LiberalOasis: Archives For The Week Of March 6, 2005

He ran this essay as a full-page ad in at least two major newspapers (last week in the British Guardian, this week in the W. Post), slamming UN Sec. Gen. Kofi Annan�s efforts to expand the number of countries on the UN Security Council.

In his piece, Gaddafi rails against the Security Council, expanded or not, calling it �an ugly, forceful and horrible instrument of dictatorship� (not letting his own dictator status hold him back).

Calling for more power for the larger General Assembly, he concludes:

The world will ruin itself if it thinks of broadening the Security Council and disdains the General Assembly, as is the case at present.

A powerful call for the withdrawal from the United Nations will appear prominently and on a wider scale.

I personally will be the first of those calling for it.

Now, Gaddafi is know for tossing off, shall we say, �creative� ideas.

Such as his solution for Middle East peace, combining Israel and Palestine into a single state called Isratine.

So one could easily argue that little should be made of this latest rant.

But what if he�s serious?

If he is, his agenda would conveniently complement the neocon agenda.

Because if he pulled Libya out of the UN, perhaps prompting a few other nations to join him, that would weaken the UN�s inherent moral authority as the only body that can speak for the entire world.

And diminishing and demeaning the UN is an ongoing objective of the neocon-fueled White House, so it can more easily pursue its unilateral foreign policy.

While there is zero evidence of any coordination here, it�s worth noting that Bush has grown closer to Libya, even though freedom is most certainly not on the march there.

As Human Rights Watch recently reported:

The United States and European Union have rewarded Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi and the Libyan government for renouncing terrorism and weapons of mass destruction by lifting sanctions and trade embargoes...

...But internal repression remains intense.

Libyan law bans independent political parties, associations and media.

Torture is common, and hundreds of political prisoners are behind bars after trials that were deeply flawed.

Furthermore, the guy who negotiated the WMD agreement with Libya is leading UN-basher, nominee for UN Ambassador, John Bolton.

Gaddafi could be doing the US� bidding, or he could be taking action on his own that he thinks will further improve his relationship with the Bushies, or it could just be typical Gaddafi absurdity that won�t amount to anything.

But on the off-chance that it may amount to something, it�s something to keep an eye on.

March 10, 2005 PERMALINK
The Importance of Claiming Victory
(posted March 10 1:45 AM ET)

LiberalOasis has been cautioning that the political gains of killing Social Security privatization will be limited if Dem unity isn�t coupled with strong messaging, as it was when the GOP killed Clinton�s health care bill in �94.

(And in recent days, the Dem messaging has been getting better.)

But there are other reasons why the health care debacle was so politically potent for the GOP.

It wasn�t the first victory the GOP had in Clinton�s first term, but the capper on a series of political scores.

The GOP had already blocked Clinton�s economic stimulus bill, and denied him any bipartisan cover for his tax-raising deficit reduction package (which was controversial at the time, as the benefits of it hadn�t been realized yet).

They forced Clinton to pull a number of nominations, such as Zoe Baird and Lani Guinier.

And they had just begun ginning up TravelGate, TrooperGate and Whitewater.

As big as Social Security is, it still is just one issue.

If beating back privatization is the only big win Dems get in the next two years, and the debate doesn�t drag out much longer, it may be quickly forgotten.

That makes it all the more important to play up other wins Dems get.

While the grassroots are justifiably outraged that Senate Dems are about to give bipartisan cover for the horrendous bankruptcy bill, we shouldn�t let that overshadow yesterday�s impressive victory:

Killing Dubya�s pro-pollution �Clear Skies� bill.

Another reminder of what Dems can accomplish when they stand together.

Hopefully, the party will do all it can to spike the ball on this first legislative victory in Dubya�s second term, and highlight which party is the defender of the public well-being, and which is the shill for irresponsible corporations.

So far, there doesn�t appear to be any PR effort to crow, not even any posts on official party websites. That can and should change before the week is out.

If Dems can�t properly claim victory when they get the chance, they won�t build a record of accomplishment that will bolster their political capital as it drains the GOP�s.

And the more smallish victories they can string together, the more potent it will be when they finish off Social Security privatization once and for all.

March 9, 2005 PERMALINK
Go After Bolton, The Right Way
(posted March 8 10:45 PM ET)

Considering how little criticism Condi Rice got when she was first nominated to lead the State Dept., it was surprising to hear Dem leaders quickly lambaste the nomination of the anti-UN neocon John Bolton to be Amb. to the UN.

The W. Post even reported that �Democrats immediately signaled they would wage a spirited confirmation battle�.

