't know if I'll get a chance to eat first.

Well holy hell. I never thought I would see the day. This is CNN's top story:

What, indeed? May I suggest one of the following punishments to keep up the whole theme of medieval values implicit in all sides of this story?

While I find this all to be pretty hilarious, there's a very serious side to this too. Venezuela is a strategic adversary of ours, and this row injures our prestige vis-a-vis Venezuela in the eyes of the world. Robertson has just potentially caused America some serious trouble in maintaining that all-so-important flow of oil in the future. But not only that, America and Venezuela are engaged in a high-stakes behind-the-scenes struggle for influence in Latin America, and concern over whether or not America has a policy of assassination will only limit our influence. Good job, loser.

Why don't you just do it yourself, Pat Robertson?

Maybe Chavez will return the favor...

From American Research Group:

This is absolutely comparable with Clinton's 1993-1994 approval ratings. Certainly lower than any Pew has here. 2006 here we come!

Ruy Texeira of Donkey Rising analyzed the 1994 exit polls for American Prospect back in 1995. His conclusion was that the personal situation of Americans, which influenced their perception of the economy, was far more highly correlated to their likelihood of abandoning the Democrats than ideology. His data backs up the point I expressed in Part II (in my review of Joacobson's The Politics of Congressional Elections) that the very people who abandoned Democrats were the swing voters of the day, the Perot voters - white males with a high school degree, and some college. This paragraph strikes me as a pretty good explanation of what happened in 1994 (emphasis added):


To do well beyond extraordinary circumstances, Democrats need the story the public believes about politics, war, and the economy to be one that benefits Democrats. Get to work, all ye Clintons, Reids, and Pelosi's, etc.

A new poll from the Boston Globe puts Romney trailing his chief Democratic rival for 2006, 51% to 38%. Not good numbers at all for an incumbent. Reilly's lead has actually increased since March when Reilly lead 48% to 41%. Romney's basic problem here is that he is running for President. In order to do that, he has to be conservative and oppose gay marriage, abortion, and even emergency contraception. And this is Massachusetts. You can't expect to be conservative on social issues and have Massachusetts residents still re-elect you governor. I mean, it might still happen, but you really can't expect it.

From Sun Tzu at Daily Kos:
Very encouraging to see Arizona Republican Sen. Jon Kyl at only 44% against relative unknown Jim Pederson. Kyl's approval rating is hanging out in the forties, and he has never had a competetive race. His opponent is independently wealthy, but inexperienced. If he proves to be good on the campaign trail, this contest will jump out of the "Solid Republican" category, and move down to "Leans Republican" in my book. In a good year, this seat should be winnable. I'm crossing my fingers.

Gary C. Jacobson writes in The Politics of Congressional Elections that Republicans won mostly by "fielding (modestly) superior candidates who were on the rights side of issues that were important to voters... and persuading voters to blame a unified Democratic government for government's failures."

Republicans nationalized the election by riding three waves: public disgust with politics, politicians and government; conern that American economic and social life was going in the wrong direction; and the rejection of Bill Clinton by the swing voters of the day: Perot voters and Reagan Democrats.

Polling. Illustrating the trend of disgust with politics, one 1994 poll showed Congress with an all-time high disapproval rating of 79%. And illustrating American concern about the economy and social fabric, an October 1994 poll showed 53% of respondents thought America remained in recession. Also, in exit polls. 57% thought the naton was on the wrong track, while only 37% thought the nation was on the right track. And although Jacobson does not site polls regarding Clinton's approval rating at the time, some can be found over at the Pew Research Center showing that in early October, Clinton's approval rating had dropped to 38% with 47% disapproving.

Public disgust with politics, politicians, and government came from gridlock and scandal. Gridlock was an expected component of the divided government of the 1980's, under Republican Presidents Reagan and Bush, both of which had to deal with a Democratic Congress. When Democrats regained control of all branches of government in 1992, they were supposed to end gridlock, but because of Republican unity and the filibuster, as well as Democratic disloyalty, gridlock remained. Scandals such as the collapse of the Savings and Loan institutions in the late 1980's and the related Keating Five scandal, the resignation of Speaker Jim Wright in 1989, the House Banking Scandal of early 1992, and the corruption charges against House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dan Rostenkoski in 1994 helped contribute to an environment of disgust at members of Congress.

Concern over the direction of the country came partly from the perception that the issues Congress was failing to address were serious. Many thought the country was in recession. Crime, illegal immigration, and unmarried teenage welfare mothers dominated the issue landscape. And nothing was being done about it by the Democrats, who were in control of everything.

Clinton's reputation as a leader was heavily damaged by the Republican gridlock strategy as well. But Clinton had also managed to alienate the swing voter consituencies of the Perot voters and the Reagan Democrats, and this was far more damaging to him than his poor overall approval ratings. He did this by emphasizing diversity in his cabinet, trying to repeal the ban on gays in the military, and passing NAFTA, which both groups of swing voters opposed. These issues made white, conservative blue collar workers feel the Democrats were not on their side.

