Progressive Movement

Right now the Senate is voting on the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. This bill would reauthorize the program and expand coverage to include

Bush, however, wants to veto it, even after campaigning for expanding children’s health care coverage in 2004 while running for reelection.

Why?

Bush cites “philosophical differences.” He told reporters, “My concern is that when you expand eligibility…you’re really beginning to open up an avenue for people to switch from private insurance to the government.”

Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt characterized the SCHIP legislation as “a Washington-run, government-owned plan, where government makes the choices, where government sets the prices, where government then taxes people to pay the bill.”

This is a total fabrication. The program exists, works well, is run by the states, and will not cost more in taxes. Under the program you can still go to whatever doctor you want.

Messaging

The conservative messaging is clear - liberals want to shove socialized medicine down your throats and ruin our health care. How would SCHIP ruin our health care? By being socialized. How would socialized medicine ruin our health care system? Not exactly sure, but apparently conservatives have many Americans thinking it will.

They have brainwashed people against government insurance type health care plans (i.e. ‘socialized medicine’) by simply repeating it as an obvious truth - socialized medicine destroys health care. It does not matter if it is true - they never have any facts to back this up - it only matters that they say it with conviction, and often.

What makes all of this even more ludicrous is that despite the fact that the government does not even run the SCHIP program, Bush still uses the ‘slippery slope’ argument as a rational for denying poor kids access to health care.

To counter this, (more…)

Messaging, health care, SCHIP | No Comments »

Fox Opinion has started going after progressive bloggers, particularly Daily Kos. This increased attention has coincided with the YearlyKos Convention (no accident there). Just last week Bill O’Reilly banned a liberal blogger from his website when that individual exposed threatening comments on O’Reilly’s message board. And check out this video compilation of Fox attacking progressive bloggers.

Seems like the efforts of groups like Media Matters and progressive blogs to expose the bias and hate of FOX’s right wing slant is finally getting noticed. Conservative wingers blame the left wing blogs for taking down Don Imus, and now they are afraid, as FOX’s ratings decrease and the likes of Keith Olbermann gain ground, that this exposure of their bigotry will take FOX, O’Reilly, and others down further.

It is kinda paranoid if you ask me. Liberal bloggers are bringing down Fox’s numbers? That would be nice, but more likely they are losing ground because people are beginning to see that they are nothing but tabloid journalists spewing hate. Then again, that is one of the main goals of the progressive blogosphere. So if Fox Opinion feels they need to get down in the muck with progressive bloggers, then we must be doing something right.

So whatever we do, keep it clean (unlike the Daily Kos post above) and keep up the pressure by exposing conservatives’ hate to the public at large, and more importantly, to their sponsors (see the America Blog link above for action you can take).

media, Bill O'Reilly, Imus, Olbermann | No Comments »

Congress grew a pair and filed contempt charges against Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolten for not appearing before the House Judiciary Committee. Not sure it is going anywhere, as the Justice Dept. will refuse to pursue the contempt charges, but other legal options exist. I will leave that to the legal experts, but even if it goes nowhere, at least the Democrats are showing they are not going to be rolled by King Bush. The NYT described this Constitutional showdown best.

But the real interesting legal showdown is over Gonzales’ bold-faced lying Tuesday in front of the Senate. Wow. Either he is lying, or he is a complete idiot. If you are not sure, say so. He said it with such conviction that there can be little sympathy for the ‘oops, I did it again’ defense.

One more time, who runs perjury charges against public officials? You guessed it – the Justice Dept. I wonder if the Justice Dept. will pursue perjury charges against the head of the Justice Dept.?

But here again it looks like the Senate is willing to take action, and this coming from Republicans. This looks to be the beginning of the end of Gonzales and the further isolation of the imperial Bush Presidency. Too bad it has taken so long. This utter contempt of the rule of law and the complete politicizing of everything, including science and law, is categorically offensive and a threat to our democracy. And that is how Democrats should call it.