It is doubtful that Dems can be fully unified, let alone muster up the numbers to kill the nomination via filibuster, based on the 2001 vote on Bolton�s nomination to be an undersecretary of State.

That was a relatively close 57-43 vote, but there are six Dems (including indie Sen. Jim Jeffords) who are still around that voted �Yes�.

(The other five are Bayh, Feingold, Landrieu, Lieberman, and Ben Nelson.)

With the reduced number of Dems in the Senate, those six are enough to prevent Dems from getting to the magic number of 41, what�s needed to sustain a filibuster.

However, there still could be long-term value if the rest of the Dems launch a sustained attack on Bolton.

But that is only if they use the confrontation to show how Democratic foreign policy principles are distinct and superior to the current neocon policy.

Today�s W. Post column from former Clinton official Susan Rice criticizes Bolton in precisely the wrong way:

At the 60th anniversary of its founding, the United Nations has rarely been more relevant or in greater need of reform.

President Bush seems to understand this. In December he pledged three international goals for his second term.

"The first great commitment," he said "is to defend our security and spread freedom by building effective multinational and multilateral institutions and supporting effective multilateral action."

Is John Bolton the right man to lead this effort?

[He] may be deemed qualified, but his record on multilateral issues is alarming...[He] holds many strong views that diverge sharply from current U.S. policy.

This approach is based on the ludicrous proposition that Bush �understand[s]� the importance of the UN, and Bolton is some sort of wayward fringe figure who accidentally got chosen.

And if the Dem strategy is solely based on a recital of Bolton�s outlandish anti-UN quotes, the GOP will waste that attack in their sleep -- saying we need someone who will �speak frankly� to hold the UN �accountable�.

Dems should recognize that this not about Bolton, but about what Bolton represents.

He does not �diverge sharply from current U.S. policy.� He is the embodiment of the current policy.

Which is to demean and diminish the UN, the only body that can regularly resolve conflict as they cannot be undermined by being accused of narrow self-interest.

And instead, trying to maintain world order by exerting unilateral influence -- which is already backfiring by sparking encirclement, as other nations link up to diminish us.

Now, this is heady, abstract stuff -- not the kind of thing that�s going to turn opinion polls around on a dime.

But that just means there�s no short-term political payoff.

To confront the Bolton nomination at the ideological level is a long-term strategy, so Dems will begin articulating an alternative foreign policy vision.

That will allow them to consistently respond to world events in a thoughtful, critical manner, without being reduced to pathetic praise of Bush�s phony democracy agenda, or haphazard, knee-jerk carping that makes them look unserious.

(The American Prospect is on the right track, offering up an example of an alternative foreign policy vision. May not be perfect, but it�s the right idea.)

If Dems just want to try to get a scalp, don�t bother.

Chances are slim that we have the votes, and even if we did, getting a more soft-spoken UN Ambassador (like the last two, John Negroponte and John Danforth, both not considered neocons), won�t do anything to change Administration policy.

But if Dems want to start debating competing worldviews, and show you can serious about national security without being handmaidens to dangerous policy, that is not only worth doing, it is increasingly urgent.

March 8, 2005 PERMALINK
Government: What The People Want
And What The People Are Willing To Pay For
(posted March 8 1:15 AM ET)

On Friday, LiberalOasis took a swipe at a recent strategy memo on Social Security from Democracy Corps� James Carville and Stan Greenberg.

While the memo rightly advised Dems to clearly state their principles, LO argued that in the end, the memo �danc[ed] around the heart of the matter�the role of our government�.

LO continued:

...the party has been too afraid to...make a case for responsive government, for fair and adequate taxation.

Too afraid to embrace its liberal underpinnings, and define it for today�s times, the way the GOP has for conservatism.

It is that fear which has hampered the Dem messaging, in Social Security and elsewhere.

It is that fear that leads Carville and Greenberg to think they can graft principles on the party through polling.

Soon after that post, Sam Weston, a spokesperson at Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, called LO�s attention to this 2003 memo from Stan Greenberg, co-authored with his daughter Anna, sponsored by Public Interest Projects.

(Raw survey data is here.)

It is an immensely important document showing how the public is quite ready to hear arguments for responsive government and fair, adequate taxation.

The Greenbergs conclude:

...we find powerful evidence that Americans believe that government has a central role to play in ensuring equal opportunity for all, in providing the services that create the conditions that make equal opportunity possible and that people see their taxes as a contribution to this collective endeavor.

And it is powerful evidence.

The Greenbergs asked poll respondents if �government should be responsible for� various societal goals.

