NEWS
BBC News
BBC World Service (feed)
Guardian Unlimited
The Hill
Los Angeles Times
National Public Radio
The New York Times
Stateline.org
Washington Post

VIEWS
America Blog
American Leftist
Angry Bear
Brad DeLong
Corrente
Daily Kos
The Daily Howler
Democratic Veteran
Direland
Donkey Rising
Electablog
Eschaton
The Hamster
Informed Comment
Jack O'Toole
Kicking Ass
The Left Coaster
Liberal Oasis
Mark A. R. Kleinman
MaxSpeak
MyDD
NathanNewman.org
New Democratic Network
No More Mr. Nice Blog
Orcinus
Pandagon
Political Wire
Seeing the Forest
Rising Hegemon
Skippy
Smirking Chimp
StoutDemBlog
Suburban Guerilla
Take Back the Media
Talking Points Memo
Tapped
Uggabugga
Yankee Rag (NY politics)

NEWS w/ a VIEW
Air America Radio
AlterNet
The American Prospect
Bellaciao
Bush Watch
BuzzFlash
CounterBias
Common Dreams
Democracy Now!
Drudge Retort
F.A.I.R
From the Wilderness
Guerilla News Network
Mother Jones
News N S#*t
Project for The Old American Century (POAC)
TomPaine.com

ACTIVISM
ACLU
Americans Coming Together
Americans United
Center for American Progress
Epic.org
Democracy for New York
Democracy for NYC
GLAAD
Lambda Legal
MoveOn.org
NAACP
National Center for Science Education
People for the American Way
Sierra Club
Southern Poverty Law Center
United for a Fair Economy
Unmarried America

DEM COMMUNITIES
Democrats.com
Democratic Underground

RESEARCH
Citizens for Tax Justice
The Constitutional Principle
Economic Policy Institute
Disinfopedia
Inequality.org
Iraq Body Count
Iraq Coalition Casuality Count
OpenSecrets.org
OMB Watch
One Thousand Reasons
Media Matters
Misleader (of MoveOn.org)
Pew Forum
Pew Research Center
PollingReport.com

CELEB VIEWS
The Al Franken Show Blog
Margaret Cho
Michael Moore

Disclaimer: The above linked-to websites do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this website.

info at isebrand dot com

Why haven't the terrorists struck NYC again? (One answer: the French)
by IseFire - Thu 12/02/04 08:21 am EST

Why hasn't New York City—or the U.S. for that matter—suffered from another terrorist attack? New York magazine gives various reasons. One is: The French.

From the article. Michael Swetman, CEO, Potomac Institute for Policy Studies, former CIA officer, and special consultant to President G. H. W. Bush’ Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board -

"Don’t think because nothing hit New York, nothing was tried. Plenty was tried [since 9/11], but everything was thwarted. And this might surprise you, but French intelligence was key. The last one was a big attempt to strike our financial centers. A year before that, they were putting together a ricin attack. Both attacks were planned and staged from Great Britain. The French intelligence services have been just phenomenal. We wouldn’t have captured those cells in Great Britain if it wasn’t for the French…."

Loch Johnson, intelligence specialist, Univ. of Georgia, author, Bombs, Bugs, Drugs, and Thugs: Intelligence and America’s Quest for Security -

"[W]e didn’t transition quickly enough when the nerve center of the enemy changed from the halls of the Kremlin to mountain caves in Afghanistan. All of a sudden, we have to figure out how to intercept messages transmitted from mouth to ear."
[New York magazine commentary:] "The requires a formidable Arabic-speaking spy force, which would take years to build from scratch. But the French already have one, retained from their days as colonial masters of Algeria, Tunisia, and Morocco, not to mention their mandates over Syria and Lebanon. French intelligence knows how to root our Arabic-speaking insurgents. And while Jacques Chirac may not lend us any French soldiers, he’s apparently been generous with the French spy network."

Take Action vs. CBS and NBC!
by IseFire - Wed 12/01/04 06:00 pm EST

CBS and NBC have refused to air a United Church of Christ ad that emphasizes the church's welcoming of a diverse membership, including same-sex couples.

According to a United Church of Christ statement, the ad says that the church seeks to welcome all people, regardless of ability, age, race, economic circumstance or sexual orientation.

"Because this commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples...and the fact that the executive branch has recently proposed a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast," the church quoted CBS as saying.