Attorney Scandal, Alberto Gonzales, Political Frame, executive privilege, Harriet Miers, Competency & accountability frame | No Comments »

So we have all heard that when Hillary wrote the Pentagon asking if they had a plan for withdrawal, she got a letter back essentially saying she, or anyone else, who questioned the war was a traitor.

This is par for the course. We have heard it before. But it has made the rounds, including this scathing response by Keith Olbermann, calling for Bush’s impeachment.

Now I know some people may think this extreme, but hitting back that hard makes it more difficult for the Republicans to use extremist language and rhetoric when attacking liberals or their ideas. You have to stop this kind of emotionally based garbage in its tracks. If you let it go unchecked they keep doing it, and then you end up in a position like Hillary did of having to distance herself from the word ‘liberal’ in Monday’s YouTube debate. No more, (more…)

Messaging, Iraq, Hillary Clinton, weak on defense label, Olbermann | No Comments »

I know I said I was boycotting debates until after Labor Day. But I wanted to watch this one for the whole user generated questions bit. So here is my quick rundown.

Gravel: This dude is nutty, but does offer differences of opinion from most of the candidates and the Democratic mainstream, such as supporting more competition in public schools (through vouchers and the like). He did focus on how all the other candidates raised money from lobbyists, PACs, etc…, a real question considering money often decides political decisions.

Dodd: Man, this guy is just boring, and his ideas are not different enough to make him stand out. His YouTube video was self-deprecating and funny though, but not enough to help his cause. Pretty basic performance overall.

Edwards: I prefer Edwards to all the other candidates, but I felt he was not sharp enough. He needs to find his voice again and speak more from the heart. He did it more than any other candidate up there, but that is his strength. Did a little attacking too. He needs to pick that up a tad (but not overdo it), if he wants to close the gap with Clinton and Obama.

Clinton: Gotta say it, but she did well. Very polished, even if her ideas are not progressive enough. Speaking of progressive, that was her best answer of the night, when asked if she was a liberal, she responded that it was unfortunate that conservatives have made liberal a bad word, but that she considered herself a modern progressive. She definitely helped herself by this debate. She may be playing it too safe though.

Obama: Also played it safe, and should have gone more into his vision of hope and progress a little more. However, his main rap is that he has no substance. (more…)

Issues, Edwards, Obama, Hillary Clinton, Dodd, Richardson, primaries | No Comments »

I have skipped all the chaos surrounding the Iraq debates and all-nighter pulled by the Senate this last week. And then there was the National Intelligence Estimate that came out Tuesday. The following interview with Michael Ware, CNN’s correspondent in Iraq happened Tuesday. It is highly enlightening and comes from a man who does not really support withdrawal. That makes his comments even more important. It gives us an insight into what progressives are really thinking, but the party elite refuse to say for obvious reasons.

The real question is what happens in Iraq after we leave. Bush and company offer us horrific visions of a resurgent Al Qaeda. What do the Dems offer, and how are the countering Bush’s propaganda? Ware’s answers may offer a way out. I have highlighted some key parts.

BLITZER: Michael, among other things, this National Intelligence Estimate report suggests that Al Qaeda is seeking to leverage Al Qaeda in Iraq for attacks against U.S. targets outside of the Iraq.

Now, you’ve actually reported on this extensively. You’ve met with Al Qaeda operatives inside of Iraq.

Is that your assessment as well?

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, let me say this first, Wolf. I mean that statement in the NIE is about three years too late. The fact that Al Qaeda has reorganized itself through the war in Iraq that America handed it on a silver platter in its own backyard, that the war here through Al Qaeda in Iraq has energized the Jihadi community across the globe, that it has produced a whole new generation of Jihadis — bolder, more brazen and more brutal and more committed, if that’s at all possible, than the generation before it, is old news.

We saw that happen back in 2004. Since then, we’ve seen it nothing but flourish.