Here are some of the responses. Percentages combine those saying �strongly responsible� and �somewhat responsible�:

-- Protecting the environment: 93% (69% strongly)

-- Keeping tabs on and regulating big corporations and powerful individuals who may abuse their position and hurt others in society: 92% (71% strongly)

-- Ensuring equal opportunity for everyone: 88% (67% strongly)

-- Guaranteeing a quality public education 87% (70% strongly)

-- Guaranteeing all have health care insurance: 79% (60% strongly)

-- Making sure no one lives in poverty: 76% (49% strongly)

-- Helping people not fall back when they face a crisis, become unemployed or face big health care, college costs or retirement costs: 75% (40% strongly)

But it's one thing for people to want their government to do stuff. It's another to be willing to pay for it.

Do people accept that their government can�t realize these goals unless they contribute tax dollars?

Yes.

The Greenbergs asked if people agreed with the following statements about taxes. Again, percentages combine those saying �strongly� and �somewhat� agree.

-- I don�t mind paying taxes because my taxes contribute to making sure we have public schools, clean streets, public safety and a national defense and a cleaner environment: 84% (61% strongly)

-- I don't mind paying takes because my taxes are part of my contribution to society as a citizen of the United States: 81% (56% strongly)

-- I don't mind paying taxes because I want government to play a strong role in helping people, when in need: 76% (46% strongly)

-- I don't mind paying taxes because it is my contribution to make sure our government helps create opportunities and keeps the economy growing: 75% (43% strongly)

Furthermore, a mere 38% say that �I don�t like paying taxes because government spends too much money on welfare and other handouts�.

Even less, 28%, say �I don�t like paying taxes because the government doesn�t do anything for people like me�.

So if it is the case that people want their government to be actively solving problems, and don�t mind paying taxes to that end, what is it that allows the GOP to succeed?

Because people have been skeptical that their government will spend their money wisely.

For example, in the Greenbergs� survey, 65% agreed with the statement: �I don�t like paying taxes because the government is too wasteful and inefficient�.

This is not a cry for less government, but a cry for better government.

(Do note though, as MyDD.com has, that the sense that government is inherently wasteful and inefficient has been waning, according to the Pew poll.)

Yet the Dems haven�t been making any case for government, while the GOP has a relatively easy time playing on people�s skepticism of governmental effectiveness.

But the numbers clearly show that the Dems have no reason to hide their core beliefs about the role of government.

And the opportunity is ripe, during this Social Security battle, to make it crystal clear to the public which party wants their government to work for them, and which party wants the government to not work at all.

March 7, 2005 PERMALINK
The Sunday Talkshow Breakdown
A weekly feature of LiberalOasis
(posted March 6 11 PM ET)

Democrats finally had some coordinated Sunday show messaging on Social Security, a very positive sign that Dems are gaining strength and focus as the debate continues.

To date, Dems have been beating the GOP without strong messaging. With strong messaging, Dems should be able to close out this debate strong and finish them off.

The main message Sunday was a drilling of the letter Senate Dems sent to Bush last week: no deals and no talks, until privatization is dropped.

On Sunday, Dems used that line in the sand to attack the GOP�s underlying motivations, making clear the two parties' principles.

Here�s Sen. Ted Kennedy on ABC�s This Week:

There has to be the guarantee to our senior citizens that Social Security will be there in the future, and that�s a commitment that all Democrats have made.

What we have now is, with the president�s program on privatizing Social Security, is the destruction of Social Security...

...if the President is committed to destroying Social Security, which is privatization, then it doesn�t make much sense to get into a negotiation.

He drops the privatization, then you have an entirely different kind of circumstance...

And Sen. Dick Durbin on NBC�s Meet The Press (video at Crooks and Liars):

The privatization proposal of the president is going to destroy Social Security as we know it...

...It doesn't strengthen Social Security. It weakens it. It doesn't address the solvency problem...

...We understand people have earned this Social Security benefit. They want a guaranteed benefit as a secure foundation for their requirement.

You can't start the conversation with privatization, which strikes at the heart of Social Security.

However, only Sen. Barbara Boxer went the extra mile, following LiberalOasis� suggestion to use this confrontation to make the case for government -- and even then, just barely.

Boxer was responding to her fellow guest on CBS� Face The Nation, GOP Sen. Chuck Hagel.

Hagel had no qualms taking on the larger issue:

...this is...not just an actuarial issue, in my opinion. It's a philosophical issue as to the role of government and the obligations and responsibilities of government.

Not just politically but, more importantly, what is government going to be able to sustain over the next 75 years?

We're going to saddle our young people with so much debt because we are making commitments that we cannot pay for except if we raise taxes.

