Still a matter of hours after we couldn't get a vote on habeus restoration and Jim Webb's amendment to help American combat troops, we do seem to allow  something truly monumental to come to a vote and pass overwhelmingly – that is, saving the nation from a newspaper ad from two weeks ago. Chris Dodd said it best about today's vote:

  “It is a sad day in the Senate when we spend hours debating an ad while our young people are dying in Iraq.

And it's a sad day in Vermont when our senior Senator votes to prop up the GOP on this meaningless, propgandistic bullshit stunt. Honestly, I feel ashamed. As MoveOn says on their website, Leahy and the Senate “just told you to sit down and be quiet.”

In case you missed it, Kinsley at Time pretty much sums it up: 

Goodness gracious. oh, my paws and whiskers. Some of the meanest, most ornery hombres around are suddenly feeling faint. Notorious tough guys are swooning with the vapors. The biggest beasts in the barnyard are all aflutter over something they read in the New York Times. It's that ad from MoveOn.org — the one that calls General David Petraeus, the head of U.S. forces in Iraq, general betray us. All across the radio spectrum, right-wing shock jocks are themselves shocked. How could anybody say such a thing? It's horrifying. It's outrageous. It's disgraceful. It's just beyond the pale … It's … oh, my heavens … say, is it a bit stuffy in here? … I think I'm going to … Could I have a glass of … oh, dear [thud].

As Kinsley continues “The fuss over this MoveOn.org ad is something else: it is the result of a desperate scavenging for umbrage material… The constant calls for political candidates to prove their bona fides by condemning or denouncing something somebody else said or to renounce a person's support or to return her tainted money are a tiresome new tic in American politics.” 

Yeah. Almost as tiresome as when an otherwise brilliant Senator buys into the whole nonsense and boosts its effectiveness and credibility with the not-tuned-in public. Yuck. Even Senator Clinton voted the right way on this (although Obama missed it, and pissed off people like Stoller – he's suggesting in response that skipping out on the vote was a virtuous act).

Wanna do something? Go sign MoveOn's petition refusing to back down. If you want to revisit the offending ad and see how tame it is compared to routine GOP attacks, click below the fold.

UPDATE: Finally found out what happened to Biden on this. He just bagged the whole day of votes. Figures.

Here's the MoveOn NYT ad text:

 

General Petraeus or General Betray Us?

 

 

 

Cooking the books for the White House

 

(Click here for the thinking behind the ad)

 

General Petraeus is a military man constantly at war with the facts. In 2004, just before the election, he said there was “tangible progress“ in Iraq and that “Iraqi leaders are stepping forward.”
  Washington Post, “Battling  for Iraq,”  by David H. Petraeus.  9/26/04 (see below)

 

And last week Petraeus, the architect of the escalation of troops in Iraq , said ”We say we have achieved progress, and we are obviously going to do everything we can to build on that progress.”
  The  Australian, “Surge Working: Top US General,” by Dennis Shanahan.  8/31/07

 

Every independent report on the ground situation in Iraq shows that  the surge strategy has failed.
  GAO report,  9/4/07
  NIE  report, 8/23/07
  Jones report, CSIS,  9/6/07

 

Yet the General claims a reduction in violence. That’s because, according to the New York Times, the Pentagon has adopted a bizarre formula for keeping tabs on violence. For example, deaths by car bombs don’t count.
   “Time  to Take a Stand,” by Paul Krugman.  9/7/07    

 

The Washington  Post reported that assassinations only count if you're shot in the back of the  head — not the front.
  “Experts  Doubt Drop in Violence in Iraq,” by Karen DeYoung. 9/6/07 l

 

According to news reports, there have been more civilian deaths and more American soldier deaths in the past three months than in any other summer we’ve been there.
  The  Associated Press, “Violence Appears to Be Shifting from Baghdad.” 8/25/07
  National  Public Radio, “Statistics the Weapon of Choice in Surge Debate,” by Guy  Raz.  9/6/07
  Associated  Press, “Key Figures About Iraq Since the War Began in 2003.”  9/5/07

 

We'll hear of neighborhoods where violence has decreased. But we won't hear that those neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed.
  Newsweek,  “Baghdad’s New Owners,” by Babak Dehghanpisheh and Larry Kaplow, 9/10/07
  Ibid from  the AP, “Violence Appears to be Shifting From Baghdad”
  McClatchy,  “Despite Violence Drop, Officers See Bleak Future for Iraq,” by Leila Fadel.  8/15/07
  The  New York Times, “More Iraqis Said to Flee Since Troop Rise,” by James Glanz and  Stephen Farrell. 8/24/07
  Most importantly, General Petraeus will not admit what everyone knows; Iraq  is mired in an unwinnable religious civil war.
  We may hear of a plan to withdraw a few thousand American  troops.
  The  New York Times, “Petraeus, Seeing Gains in Iraq as Fragile, is Wary of Cuts,”  by David Sanger and David Cloud, 9/7/07
  The  Washington Post, “Petraeus Open to Pullout of One Brigade,” by Robin Wright and  Jonathan Weisman.  9/7/07.

 

But we won’t hear what Americans are desperate to hear: a timetable for withdrawing all our troops. General Petraeus has actually said American troops will need to stay in Iraq for as long as ten years.
  The  Hill, “Rep. Schakowsky: Petraeus hints at decade-long Iraq presence,” by  Patrick FitzGerald.  8/10/07
  Today before Congress and before the American people, General Petraeus is  likely to become General Betray Us.

You wouldn't know it to look around you, but the Vermont political landscape seems to have been turned on its head. As subtle as it may seem, the reality could be earthshaking if it holds up. For context, this is me from a GMD diary, waaaaaaaayyy back in February of '06:

Why the Democrats lose control of issues in the media is a topic of much debate. In my view it comes down to one thing: the Democrats see policy and politics as distinct. the Governor doesn't. Frankly, the Governor doesn't seem to have much interest in policy. He seems to leave that to his lieutenants.

Now, you've got to feel for many of these Dems. In fact, I suspect they are not much different then most of the Republican congresspeople in this way (the difference of course being that the Republicans in the House and Senate do not have the responsibility of playing the role of opposition to the Governor). They share the public's distaste for politicking, and they don't really want to engage in it any more than they have to. What they want to do is make policy — you know, the cool stuff. And again, who can blame them? They do what they can to divorce the two by placing the politicking in a box marked “election season,” and they try not to think about it any more than necessary until then (and even then, they often try to create rationales for why they don't really have to do it — rationales that often sound something like “in MY district we dont like that sort of thing” or, “I just dont think running elections right is the Vermont way”…but thats a topic for another diary…).

And because they dont like it and they want to avoid it, two things happen. ONE: They don't accept (as Douglas does) that, like it or not, you are ALWAYS running for re-election, and so is the other side. Now, there are certainly plenty of organizational doings going on behind the scenes in Democrat land, but they are all primarily support work for Election Time. Candidate recruitment, research, checking in with your infrastructure, developing lists — great stuff, but its the prep work for politicking rather than the politicking itself. There is still — even with all this good behind the scenes stuff going on — a tendency to want to compartmentalize politicking into “election season,” and that just doesn't work anymore.

TWO: When it comes time to really play politics, they get uncomfortable, stiff, long-winded and meandering. And it's because they just don't like it. Why was Peter Shumlin always so good with the press and on the stump? He really dug that stuff. Most of his Democratic compatriots really, really don't. And you never get very good at something you don't like to do.

So what's changed? Maybe nothing – but maybe everything. Below the fold for a very, very good sign (and I think we all could use one)…

Here's more of my original point:

A key moment where the Dems lost traction last year was also an incredibly illustrative example of what I'm talking about. When Douglas called the legislature back into session last year to address the VSC contract, the Democrats blinked. Obviously, that was going to play badly in the press, but both sides had the sense to realize this was a high tension, high-stakes moment, and the opportunity was there to set the tone for the post-legislative war in the press. Dueling press conferences ensued, with Douglas doing his usual song-and-dance, while a couple doors over, Speaker Gaye Symington and Peter Welch addressed the cameras.

It was hard to watch. Symington and Welch stammered, they squirmed. Even when they spoke with committment and authority, two things were evident: one, they really didn't want to have to do this. Two:

They hadn't prepared (or perhaps “they hadn't been prepped” is fairer).

They were winging it, pure and simple. They were so clearly ad libbing that Welch allowed himself to get dragged into a bizarre digression with Peter Freyne of Seven Days about whether referring to a Dem officeholder as “Democratic” or “Democrat” was a key part of the grand right-wing conspiracy or not. Sure, I think the GOP-ers use “Democrat” as an epithet that rhymes with “bureacrat,” but was that really what they called a press conference for, and is it really a good idea to get into a back and forth argument with a reporter about it?

Within weeks, Douglas was around the state making his opponents issue into his issue. At the same time, the Speaker was making sure Democratic County committees had videotaped copies of her press conference to watch.

Do I think Rep. Symington thought she and Welch were so great that the legions of Dems assembled should bear witness? Not at all. I think the video dissemination just shows us once again that Symington, Welch, and most of the other Dems would rather think about policy that politics. Who cares about the style of the thing, the point is that she and Welch discussed policy.

The unspoken assumption here, is that politics are unnecessary — even unseemly — when you're in the right. That intelligent people of good will, if they take a moment to listen to you, can't help but agree. It's a nice idea. It truly, truly is, and it's an idea that honorably motivates many folks to run for office.

But it sure as hell doesn't win these policy battles (or in the long run, elections).

At this point, those sentiments are hardly revelatory for GMD readers. But bearing that in mind, let's take a look at what's going on now, with the session again looming.

Well, Douglas recently went out on tour again. His “tell me what you really think of the legislature” tour, playing to a handful of usual suspect GOP malcontents, and falling flat in the press with a great big dull thud.

Now when was the last time that happened?

In contrast, what are we hearing in the press about the Dems of late? How about the Rutland Herald…

January's Legislative session is still months away, but through study committees and fall meetings lawmakers are now laying the foundation for what will happen then, Speaker of the House Gaye Symington, D-Jericho, said Friday.

Legislators held a joint House and Senate hearing on education on Thursday and similar meetings on energy and transportation will be held next week.

At the top of their list when they return full-time next year will likely be energy efficiency legislation, measures to encourage affordable housing, and consideration of how to fund the state's transportation infrastructure.

And as far as tours go, the Governor may not be getting any ink, but another tour is:

The Vermont Commission on Family Recognition and Protection – or the Gay Marriage Commission as most people outside of Montpelier are calling it – has scheduled the first few public forums on the issue.

Commission members will meet for a short organization session at Johnson State College on Oct. 10 at 5:30 p.m. Following that, in the Bentley Auditorium at the college, the commission will hold its first forum from 7-9 p.m.

Again, however you may feel about the issue, the fact that its out there is putting the Dems in the driver's seat. And in the face of the previous press, the Governor's attempts to generate anti-gay gripes under the pretense that gay marriage is a non-issue look pretty thin.

But let's make no mistake about it: the Dems in the media driver seat going into the session is unheard of in recent years.

If these folks can keep this up, we may all be in for some very pleasant surprises come 2008.

What with the developing story about highly-paid mercenary outfit, Blackwater USA, possibly getting banned from Iraq as a result of yet another report of un-provoked brutality, I thought it would be a good time to dust off this oh so special episode of George Bush: A Man in Control.

In this installment, he’s asked (in April of ’06, I think) what the legal status is for security contractors in Iraq.

And as we’ve come to expect, Bush is fully informed. Or as informed as we might expect him to be…

Since, in June 2003, the CPA issued Memorandum 17 [PDF] which helped ensure that contractors in Iraq would not be subject to Iraqi law, one wonders how he could have missed it.

Simple mendacity or lack of situational awareness is always the question with Mr. Bush, is it not?

(Amen! – promoted by JulieWaters)

Since the Republicans largely boycotted a scheduled event at Morehouse College, there has been some discussion floating around about how the “Party of Lincoln” has “turned its back” on black voters. Schwarzenegger gave a speech to that effect to Republicans in California a week or so ago.

I am here to tell you – it ain't so. The Republicans have leaned heavily on blacks and other minorities because they have based their agenda on the votes of the white backlash ever since the days of the civil rights movement to create the party that they are today. It was the evil genius of George Wallace that took the southern racist reaction to civil rights campaigns and draped it in the white sheets of states' rights, “drown-it-in-the-bathtub” small government, anti-gun control, white evangelical christianism, using racism as the subtext. Wallace's approach was adopted by Barry Goldwater at the 1964 Republican convention. Black delegates were systematically harassed and expelled. Jackie Robinson, a lifelong Republican, said that at that convention, he could understand what it must have been like in Nazi Germany.

You can connect the underlying racist dots from there to Nixon's southern strategy in 1968, Reagan “democrats”, the war on drugs (crack gets more punishment than coke), welfare reform (“welfare Cadillac”), and the Willie Horton ad, and the transformation of the word “liberal” into an epithet (Wallace did that.) With changes in generations and demographics, the approach is now being extended to cover the new “others of color” – (Arab) Muslims and (Latino) immigrants.

Republicans have put racists into high judicial position to reinforce these views, including Chief Justice Rehnquist, who was a Goldwater protégé and supporter of his 1964 campaign, and wrote numerous opinions arguing against racial justice, school integration, voting rights, and later worked for Attorney General John Mitchell of Watergate fame.

Chief Justice Roberts was Rehnquist's law clerk. While less overtly racist than his predecessor, Roberts has continued to interpret laws that buttress the white sheet that covers so many Republican policies, generally limiting the reach of Federal power, except when that reach undermines civil liberties that can protect the rights of individuals. It is easy to forget that before the Civil Rights Act and Voting Act, state law was flagrantly used to attack and suppress the civil rights movement. In today's environment, Martin Luther King would probably be in Guantanamo instead of Parchman, and the Constitutional rights that eventually led to Federal intervention to integrate the nation would have been waved aside under charges of terrorism and insurrection. Bull Connor and the southern sheriffs would have supported KKK policies even more freely in Selma, Birmingham, and Oxford, protected by a Supreme Court and Justice Department that defends state's rights against human rights.

So let's not pretend that the Republicans are the party of Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt; those days have been gone since 1964. But they do embrace the objects of their enmity, because they need them to scare the white folks. Without black and brown folks, most of their agenda is empty.