The question now is will an attack [be] directly launched from Al Qaeda in Iraq against U.S. homeland?

Now many of us were saying back in 2004/2005 if, heaven forbid, there’s another 9/11 in America, then of the next 19 hijackers, I’ll almost guaranteed one of them will be Iraqi. And at least part of the plot will have been hatched here in Iraq.

That being said, while we are seeing the Iraq veterans — these guy who come into a six month tour or a 12 month tour in Iraq, blood themselves against American forces and go home, they’re creating a whole new momentum back in their homelands, be it here in the Middle East, be it in the Gulf, North Africa or be it back in Europe.

That being said, also, the true danger of the Al Qaeda in Iraq is the template or the model it offers. (more…)

Messaging, Iraq, Administration, Analysis, Troop withdrawal, weak on defense label, Al Qaeda, Michael Ware, CNN | No Comments »

The Reuters story from the previous post did point out one interesting thing. In order to block the bill, Bush had Rice and Gates tell Senate Republicans to wait until September before they made any decisions on Iraq.

Now that is interesting.

Analysis

Bush made the initial sale for the escalation by setting up the September assessment by Gen. Petraeus as the marker for determining the plan’s success, then he backpedaled on the September deadline when things went bad in May, and now he wants to resurrect the September assessment in order to stop the exodus of Republicans from his plan. Will some bold Democrat please stand up and point out this blatant snake oil salesmanship?

Heck, after praising the early apparent success of the ‘surge’ in April, the White House had the audacity to claim the escalation had not even started yet when the success turned out to be illusory.

Tony Snow miraculously claimed they never even set September as a deadline!

[Lugar] also talked about it done by September, and the fact is we don’t think everything will be accomplished by September, or we never said that.

But now they are singing a different tune. And once the Republicans fall in line like they always do (all they need are 41 Republicans to block any real proposals), the White House will go back to their same old tricks of downplaying the importance of the September report and then distancing themselves from its conclusions, just like they have the most recent assessment of the political situation in Iraq.

This charade around the September report gives Republicans enough political cover to act like they are being responsible on Iraq, like they want America to win, and will give the White House what they want, which is more of the same.

And the Dems will be stuck holding the bag, (more…)

Messaging, Iraq, Bush, Administration, Democrats, Republicans, Analysis, Political Frame, Richard Lugar | No Comments »

Gotta love this. Senate Republicans blocked a vote on Sen. Webb’s bill to demand troops have one year back home between rotations. Read that again. ‘We support the troops’ Republicans backed a bill that would improve the well-being of our troops. In other words, Republicans do not support the troops.

Check out this headline from Reuters, “Senate Republicans stop more leave for troops”.

Ouch.

Sen. Reid, for once, nailed it,

“I am discouraged that the Republican leadership chose to block this troop readiness amendment. If Republicans oppose troop readiness, they are entitled to vote against it. If Republicans don’t believe that our courageous men and women in uniform deserve more rest and mental health, they can vote no on this amendment. If they don’t agree that constant redeployments and recruiting shortages are straining our armed forces, they can vote no on this amendment.

But to block this amendment – to not even give it an up or down vote – shows that some of my Republican colleagues are protecting their president rather than protecting our troops.”

Unfortunately, Webb, the bill’s sponsor, spent too much time talking about bi-partisanship and little time on the merits of the bill. His Republican compatriot, Sen. Hagel, did get it right by invoking competency and morality,

“This was about the right thing to do in regard to our men and women who we ask to defend this country. And if we can’t get that right, then I don’t know what we can get right.”

Progressives have to make sure statements like the Reuters headline sticks in people’s minds: conservatives do not support the troops.

Take every chance you have to drive this point home, such as the Daily Kos headline, “Republicans Block Support for the Troops”. If we want to destroy the conservative advantage on security issues, we have to make people question the common, but false conception that they care about our brave men and women in the military.

Messaging, Iraq, Reid, Republicans, military, Hagel, weak on defense label | No Comments »