I heartily salute both organizations in their efforts. I have been saying since the beginning of this year that the anti-war forces need to keep the pressure on the politicians in Washington with a show of numbers in order to convince weak-willed congressmen from both sides of the aisle that the anti-war stance is actually wildly popular among their constituents. Even in red states.

Read Complete Article »

We continue today looking at the Democratic candidates for President, and what they would do about Iraq. Part 1 of this article ran yesterday, and covered Richardson, Obama, Kucinich, and Gravel. Continuing in reverse alphabetical order, today we examine Edwards, Dodd, Clinton, and Biden.

Read Complete Article »

With the most important debate of the whole year (and possibly the whole war) teed up and ready to begin in Congress in the next few weeks, I thought it would be a good time to do a summary and analysis of what all the Democratic candidates have to say on the subject of Iraq. Many of these candidates, it should be noted, are still sitting Senators and Representatives, and therefore have both the duty and the responsibility to participate in the debate in Congress.

They should be relishing this upcoming debate, since it will be a rare chance to show actual, tangible leadership. Which is definitely a requirement for the job of President of the United States.

Read Complete Article »

Some may call me crass (or even worse names) for addressing just the "framing" or "spin" of these issues. I strongly disagree. Republicans have been winning these framing victories for years now, and the only way Democrats can counter this tactic is to co-opt the framing game. Democrats need to agree on one phrase to use in order to ridicule the other side's position -- and then repeat that phrase ad nauseum. "Ten words or less" should be the golden rule.

Read Complete Article »

Read Complete Article »

Democrats have proven that they can intelligently frame an issue about a place nobody visits, since they have consistently shut down Republican efforts to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). When people hear ANWR, they think of caribou. There's a reason they do, and that reason is because Democrats successfully framed the issue (for once). Protecting streams for fishing is another image they could be just as successfully utilizing to show the American public the face of the Republican Party, up close and personal.

Read Complete Article »

The White House even tried to stop Petraeus from testifying before Congress in the open (as opposed to a secret hearing), until they noticed that the law specifically said that he would be made available to Congress for testimony in both "open" and "closed" settings. The White House quickly backpedaled on that one, thankfully, which means that both Petraeus and Crocker will indeed be answering Congress' questions in public, in open hearings.

I'm actually kind of surprised President Bush didn't try to claim executive privilege, which seems to be his knee-jerk reaction to anyone testifying before Congress. Even if Bush thought he'd eventually lose in court, it would take months if not years to resolve, just like all his other executive privilege claims

Read Complete Article »

There are a number of other cases pending which also deal with dissenting opinions being expressed at presidential appearances, and the fact that the Bush Administration has settled one of these for $80,000 is certainly good news for these cases, and for the First Amendment. I have written before about the ACLU's evidence in one of these cases, a heavily-redacted copy of the "Presidential Advance Manual," which shows a clear White House policy of unconstitutional disdain for such opposing viewpoints.

Read Complete Article »

I don't get no respect. I played hide-and-seek, and they wouldn't even look for me.
-- Rodney Dangerfield

Wyoming Republicans must know how Rodney feels. They attempted to get some media attention (and some attention from the candidates) by passing an impossibility into law, but nobody noticed. No respect indeed.

Read Complete Article »

The irony is that whoever wins the upcoming September battle in Congress will likely lose in next year's elections, because the American public will not like the outcome -- no matter which political party wins the debate in Congress.

Read Complete Article »