You can view the ad on the UCC website at www.stillspeaking.com/default.htm

The ad has been accepted and will air on other networks, including ABC Family, AMC, BET, Discovery, Fox, Hallmark, History, Nick@Nite, TBS, TNT, Travel and TV Land.

Call CBS and NBC and tell them they are wrong for not airing a pro-tolerance, pro-inclusive ad by a Christian denomination. Tell them that you want them to air the ad.

To contact CBS, call: (212) 975-4321
To contact NBC, call: (212) 664-4444

More lessons learned
by IseFire - Tue 11/30/04 09:58 pm EST

Here's a key bit from Matt Bai's post-election post-mortem, "Who Lost Ohio?" in The New York Times' magazine, November 21, 2004. The true-blue emphses are mine:

...Ohio, like much of the country, was undergoing a demographic shift of historic proportions, and Republicans were learning to exploit their advantage in rapidly expanding rural areas that [Democratic] organizers..., for all their technological innovation, just didn't understand. In shiny new town-house communities, canvassing could be done quietly by neighbors; you didn't need vans and pagers.... In the old days, these towns and counties had been nothing but little pockets of voters, and Republicans hadn't bothered to expend the energy to organize them. But now the exurban populations had reached critical mass (Delaware County alone had grown by almost one-third since the 2000 election), and Republicans were building their own kind of quiet but ruthlessly efficient turnout machine.
…..
Therein, perhaps, lies the real lesson from Ohio, and from the election as a whole. From the days of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and especially after the disputed election of 2000, Democrats operated on the premise that they were superior in numbers, if only because their supporters lived in such concentrated urban communities. If they could mobilize every Democratic vote in America's industrial centers -- and in its populist heartland as well -- then they would win on math alone. Not anymore. Republicans now have their own concentrated vote, and it will probably continue to swell. Turnout operations like ACT can be remarkably successful at corralling the votes that exist, but turnout alone is no longer enough to win a national election for Democrats. The next Democrat who wins will be the one who changes enough minds.

Schumer: "Gaping holes" in airport security
by IseFire - Mon 11/29/04 08:58 am EST

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has found yet another failure on the part of the Bush Administration to keep America safe from terrorists. Only 5% of the 2.8 million tons of cargo-carrying commercial aircraft are examined. He cited data from the Center for American Progress. Remember the 1996 ValueJet airliner crash? That killed 100 people. An improper shipment of oxygen generators in the passenger jet's cargo hold exploded. The next airliner you're on will likely be carrying some for of cargo, too, including mail.

Bush says no privacy protection needed for new passport technology
by IseFire - Sat 11/27/04 06:28 pm EST

Bush has come out against privacy protection for new microchip-equipped passports. The passports, which debut in 2005, meet International Civil Aviation Organization standards; but, the standards themselves are deemed faulty by many. For starters, the ICAO standards don't require that the passport data be encrypted. Not only have privacy advocates raised the alarm about this, but according to documents obtained by the ACLU from the State Dept., countries including Canada, Germany, the Netherlands and Britain share the suspicion that the standards set for these new electronic passports inadequately protect against government snooping or identity theft by either criminal or terrorist organizations. More here.

Swiss SIGARMS wins more U.S. contracts
by IseFire - Fri 11/26/04 06:36 pm EST

Here's a news item I found interesting: The Swiss firearms manufacturer, SIGAMRS, which already supplies the FBI, DEA, and Secret Service with sidearms, has been awarded the Dept. of Homeland Security contract and the Coast Guard contract, too. (Beretta still supplies our military's sidearms; but, at this point I wonder if its days aren't numbered as the sidearm supplier to our soldiers, air force personnel, sailors, and marines.) The specific SIG model ordered is the SIG Sauer P229. The deliveries of 40,000 of these pistols have already begun. The contract lasts for 4 years.

Transsexuals win vs. Toys R Us
by IseFire - Wed 11/24/04 08:19 am EST

From Tom Shanahan:

The New York State Court of Appeals [on 11/23/2004] issued a ruling in favor of my three transsexual clients who sued the toy giant years ago for discrimination and won a jury verdict against Toys R Us for discrimination.

The decision is a major victory which supports the merit of our lawsuit and the argument that we have always asserted, transgendered persons are entitled to the same dignity and respect as everyone else.

