Be nice to your representative
February 15
No seriously, and I say that as someone who has been as frustrated as most Democrats with the failure of congressional Democrats to stand up the the acting president and the remnant of the conservative movement. Yesterday, House Democrats finally passed the contempt citations against Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten, despite the typical attempt by the Republicans to intimidate them by threatening and carrying out a walkout. They also refused to cave in to the acting president's fearmongering insistence that they vote immediately on the Senate version without going to conference committee. NOtice there was no insistence that the Senate vote on the House version. Good for the Democrats, and it feels good to finally be able to say that. I saw Majority Leader Steny Hoyer on C-SPAN, and it appeared he spoke from the gut, by which I mean there was an unusual tone of seriousness in his speech during the debate (the debate the Republicans kept complaining they weren't having --- during the debate) and in rhetoric --- as well as in the deed --- the Democrats showed they finally got it about the seriousness of the executive branch blowing off congressional subpoenas. it would effectively mean the end of Congress's oversight function, and the repeated attempts of the Bush administration to lie, hide, and refuse to disclose would have succeeded. Still might of course, because despite the law, the new Torture Boy, Michael Mukasey, said he would not enforce congressional contempt charges.
In case you've forgotten what these contempt charges were about, Miers and Bolten were supposed to testify to what they knew about the fired US Attorneys scandal and politicization of the Justice Department. No, that investigation didn't finish, but merely got stymied. Though Gonzo resigned and press interest ended, one line of inquiry was into who gave Gonzo his instructions.
So now that the House Democrats have finally shown backbone, the lack of which has driven their poll ratings down almost to Republican levels, do what I did and contact your representatives to either thank them if they voted for the contempt citations, remind them about Albert Wynn if they caved again, or to tell the Republicans to just keep walking next time. No kidding, after Boehner made a speech complaining of Democratic "grandstanding," the Republicans walked outside to waiting cameras in front of a podium they had set up for the occasion.
We know the next conservative attack on Obama
February 3
We know what the right wing's attack on Barack Obama will be ... besides the Muslim smear that is (just in case someone doesn't know, he isn't Muslim, and he didn't go to a Muslim madrassa in Indonesia, and "Mohammed" isn't one of his names). The attack is that he has no substance. This column by Froma Harrop is a good example. I've heard conservatives say in the media nad in conversations that Obama keeps using the word "change" but never says what he would change. They're right of course, Obama never gets into substance, expect in interviews. And the debates. And stump speeches. And election night speeches. And his web site.
If Republicans don't know the substance of Obama's positions, it isn't because the information isn't readily available. I don't expect most Republicans to take an interest in Democratic debates or listen to Democrats being interviewed. COlumnists like Harrop however are just being , um, let's say disingenuous. These supposedly are people who do follow the other side's candidates, allegedly do some research before commenting, and still repeat this "no substance" charge. It's easy to refute if someone is willing to find out but if they won't, then they won't be convinced. I bring this up to alert Democrats, and maybe even ideally the unconvinced but convincible, that this is the line of attack that will be taken by Republicans, at least those willing to pass on the "Obama is a Muslim" smear.
I will say though that in way the Muslim smear is a brilliant one, because it works on several levels. It plays to the Islamophobia of the GOP base and many independents too. Many who don't believe it still won't know if it's true, so know Obama starts out being doubted. It also plays into the notion that Obama isn't being honest about his background or who he is. When Obama denies it, he either appears to buy into the notion that being Muslim is inherently an accusation and thereby offend Muslims, or he has to hasten to add "not that there's anything wrong with that", which still plays into Islamophobia and makes his denial sound suspicious. even if he refutes is effectively, he burns up some resources in order to do so ---- like having sympathetic bloggers write about this instead of something else. In a way, as I think about it, it sounds weak to have to retort by saying this smear says something about the smearers, and their willingness to believe this long-debunked nonsense says something about those who believe it: but damn it, it DOES say something about the people putting out the smear. It DOES say something about the people who fall for it. The crossover support Obama seems to be picking up indicates he's right, more than I would have thought, about how much people want to get past partisan bickering. However, that's the grassroots. At the leadership level, in terms of the people running campaigns and interest groups, the independent expenditures and talk radio, he is up against people with no scruples. Even if he doesn't want to say that publicly, I sure hope he realizes it.
And something I want to say to fellow Democrats: the best Clinton can do is win narrowly. I think she would win if nominated, but narrow is the best she'll do, and she won't have much leverage with Congress. Obama has a much better chance of a big win, that sort the gives a real mandate, not an imaginary Bush mandate but the sort that tells Congress they fight him at their peril, and creates the coattails that turns some congressional seats.