Boxer, when asked why she �really believe[s]� that Bush would want to �destroy� Social Security, she wisely pointed to Hagel�s comments (video at Crooks and Liars):

...if you heard Chuck Hagel...he said on the one hand Social Security has been the best program we've ever had...

... But then he also said, this is a philosophical issue. This is about the role of government.

And that's really where you come down.

I mean, it is no great secret that since Social Security went into play, since Medicare came into play, the right wing of the Republican Party has been after these programs.

...Their plan of privatization will destroy Social Security. It's very simple.

You're taking funds away from the Social Security Trust Fund, putting them into these private accounts, turning Social Security from the guaranteed benefit into a guaranteed gamble.

And worst of all, plunging us into the most extraordinary debt. Talk about the debt on our young people.

While Dems were starting to click, the GOP found itself recycling failed talking points and playing defense.

On MTP, all GOP Sen. Mitch McConnell could do was bizarrely spin the Dems� throwing of the gauntlet as some sort of cave in:

...they're clearly now willing to talk. And I don't believe in the end they will insist that we can't discuss all aspects of this.

Dream on, Mitch.

Dems have the numbers to kill any privatization proposal.

And while their spine quotient has been low, they�re showing it now (on this issue at least), putting the pressure on Mitch and the GOP to turn the poll numbers around.

Dems setting clear, and popular, conditions that you can�t possibly meet, and that expose your agenda, is going to make your life harder Mitch, not easier.

Dems were also in sync in defending Sen. Harry Reid for criticizing Fed chair Alan Greenspan as a �political hack.�

The defense was not as full-throated as perhaps it should have been � no one was willing to embrace the �hack� term, and Durbin mistakenly called the word �slightly too strong�.

But they did echo the substance of the criticism.

For example, Durbin said:

...you had Alan Greenspan endorsing tax cuts which have driven us into the worst deficit situation we have ever seen in this country...

...and as he toys with this idea of privatization, it really does raise a question of his credibility.

Making that sort of criticism of Greenspan more acceptable advances Reid�s goal:

To knock Greenspan down a few pegs, so his pronouncements in favor of Bush�s reckless economic proposals can�t easily be treated by the media as unassailable.

The fact Reid was willing to go against the grain in order to alter Establishment presumptions, and that his peers went along for the ride, shows that they�re learning how to play the game in today�s Washington.

The Blog Wire
Tracking the liberal blogosphere

Human Rights First: Petition, aimed at Iranian officials, to protest the 14-year jail sentence for blogger Arash Sigarchi

David Corn: Is the Potential AIPAC/Neocon Scandal About to "Blow Up"?

The American Street: "I hate to break this to the Bush worshippers, but there has been a building Lebanese independence movement ever since the death of Assad and Israel pulled out of the country in 2000." (via Think Progress)

TomDispatch: "the Europeans see us as a dangerous but weakening power and that the recent Bush trip to Europe is evidence of a new policy of "containment" -- the beginnings of a global attempt (European, Russian, Chinese) to contain the Bush administration" (via Informed Comment)

Rep. Louise Slaughter news release: "The Ranking Members for [seven] House Committees ... have authored a Resolution of Inquiry, which would require the Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security to turn over all documentation regarding James Guckert's (AKA Jeff Gannon) regular access to the White House."

Raed In The Middle and Lies.com compare US deaths in Iraq to Vietnam

Looking At The Stars: "The Bull Moose needs to get his antlered head out of his sorry ass" (via Shakespeare's Sister)

Bad Christian: Spoof of No Child Left Behind rules being passed around school

alicublog: "No sooner does the SCOTUS ban child executions than conservatives begin the drumbeat of accusations of judicial overreach"

Political Strategy offers the leaked strategy playbook from GOP pollster Frank Luntz, in searchable text format

The Expat: "It's been (roughly) one year since Jean-Bertrand Aristide was evacuated (or kidnapped, depending on who you trust) from Port-au-Prince ... since the regime change, things have gone downhill with a vengeance"

Informed Comment offers a primer on Lebanon history and what it means for today

The SEA-EAT Blog has information about resources, aid, donations and volunteer efforts for victims of the SE Asian tsunami

**************

REVIEWS
What people are saying about LiberalOasis

"Among the best ways to [pay close attention to the grass roots] is logging onto Web sites like Liberal Oasis."
Joe Conason

"indispensable"
Tapped

"bloggeriffic"
Air America

"something interesting"
Eric Alterman

"quite well reasoned, almost scholarly"
Star Tribune's 2cents

"one of the sharpest political minds around"
Hartford Advocate

"must-read liberal mega-site"
Swing State Project

"unsurpassed political commentary"
P.L.A.

"wonderful"
BushOut.tv

"one of my many must-read-every-day sites"
Terminus

"it's what our site would be like [if we had] more time"
Bear Left

"smart new weblog for us lefties"
Reading & Writing

"always-excellent"
Groupthink Central

"consistently interesting"
Body and Soul

"If you're one of the few who has not been to Liberal Oasis, get on over there for great blogging, sharp humor and activism"
Ruminate This

"It's like a freakin' candy store!"
Chernovog's Journal

"Liberal Oasis is so good I ought to print it out and mail it to my Senators."
The Sideshow

"Excellent commentary"
The Guy James Show

July 26, 2002
"Political Site of the Day"
AboutPolitics.com

"Left-wing twits"
Right-thinking.com

"The parallel dimension in which supporters of Stalin, Hitler, Saddam Hussein and various and sundry other shitheels live."
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler

"Pathetic site"
Sean Hannity

July 29, 2002
"The Many Faces of Satan� Website of the Week"
Patriotist.com

GET AIR AMERICA

The Randi Rhodes Show

GET HUMOR

GET A JOB

GET ART

GET MUSIC

GET FOOD

Homestead Healthy Foods

Lasater Grasslands Beef

GET TRANS FATS

Ban Trans Fats

Boycott Hydrogenation

GET COFFEE

Coffee Traders

Counter Culture Coffee

GET A DATE

GET MORE HUMOR

Foundation for a Patriotic America

Funny Times

Humor Gazette

I Drew This

Alexander Pierre Luboknovich

MadKane

Michael Moore

Nothing Like The Truth

BUY STUFF...

Card Carrying Liberal

...OR DON'T

GET OFF THE GRID

Solar Panels for Energy

Source for Renewable Energy

GET FUNDING

Ford Foundation

Pew Charitable Trusts

Soros Foundation

Tides Foundation

GET PR

Douglas Gould

Fenton Communications

Hauser Group

The SPIN Project

Spitfire Strategies

GET CAPITAL GAINS

Calvert Foundation

Domini Social Investments

Greenmoney Journal

Parnassus Investments

GET UNIONIZED

GET LAID SAFELY

Nat'l Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy

Planned Parenthood

Scarleteen

GET REPRO CHOICE

Center for Reproductive Law & Policy

NARAL Pro-Choice America

GET ABORTION

National Network of Abortion Funds

GET HAPPY ANIMALS

GET GOD

A Religious Liberal Blog

Adventus

American Islamic Congress

Buddhist Peace Fellowship

Catholic Worker

Center for Progressive Christianity

Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy

ChurchGal

Clergy Leadership Network

Chuck Currie

Father Jake Stops The World

Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism

Unitarian Universalists

United Church of Christ

Universal Life Church

GET GODLESS

Church of Critical Thinking

Infidels

GET SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

Americans United for the Separation of Church and State

Our Conscience

GET RELIGIOUS RIGHT

Adult Christianity

Frederick Clarkson

I Hate Pat Robertson

GET MOON

Where in Washington, D.C. is Sun Myung Moon?

Rick A. Ross Institute

GET EQUALITY

American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee

Anti-Defamation League

Human Rights Campaign

NAACP

Nat'l Conf. for Community and Justice

National Council of La Raza

National Urban League

GET MARRIED

GET UNMARRIED

GET JUSTICE

Brennan Center for Justice

EarthJustice

Lambda Legal Defense

Legal Momentum

Mexican American Legal Defense

NAACP Legal Defense

National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium

Native American Rights Fund

Southern Poverty Law Center

GET RADIO

GET AMERICAN

Americans for Democratic Action

Campaign for America's Future

People For the American Way

GET SOMEONE ELECTED

America Coming Together

Democracy For America

Democratic National Committee

Emily's List

Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund

League of Independent Voters

21st Century Democrats

Wellstone Action

Young Democratic Candidates Network

GET SOME MORE BLOGS OVER HERE

Aron's Israel Peace Blog

Brian's Political Donnybrook

Brilliant At Breakfast

Everything You Know Is Wrong

Long Story; Short Pier

Northwest Progressive Institute

Not In My Bible

Off The Cuff, Off The Record, Off The Wall

Progressive Spirit Blog

Project For a New Century of Freedom

Shadow of the Hegemon

ThatColoredFellas Weblog

Liberal Oasis Logo Design: Ed Kim | Advice and Assistance: LuckyDave, Gina-Louise Sciarra and Maya Voskoboynikov | Special Thanks to Eric Alterman, Bartcop, Hated.com, MediaWhoresOnline and Smirking Chimp for their early cybersupport