The Court of Appeals by a 5-2 split agreed with the District or trial court Judge that "this was one of those unusual and infrequent instances in which attorneys fees should be awarded...to encourage the bringing of meritorious civil rights cases that would otherwise be abandoned."

The decision can be viewed on the Court of Appeals website. The Associated Press also released a story being circulated on the internet widely. You can also view the decision on my website at www.shanahanlaw.com, cases of interest page, Mc Grath v. Toys R Us....

Once the fees are awarded, we intend on sharing a portion with our clients and donating to [several] advocacy groups....

Congrats, Tom!

Please help out Juan Cole
by IseFire - Wed 11/24/04 08:00 am EST

From MyDD: By threatening to level a lawsuit, the lobbying group Middle East Media Research Organization is trying to silence indepdent blogger Juan Cole for having criticized them. (His blog is entitled, Informed Comment.) Chris Bowers over at MyDD asks, "What's next, Republicans trying to shut down the entire left-wing blogopshere through well-funded and completely unjustified lawsuits?" The answer is, yes.

Here's what you can do to help:

This technique of the SLAPP or Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation had already been pioneered by polluting industries against environmental activists, and now the pro-Likud lobby in the US has apparently decided to try it out against people like me.

I urge all readers to send messages of protest to memri@memri.org. Please be polite, and simply urge MEMRI, which has a major Web presence, to withdraw the lawsuit threat and to respect the spirit of the free sharing of ideas that makes the internet possible

It's the irrationality, stupid!
by IseFire - Mon 11/22/04 12:30 pm EST

Spain is about to legalize same-sex marriage. And Thursday night, full-fledged civil unions--marriage in all but name--received royal assent in Britain (i.e. it is now the law of the realm)! By definition, this means it passed the House of Commons. It did so, relatively easily, in part because there are now many out, gay Members of Parliament--Conservative ones, Labour ones, and Liberal Democrat ones.

More than a year ago I had a letter to the editor published in The New York Observer, in which I stated a simple fact: the only rational response to homosexuality is nonchalance. The same goes for gay marriage. Neither thing has cosmic significance. Neither causes the moon to fall to earth or rain storms to begin. Neither harms any individual in any way, shape, or form. As realities, as concepts, both homosexuality as a perfectly human, relatively rare but still universally recognized, ingrained preference and "gay" marriage as a law are ideally responded to with as much passion as one responds to the "issues" of blond hair or left-handedness.

Appropriate nonchalance. It's flooding Western Europe. It's similarly won out over idiocy among a majority of our Canadian neighbors. There's even talk of it in political circles in Brazil.

The opposite of rationality is irrationality, and those in irrationality's grip are referred to as idiots. Given that 78% of Georgians approved of the sweeping gay marriage and civil unions ban, given that a sweeping gay marriage and civil unions ban passed in Ohio by a 2-to-1 margin--in a state Kerry nearly won--the math demonstrates that uncounted thousands of pro-choice, pro-environment, anti-war, pro-stem cell research "progressives" voted for these bans in some or all of the 11 states in which bans passed.

This is a fact progressive Americans and gay Americans have to face, and it is an ugly one. Homophobia is pandemic in the Democratic Party. (See: Andrew Cuomo and his despicable, "Vote for Cuomo, not the homo" campaign, on his father's behalf, against Ed Koch.) What is more, the nascent 21st-century American progressive movement as a whole is in jeopardy of losing gay American volunteers, money, and talent as more gay Americans feel taken for granted by other progressives and, in particular, realize that the Democratic Party has actually done precious little for them--far less than the courts--and that no prominent Democratic Party leader, including Howard Dean, will champion the issue of gay marriage. These leaders instead bow to irrationality. In other words, they are, on gay marriage, idiots.

Gay Americans rarely have a hard time understanding how pro-reproductive rights or civil rights affect them and any minority directly and indirectly. My guess is that a huge majority of self-identified gay voters are pro-choice. But you heard it here first: the conversations are happening proposing orchestrated mass withdrawals of membership from NARAL, NOW, the NAACP, other so-called progressive organizations, and the Democratic Party itself, until there is a wider acknowledgement that gay issues are American issues, that gay marriage is a civil rights issue. Currently, gay marriage is the issue that dare not speak its name, the issue told to go to the back of the bus.

In the end, we will all stand together or fall separately.