Republicans had a strategy of nationalizing the vote. That is, they hoped to decouple people's votes from the specific things their representative had done for them by framing the choice as one between a supporter of the liberal party of Clinton, big goverment, and politics as usual, and an opponent of these things. Individual Republicans running for office accomplished this in their race with ads morphing whichever local candidate they were running against into Clinton. They were helped by the fact that the government was completely Democratic, and therefore government failures due to gridlock and corruption could be blamed on the Democrats. The Democrats' traditional strategy of emphasizing porkbarrel spending backfired as people equated pork with politics as usual and corruption.

The Contract With America actually had little impact on the election, as most voters (71%) had never heard of it, and most of those that had (another 15%) said it wouldn't make any difference in their vote. Of those that had heard of the Contract and said it would make a difference in their vote, it was within the margin of error between making the voter more (7%) or less (5%) likely to vote for a candidate whether or not they supported it. The Contract was much more useful, however, after the election, since the Republicans could claim a mandate for the actions it suggested.

I really made a mess of things in my first election. It was 1994, the year of the Republican Revolution. Now I've always been rather progressive in my political leanings, but at the time, I fancied myself an independent. To prove (I guess to myself) that I was not beholden to party, I voted Republican for both the House and Senate that year. And I have regretted it ever since. 1994 was devastating to both the Democratic party and to liberals. The Democrats lost 56 seats in the House of Representatives, and 8 seats in the Senate, and control of both. Every year since, I have tried to make up for my vote with a straight-party Democratic ticket. And every year I hope for a Democratic Restoration.

So obviously, the idea that 2006 might be for Republicans what 1994 was for Democrats intrigues me. I am, by nature, hopelessly optimistic, so as I've written here, I see many signs that a comparison is warranted. The first step in analysis of the likelihood of a Democratic Restoration, as I see it, is to do my best to explain the Democrats' devastating loss in 1994 of both houses of Congress, and a majority of governorships and statehouses.

I'll start with a summary review of Walter Dean Burnham's Theses on the 1994 Election, easily found online, written shortly after 1994 election. Burnham idenitifies 5 reasons for the Republican Revolution:

1. The jobless recovery. In Oct 1994, 59% of Americans believed we were in recession. So far, no quarter of the recovery had been above 3.5% growth. And the Fed was busy raising interest rates.

2. The failure of Clinton's Health Care proposal. People were not clamoring for it. It was a bad public relations move to push for it because it caused economics to disappear from the political scene, and allowed Republicans to criticize it as "just another big bureaucratic program."

3. Clinton's unpopularity. Burnham links this to several factors. First, Clinton had terrible relations with the military, and with the Catholic Church. Second, Clinton pursued the public and vocal empowerment of minorities and pandered to small unpopular groups (like, sadly, gays). Third, lightning rod figures in the administration like Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders caused Clinton embarrassment. And finally, the relentless attacks on Clinton in the emerging medium of talk radio, particularly from the popular host Rush Limbaugh, in coordination with the Republican National Committee, helped keep Clinton's popularity down.

4. The apparent rotting social fabric. There was a sense of something very wrong with the American social fabric in 1994. This was due to intense media coverage of violent crimes, and welfare and education concerns many citizens shared. Republicans were able to make use of these concerns to create a call for a revitalization of the American social fabric.

5. The overall structure of the political environment.There was no organized Left in America to coordinate any sort of counter-offensive to the very organized Republican attack. In the past, the Left in America had relied on economic catastrophes and other national events to propel them to greater power. There was no hope of that in 1994 as they were the party in power. And Americans historically prefer less government, local action, and the "wisdom" of the majority to more government, national action, and minority rights. And he also includes this nugget we Democrats should have all listened to back then, referring to what we now call the Republican Noise Machine:

In addition, Burnham mentions the nationalization of the election, a strategy of Republicans in 1994, and the realignment of the South, Congressionally speaking, but doesn't include either as one of his 5 reasons. He also interprets the results of 1994 as a turning point, as non-temporary, and as exceptional in recent American history since it reversed many long-standing trends.

All of these things, I believe, are useful to keep in mind when trying to determine whether or not the next election, or, failing that, any subsequent election, are destined to sweep Republicans from power as I so desperately hope.

Well, that didn't take long... (from AP):

Although the statistics I had in my head and spouted off recently to friends were way off, the points I was trying to make are nevertheless still valid, though somewhat diluted by my exaggerated numbers. Those points are that America's incarceration rate is high, and a hefty part of the reason for that is America's drug war. So here are the real statistics (from the Christian Science Monitor in 2003):

Survey USA released its 50-state tracking poll for Bush's Approval Rating. At an overall approval of 41%, it's the lowest ever for Bush in Survey USA's poll. This dovetails nicely with Rasmussen's new poll showing Bush with his lowest ever approval rating for that poll at 43%. And as Chris Bowers at MyDD points out, Democrats and Independents are polling very similarly.

