Your generous
donations help keep
this site running.
Visa/MC/PayPal accepted.
I have to say that Democrats are acting awfully un-Democrat-like in their political handling of the SCHIP debate. I say this, because they're winning. Big time.
There's a raging debate within the Bush administration, the punditocracy, and the blogosphere about whether or not it is time to bomb Iran. While this conversation scares small children (and other sane people), most of the focus has been on (1) whether President... oh, excuse me... Vice President Cheney truly is moonbat-crazy enough to do so, and (2) whether anyone else in America (including the military) would go along with the idea. But not enough attention is being paid to what happens after we rain death from the skies down on Iran. Which is a shame, because that's what we ignored during the ramp-up to war with Iraq. And we all know how that turned out.
But this week, other than condemning Rush Limbaugh, the most important thing for Democrats to talk about is health care, so all the talking points this week will be on the subject of the SCHIP legislation, which will soon be on President Bush's desk, and which he has promised to veto.
We need a Senate Majority Leader who will believe in something, say so in a telegenic and charismatic fashion on television, and then back it up by fighting for it in the Senate. It's all about that intangible quality called leadership. A strong leader might lead us off a cliff, or into the wasteland of permanent minority status -- but they could also lead us back to being a party people can believe would stand up and fight for what is right.
The question remains: Is Harry Reid the right person to do so, right now? Or is it time for Harry to go?
Why are Democrats so lame on basic PR?
Someone asked me that question on my blog the other day, and I didn't really have an answer. Why are Democrats so incredibly weak on framing their message correctly? Many books have been written exploring this subject and offering sound advice on how to make it better across the board, and yet it still continues.
It seems to be Constitution Week for this column.
Today I'd like to examine two constitutional questions -- whether Congress can give immunity to a crime already committed, and whether Congress can force states into a primary schedule of their own devising.
In the "good news" department -- South Dakota Senator Tim Johnson is now back in action. That gives Democrats another solid vote on Iraq. Which means they only need pick up three more, in order to put something on Bush's desk. OK, it still will need seven more votes after that to overturn a veto -- but hey, one step at a time.
There are four names being floated as candidates for further GOP aisle-crossing on Iraq. These are (to date): Lamar Alexander from Tennessee, George Voinovich from Ohio, Lisa Murkowski from Alaska, and (a surprise to me) Elizabeth Dole from North Carolina.
I strongly urge anyone who lives in these four states (who also wants to end the Iraq war) to contact your senator today and let them know they have constituents who will support their actions if they vote with the Democrats.
Today's hodgepodge is mostly frivolous stuff that I just couldn't resist. There are one or two non-frivolous stories as well, but there seemed to be an embarrassment of riches in the wacky news today. So without further ado, and with a new box of "Herb Caen brand" three-dots to use up, here we [...]
So Petraeus and Crocker have reported, President Bush has spoken to the nation, and the congressional war debate is slated to begin in earnest next week. Since the Democrats seem to be incapable of staying "on message" the way Republicans effortlessly manage to do, I'd like to steal a page from the Republican playbook. It's an idea whose time has come: Democratic talking points.