It's time for American progressives to put up on gay marriage or shut up about the importance of a new progressive movement--either its necessity or its supposedly inevitable success.

It's aboot time!
by IseFire - Mon 11/22/04 12:00 pm EST

Well, it's about time the Canadians start helping out American progressives! :) See it to believe it:

http://www.marryanamerican.ca/

Purple majesty, not red or blue
by IseFire - Sat 11/20/04 04:22 pm EST

Consider the 2004 state-level elections:

Democrats retook the Oregon State Senate and now control the state legislature for the first time in 10 years.
Democrats earned a tie in the Iowa Senate and made a net gain in the Iowa House.
Democrats retook the Colorado House and Senate both.
Democrats won control of the North Carolina House.
Democrats seized the Montana Senate.
Democrats captured the Vermont House.
Democrats made a net gain in Minnesota’s state legislature.
Democrats reclaimed the Washington Senate.
Republicans gained an elected majority in the Tennessee Senate for the first time since Reconstruction.
Republicans grabbed the Oklahoma House for the first time in 83 years.
Republicans reclaimed the Indiana House; the GOP in IN now controls both houses and the governorship.
Republicans utterly routed Georgia House Dems; the GOP in GA now controls both houses and the governorship.

Protect Every Child. Kerry to introduce universal child health care bill on Senate's first day.
by IseFire - Sat 11/20/04 11:56 am EST

Sign the petition. But part of this effort to push forward values that matter: Democratic values. Every America child deserves a guarantee of health care. No American child should suffer under the present system. We can and must do better.

"DHinMI" over in what I call the Kosopolis analyzes this important Democratic values initiative well:

The purpose and value in what Kerry’s doing is to advance a legislative and policy agenda. Kerry is our most prominent Democrat not named Clinton or Kennedy. Unlike Gore, for whom I have great respect, Kerry is not taking a hiatus from the public stage. So, if he’s going to be around, we have no reason to begrudge him for making use of his high profile to draw attention to health insurance and election reform. Let’s hope he works hard and gets attention for his legislative initiatives because that would draw a great and stark contrast with the Republicans.

You don’t have to like Kerry. But don’t judge him on whether these bills will pass, and don’t dismiss the value that comes from him drawing attention to important issues that we almost all think should be priorities.

[Aside] Okay, it's not politics, but...Pierolapithecus catalaunicus is cool
by IseFire - Sat 11/20/04 11:56 am EST

The display this week of the fossils of the newly-discoveredPierolapithecus catalaunicus in Els Hostalets de Figuerola, near Barcelona, are amazing. It lived 13 million years ago and so far is the most likely candidate for the last common ancestor of all apes--that means, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, bonobos, and humans.

Iowa's blue Bush paradox
by IseFire - Fri 11/19/04 12:30 am EST

Gov. Thomas Vilsack of Iowa, a leading contender to chair the Democratic National Committee (DNC) is getting raked over the coals out in blogchat land by supporters of another key contender, former Gov. Howard Dean. Personally, I prefer Dean. (More on that soon.) However, I want to give Vilsack some of his due, and I'd like to kill a particularly myopic anti-Vilsack meme.

I keep hearing fellow supporters of a Dean chairmanship say that Vilsack "didn't even carry his own state [for Kerry]." Governors don't carry states for presidential candidates, the presidential candidates carry them...or not. Vilsack didn't lose Iowa, Kerry did.

In fact, Vilsack did carry Iowa...for himself--as a winning governor in a seemingly red-leaning state. Vilsack did in Iowa what John Kerry couldn't. (Is that called failing Kerry or perhaps doing a better job than Kerry?)

Don't miss this simple fact: Vilsack is the first Democratic governor of Iowa in my lifetime. While many in the Democratic party are fixated on some mythical quick-fix White House victory as our next battle, but who have done little to shift the Democratic Party at the grassroots level, Vilsack managed to turn a red governorship blue years ago. What is more, he's been instrumental in doing in Iowa just the sort of thing our nation's burgeoning progressive movement needs to be doing in every state now: nurturing candidates and winning elections at the local level.

Did you know that in 2004:
*Iowa on Nov. 2nd was 1 of only 3 states to make Democratic gains in the state legislature.
*Iowa Dems now enjoy a 25-25 tie in the Iowa Senate.
*Iowa Dems in the forever-Republican House now boast a mere 2-seat minority.
*The Iowa Democratic Party is basically tied with Republicans in voter registrations. They were behind by 60,000 registrants in 2003.
*Iowa Democratic Congressman Leonard Boswell absolutely smashed Republican challenger Stan Thompson. Thompson got major GOP money and ran a nasty campaign. Didn't matter. Vilsack's Iowa Dem organization helped Boswell eat Thompson alive.

None of us should be disuaded of Vilsack for the wrong reasons. He is an amazing person with a profoundly amazing personal story, and he is a proven and successful fighter for Democrats.

Bush is left of the evangelical right? (The amNew York brain fart.)
by IseFire - Wed 11/17/04 12:00 pm EST

In the Nov. 17 issue of New York City's main free daily, amNew York, a South Carolina-based columnist wrote in her opinion piece that, "Bush is far to the left of the so-called 'moral right.'" This statement is patently absurd. (What is more, I've never heard the exact term, "moral right" before. "Moralistic Right" I've heard, and it's more appropriate, too.)

My letter to the editor:

Kathleen Parker’s analysis of conservative evangelicalism’s role in Bush’s reelection was deeply flawed. She claimed Bush is to the left of conservative evangelicals; but, she didn’t cite a single example. That’s because he isn’t. Bush stated that the “jury is still out” on evolution. He is unequivocally anti-choice. He backs the death penalty. He let the assault weapons ban expire. He has stated support for home schooling. He supports school vouchers. He favors outsourcing government services to religious charities. This is 100% in-step with America’s political movement of conservative evangelicals.  What is more, Parker missed the significance of her own numbers and didn’t define her terms. One out of every three Bush votes came from an evangelical. That’s a massive number. But, conservative evangelicals are only part of the entire Christian Right, which includes millions of conservative Roman Catholics, who believe in the exact some political agenda as evangelicals. The overall Christian Right voting block is a behemoth. Finally, Parker overlooked the fact that those who have for years been warning about the Christian Right generally have stressed their influence even more than their numbers. The Left Behind series of books is, in serialized and narrative form, conservative evangelicalism’s political manifesto. Those books have sold 60,000,000 copies. Parker misses the point: an increasing number of voters who don’t describe themselves as evangelicals are voting in-synch with the evangelical worldview, which is increasingly synonymous with conservatism in general. That is called winning Americans’ hearts and minds. Conservative Christians have been at it for 30 years, and they are succeeding significantly.

Orcinus
by IseFire - Tue 11/16/04 11:50 pm EST

Dave Neiwert's Orcinus is worth your time. Neiwert has been writing a lot about the Religious Right these days.

US down from 18th to 27th in global social progress index
by IseFire - Tue 11/16/04 01:00 pm EST

From the AP article:

The United States ranks 27th in a study of social progress worldwide due to social service budget cuts and chronic poverty plaguing major US cities, a University of Pennyslvania report found.

Jerry's Moralistic MoveOn
by IseFire - Tue 11/16/04 12:00 am EST

With liberal organizations like MoveOn.org dazed by how insufficient they proved to be ("for now," the patriots said grimly), and with the nation's nascent progressive infrastructure manned by mere rampart patrols while the exhausted garrisons sluggishly recover from the Nov. 2nd "Pyrrhic defeat" (think about it), Jerry Falwell, founder of the late, great Moral Majority, is manufacturing what he hopes will inflict the Right's coup de grace against the Left: a new national organization of religious conservatives, The Faith and Values Coalition. Its chairman is to be Tim LaHaye, the conservative Christian activist and co-author of the "Left Behind" series of novels that sold more than 60,000,000 copies. (I noted for many, many months what these books' popularity foretold--having read in 1990 their literary harbinger, Frank Peretti's Piercing the Darkness--but the Left largely dismissed LaHaye's compelling claptrap as easily as secessionists once did Uncle Tom's Cabin.)

The org's tri-part agenda: 1) The confirmation of "pro-life, strict constructionist" U.S. Supreme Court justices and other federal judges, 2) the passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment, and 3) the election of "another socially-, fiscally-, and politically-conservative president in 2008." (Of course, Bush isn't fiscally or politically conservative, but what should Jerry care...or you? Intellectual honesty has always been an ass not an asset in America politics.)

More proof of global warming
by IseFire - Sun 11/14/04 09:39 pm EST

At this point in history, "more proof of global warming " ought to sounds as ridiculous as "more proof of gravity." Dut it doesn't, because in the United States, global warming is still "controversial." Article.

Conservative elements begin post-election incursions on all fronts, including education
by IseFire - Fri 11/12/04 08:59 pm EST

The conservative movement began testing the strength of the Bush 2nd-term "mandate" before the carcase of the Kerry campaign was cold. All along the political frontlines Republican officials, conservative judges, the Religious Right, corporate lawyers, and other elements of America's confederacy of conservative interests are launching actions against polices relating to education, health care, the environment, civil rights, voting rights, and more.

I pay attention to attacks on science education, among other targets. Our nation was founded upon Enlightenment principles, but is now dangerously influenced by religionists who do not greatly prize reason or even pragmatism in government or policy. Personally, I find religionists' attacks on our children's minds to be the most dangerous of all conservative violations.

Stories to pay attention to:
*Evolution lawyers make final pleas in GA.

*"Intelligent Design" (ID) mandated in science units in PA.

*Sex education, TX style.

*Grantsburg, WI twists science education with creationist/ "Intelligent Design" mandates.

Thomas Jefferson: "History...furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government."
by IseFire - Thu 11/11/04 08:30 am EST

It is Veterans' Day. "Eleven, eleven, eleven"--marking the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month of 1918, when World War I officially ended. The First World War was not a religious conflict. Religious differences fueled ethnic hatreds which somewhat influenced the Serbian campaign, but that was it. All the national powers engaged in World War I were either declining or rising empires. All of them utterly secular--Britain, France, Belgium, Germany, Russia, the United States, etc.

Today one of the above powers is experiencing quasi-religious rule in which institutionalized religion--like in the Middle Ages of Europe--consciously exerts political influence and control of the State. All but one of the above powers dispensed hundreds of years ago with a politically significant priestly or religious class, sometimes violently.

From Sidney Blumenthal on Salon.com today:

The election of 2004 marks the rise of a quasi-clerical party for the first time in the United States. Ecclesiastical organization has become transformed into the sinew and muscle of the Republican Party, essential in George W. Bush's reelection. His narrow margins in the key states of Florida, Iowa and Ohio, and elsewhere, were dependent upon the direct imposition of the churches. None of this occurred suddenly or by happenstance. Nor was this development simply a pleasant surprise for Bush. For years, he has schooled himself in the machinations of the religious right, and Karl Rove has used the command center of the White House as more than its Office of Propaganda.

Bush's clerisy represents an unprecedented alliance of historically anti-Roman Catholic, nativist evangelical Protestants with the most reactionary elements of the Catholic hierarchy. Preacher, priest and politician have combined on the grounds that John F. Kennedy disputed in his famous speech before the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on Sept. 12, 1960. Every principle articulated by Kennedy has been flouted and contradicted by Bush: "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the President -- should he be Catholic -- how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference ... where no public official either requests or accept instructions on public policy from the Pope or ... any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials."

From the White House, Rove operated a weekly conference call with selected religious leaders. Evangelical churches handed over their membership directories to the Bush campaign for voter registration drives. According to the Washington Post, "clergy members attended legal sessions explaining how they could talk about the election from the pulpit." A group associated with the Rev. Pat Robertson advised 45,000 churches on how to work for Bush. One popular preacher alone sent letters to 136,000 pastors advising them on "non-negotiable" issues -- gay marriage, stem cell research, abortion -- to mobilize the faithful. Perhaps the most influential figure of all was the Rev. James Dobson, whose radio programs are broadcast daily on more than 3,000 stations and 80 TV stations, and whose organization has affiliates in 36 states, and this year created a political action committee to advance "Christian citizenship."

GOP wolves attack their own
by IseFire - Tue 11/09/04 01:00 pm EST

From the New Dem Daily, an e-newsletter:

[W]ithin days of President Bush's pledge to "heal the nation" and serve as "president of all the people," the long knives of conservative Republicans have been drawn--against a fellow-Republican.

The demand for a blood-purge of Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), scheduled to become chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was first sounded by conservative columnist Robert Novak yesterday, and is now resounding throughout the precincts of the Right. National Review magazine, whose Washington editor, Kate O'Beirne, penned a magnanimous op-ed in The Washington Post on Sunday describing the GOP as a big-tent party with room for social moderates, has devoted an entire section of its web page to attacks on Specter. His specific transgression was telling a Pennsylvania reporter that he did not intend to support the nomination of judicial "extremists," and especially those who supported overturning Roe v. Wade, which he compared to Brown v. Board of Education as an important item of settled constitutiona l law.

National Review's editors thundered thusly: "The comparison of Roe to Brown was a gratuitous and vicious insult to the bulk of his own party. Pro-lifers are not segregationists, and Specter's side of this debate is not that of human rights. Nor is Roe settled law, the way Brown is." Like Novak and others, National Review is demanding that the Senate Republican Conference suspend the seniority rule and deny Specter the Judiciary chairmanship.

Experts: Economy is slowing despite October hired related mostly to hurricane cleanup
by IseFire - Mon 11/08/04 8:30 am EST

Bloomberg News is reporting that U.S. retail sales barely rose in October and higher oil prices kept the nations trade deficit near a record a month earlier. (From amNew York)

33% conservative; 21% liberal. Liberals lose.
by IseFire - Sat 11/06/04 10:00 am EST

Of voters on November 2, 2004, 33% identified themselves as conservatives; only 21% as liberals.

Liberals in America need 5, 10 & 20+ year plans if those proportions of conservatives and liberals in the electorate are going to change to favor the liberals. However, the defeat of John Kerry is clearly helping the Left wake up up to the reality (that some of us knowledgeable about the Religious Right have warned about for more than a decade), that liberals are dangerously close to losing American hearts and minds for a long time.

Liberals have as much work to do, if they are going to have any long-term political success and influence, as the Religious Right (and conservatives in general) had 15 to 20+ years ago, when the Religious Right set goals such as "taking back" America by doing things like getting an evangelical elected President and overturning Roe v. Wade, and when intellectual conservatives set goals such as destroying Social Security and, to put it simplistically, avenging Goldwater and Nixon.

In the period 15, 20 and even 30+ years ago, the Heritage Foundation and Moral Majority were founded (1973 and 1979), televangelist Pat Robertson created the Christian Coalition (1989), Rush Limbaugh began his syndicated political radio show (1988), and conservative evangelical Christians accelerated greatly their political involvement, in part inspired by Pat Robertson's run for President (1988).

Conservative evangelical Christians began learning the political process, running for local offices, teambuilding, constructing communication operations, founding think tanks and publications, propping up or taking over those secular but conservative think tanks already in existence, like the American Enterprise Institute (1943), setting short-, intermediate, and long-term goals, and doing the necessary grunt work--leafleting, attending local governmental meetings (school boards, boards of county supervisors, etc.), stuffing and licking envelopes, and--perhaps most importantly--being daily evangelists no longer just for Christ, but for what they since the late 1960's increasingly had been told from the pulpit was "the" Christian political worldview for America.

And they vowed to represent that worldview in workplace conversations, at the dinner table, on the athletic field, in schools as students and teachers, everywhere, at any time, to anyone.

That was 10, 15, and 20+ years ago.... But look at the fruits that their efforts have borne:
*the 1996 "Republican Revolution" that seized Congress;
*the 2000 influence sufficient to make the GOP select a stridently conservative presidential nominee over a relative moderate, John McCain, and to keep out any true moderates altogether;
*the 2002 congressional victories of numerous evangelical candidates,
*the 2004 re-election of George W. Bush and the sizeable enlargement of the GOP's congressional majority;
And it has born one of the greatest fruits among the harvest conservative Christians hoped for:
*an increase in the percentage of Americans identifying with the evangelical Christian political agenda whether or not they are themselves evangelical Christians.

Liberals have a lot of work to do. And educating the next generation of voters and political leaders is paramount. Just because America is becoming more urbanized, just because young voters went for Kerry in big numbers, just because the nation is becoming "less white," is no guarantee of long-term victory. If liberals do not vigorously articulate a clear progressive message, using when helpful even the inherently irrational language of religion and understanding conservative religious worldviews--towards which they have been arrogantly dismissive--minds will turn away from the light of liberty, hypnotized by the fires of fear, militarism, intolerance, and provincialism.

Gore Vidal said the four most beautiful words in the English language are, "I told you so."
by IseFire - Sat 11/04/04 09:27 am EST

Four other great words, however, are also: "I have no idea."

Both my best friend (a W. Bush classmate and vet of the fight to get women admitted into Yale) and a Democratic Party District Leader I know, today encouraged me to indulge in something I've really yet to do on this site: wax righteously indignant and skewer my often idiotic and certainly arrogant liberal allies. I'll do so. But, I'll also admit that I'm not sure exactly how to make a concrete reality out of the vision I have of a future for a national opposition to the Religious Right.

The data is conclusive: "moral values" was the most important issue among voters on Nov. 2, and of voters identifying "moral values" as the most important issue, 80% voted for George W. Bush.

For years, I've been saying and writing until hoarse and knuckle-sore that both the Democratic Party and more recently the very welcome Deaniac new blood of the Left have been inexcusably clueless about the Religious Right. I know the Religious Right, which seized the nation's government in toto on Tuesday, and if people like me had been listened to much earlier, November 2nd's outcome might have been prevented.

As a kid in Iowa, I went door-to-door handing out literature for Jack Kemp in 1988; I remember when my evangelical church's minister became the county chairman for a Republican presidential campaign; I pitched horseshoes with George H. W. Bush in the same week that I helped a friend burn his "Satanic" Billy Joel LPs. I was a witness to the Religious Right's take-over of the apparatus of the Republican Party.

The American political left wing has wallowed in three key enduring errors now requiring immediate correction.

*The first is the consistent underestimation of the Religious Right's strength, as well as its adherents patience and self-sacrificing commitment springing from the emotional support, the sense of community, that the movement provides. (Comparatively, the Left lacks as strong of a sense of community.) I said and wrote it repeatedly since about 1990 when I ceased to consider myself an evangelical Christian any longer : if ever a President was elected who the Religious Right would perceive was "one of our own," the reality of his or her identification with them would forgive all his or her horrible faults, even if the faults weakened the economic standing of the lower and middle classes, in which most conservative evangelicals are situated. After all, such a President would be taken as literally an answer to prayer and form of divine intervention.

*The second left wing error is the failure to learn the Religious Right's nomenclature in order to speak about liberal values in the language of religion. To talk in irrational terms, such as the terms of religion, is not by definition to embrace conservative ideals! It can be a way to create fervor within a socio-political movement, even as the movement is not itself religious in the narrow sense of the word. And guess what will happen if the left were to speak about liberal values in the language of religion? The left would energize its base of those already active and expand its base with liberals--and those predisposed to be liberals--but who are not motivated as well as some converts from the Religious Right.

Yes, converts will come from the right. Some will "have ears to hear" (Mark 7:16) and turn their backs on the religio-conservative worldview, but only if they are offered in words yielding a visceral, positive emotional reaction a progressive worldview grounded in a true tale of a better future, a belief in redemptive labors and callings, and a lexicon unafraid of the language of values and morality; therefore, the current political left’s angry secularism, naive intellectualism, and detail-ridden policy explanations—and the spokespersons commonly communicating them—will not get us much farther. (Of course, it should go without saying that the mealy-mouthed, soft-pedaling DLC-esque prevaricators will benefit just just as unspectacularly.)

*The above first and second errors are really just symptoms of a larger failing, the third and most terrible error: the failure to copy and improve on the Religious Right's all the inter-related mechanisms for political growth, the creation of...
a
big-vision, big-message,
strategic (not always only tactical or defensive),
grassroots,
one-school-board-at-a-time,
community-building obsessed,
small group-based,
friendship-building,
patriotic,
liberal,
movement,
and one unafraid of realpolitik and archly Machiavellian operations. In other words: OPPOSITION SOCIETY WITH A VISION, MESSAGE, AND LONG-TERM PLAN.

(The closest historical comparison may be the abolitionist movement.)

Instead the left, liberal Democrats specifically, have been getting for years 1) McAuliffe-Kerry-Daschle defensive politics and messaging and 2) Deaniac money-raising but ultimately disorganized cheerleading that is deaf to middle and religious America (i.e. most of America). Worst of all, 1) and 2) waste huge amounts of energy being disdainful toward each other.

When the DLC talks about the need for a Southern (and charismatic) Presidential candidate and someone who understands the language of the religious American, I agree. When Deaniacs insist on a true-blue dyed-in-the-wool liberal movement, I agree. These two things aren't mutually exclusive. But I'm the first to admit that how to bring them together isn't easy to figure out either.

The time to figure it out was yesterday.

Let's get busy.