Corruption reigns supreme:

Boadicea has had a brilliant idea and started a blog focusing on Texas' 21st Congressional District, the best Congressional District in the world! (I live there.) Alas, it is represented by a cruel sockpuppet of Tom DeLay's named Lamar Smith.

In the 2002 election, Smith defeated John Courage with 73% of the vote. In the last election, after another bout of redistricting, Smith received only 62% of the vote. John Courage is running again in 2006. I don't know much about him, but the website seems serious and being in the race so early is encouraging. Pun intended, I suppose. I'll be following this race pretty closely.

From Lewis Powell, just before he became a Nixon appointee to the Supreme Court, this memo explains the strategy the right has followed since it was written and adopted in 1971. It's an interesting read.

Chris Bowers over at MyDD has a threefold requirement for any Democratic alternative to Hillary Clinton in 2008:
I wholeheartedly agree. As I've written here before, I think Hillary looks strong for both the Democratic primary and the general election in 2008. It will be a high bar that any Democrat has to meet before they'd be worthy of replacing her as front-runner.

Kyle Shank at Am I Patriotic worries that the country isn't ready to elect a woman. I could have sworn I've seen a poll on this somewhere... Anyway, my gut feeling is that Democrats are ready, and Independents are ready. I even suspect Republicans would be ready if the woman were rabidly conservative. But I think they are especially ready if that woman is Hillary Clinton. Why? Because of who she is. She is the wife of former President Clinton, and therefore will represent to most people a restoration of his Presidency at the 8-year crest of Clinton nostalgia. People will say, "If she's anything like her husband, she'll be a good President..." just like they were saying in 2000 of George W. Bush, "If he's anything like his father..."

Dead last is where Texas ranks among the states in high school graduation rates. But not to worry, we're in first in the number of clean water permit violations and first in the number of executions. Karl-Thomas Musselman (again, a truly awesome name!) over at Burnt Orange Report has more. Highlights include:

The top story on google news is one that is going on right here in Texas, and I haven't yet written about it, so here goes. Cindy Sheehan, a Gold Star Mother whose son was killed in an ambush last year in Sadr City, Iraq, is camped out in front of Bush's Crawford ranch, demanding answers:
Meanwhile, the Republican Noise Machine has swung into fifth gear, smearing her. Personally, I'm offended. Her son died in service to America, and she is understandably hurt, angry and thinks the war in Iraq was wrong. She is entitled to her views, but more than that, she is entitled to our respect. Even from those who disagree with her.

It doesn't matter if she changed her mind or not. People change their minds. And it doesn't matter if some distant relative disagrees with her or not. She knows her son better than anyone else in the news who claims to know what he would have wanted. The smearmongers should shut up, listen to her for a moment, then go back to arguing their positions. Bush should meet with her and take his lumps, then go back to governing, or if he'd rather, vacationing. It would be the right thing to do.

Check out Come and Take It, a community blog dedicated to imploding the Texas right wing by revealing their darkest fantasies and secret deeds, that I have now joined. The site is run by Michael Garemko, the Umpire of Corked Bats. While I'm excited about joining the community, I'm just a little nervous about posting there. I'm not sure why, but I think it has something to do with the anxiety I feel joining any new group (You know, "Will they like me?" and all that.), plus the sense that I'm not quite as plugged into the Texas political scene as most of them are. Ah well, no pain no gain.

War in Iraq is all well and good for the Republicans in Washington, but what is it doing for Texas Republicans? What we need is a war right here in Texas. How about a good old fashioned border war with Mexico? From the Austin American Statesman:



Of course, we can count on our Austin-area congressmen to stop this nonsense, right? So what's their plan of action here? Apparently, to co-sponsor the bill. Even my beloved Rep. Lamar Smith, who actually mostly represents San Antonio. Good old TX-21... Excuse me while I throw up:



One more thing I have to touch on here: the laughable idea of Rick Perry commanding anything. I can just see it now, Commander Perry tearing off his Kaiser Wilhelm helmet, miraculously revealing an unperturbed romance-novel coiffure, announcing on the steps of the capital: "I am a War Governor!" and "Remember the Alamo!" and "We must create a Grand Army of the Republic!"

The NRA doesn't seem to like Sen. Mike DeWine much. According to The Hill:

Scott Shields has more:

Personally, I'd like Brown to enter the race. Progressives would be very excited about that. Ryan would be a strong candidate as well, but he's not pro-choice, so I'd be hopeful, but not excited. The third choice, Paul Hackett, did well enough on 2nd Ammendment issues to get the NRA to give a very tepid endorsement of Jean Schmidt. If Hackett is DeWine's opponent, the NRA really might sit out. No way around it, DeWine is in trouble.

Chris Bowers of MyDD and Matt Stoller of The Blogging of the President have written a report on the progressive blogosphere that is probably destined to be a turning point in Democratic politics. I highly recommend you check it out.

It should give some guidance to Democratic candidates on how to get the most out of the blogs. Some guidelines include: