The SideTrack

Melodramatic Conservatives, and their "Convenient Constitution"

2009-11-08T12:09:00.008-07:00

Last night, as results of the House health care vote came through, I was treated to a tweet from a fellow Utah blogger, a conservative, in response. Before opining, I want to apologize for singling Holly out this way (don't take it personally, Holly) to make my argument, and recommend that you all stop by her blog, where there is always a discussion to be had. That said, her tweet, upon news that the House had passed a health care reform bill:

And so dies liberty - to thunderous applause.... I was there to witness more shredding of our Constitution. #utpol

This was a common theme on the #tcot and #iamthemob Twitter threads, and overall one of the most laughable aspects of the "rebirth" of Constitutionally aware and "principle" guided conservatives in the age of Obama. The blatant hypocrisies and over-the-top rhetoric. And too often those of us pointing out their hypocrisy fall too easily to convenient (even if true) arguments such as "where were you when Bush was in office?" So let me point to a few more current examples where liberty was really trampled on, which most conservatives have been silent on.

The Stupak Amendment. This is one of the most common areas of "liberty" hypocrisy from social conservatives. Not only did they support this amendment blocking federal funds for low-income women seeking an abortion, but they would take it a step further, and support a full on reversal of Roe v. Wade. How is making abortion illegal not sacrificing liberty? Even if you stick to the "protect the unborn" argument, you are still taking liberty from one person (the pregnant woman) in order to bestow it on another (the fetus). Spin it any way you wish, it's what social conservatives would like to see. And it's not an across the board defense of liberty.

Gay marriage. There is absolutely no way to spin this one. Social conservatives wish to deny "liberty" to a certain group of people, while ensuring others get to enjoy that same "liberty." All in Jesus' name of course. Regardless of where you fall on the issue, or how a conservative chooses to justify their willingness to deny liberty to another, there is no way to define it otherwise.

FISA revisions, recently extended. Conservative were silent when Bush signed this into law (with the help of a spineless Democratic House, admittedly), and they were silent when Barack Obama supported the "warrantless wiretapping," "blanket warrant," and "dragnet domestic surveillance" provisions added into FISA policy during his campaign, and recently when the House debated and approved extensions of the Patriot Act. How is remaining silent on such unconstitutional policy a "defense of liberty," even if you are justifying it in the name of "fighting terror"? Well, it isn't. It's simply remaining silent as liberty is taken away. Both Bush and Obama have supported such policy, and from bloggers like Holly? Not a peep. Many even still defend the suspension of habeas corpus, setting a precedent for additional loss of "liberty" down the road.

These are just two examples, of many (let's not even get started on Dick Cheney's personal obsession: the expansion of executive powers since the Nixon years), but two examples of issues that most definitely embody the sacrifices of liberties protected in the Constitution, without a single complaint from these glorious, noble defenders of all things "liberty." These are also two examples that occurred in 2009, to avoid any notion I'm making a Bush vs. Obama argument. These are Bush provisions that Obama as re-certified with his support. Did you see a single sign at Glenn Beck's 9/12 rally that even mentioned warrantless surveillance? Yeah, neither did I.

It makes it impossible to take them seriously. If you're going to defend "liberty" above all other principles, then more power to you. I think the world is a bit more complex than such idealistic world-views can account for, but I'm always a supporter of one who stands on principle. But if you're going to simply pick and choose what "liberty" you're going to defend and decry the loss of, well, then you're little more than a partisan hack, complaining when things aren't going you're way, and remaining silent when the are. And all the while, you are perverting what is a noble notion (the defense of the Constitution) with your half-assed observation of when "liberty" has and has not been forsaken.

To declare the death of liberty when something you philosophically oppose (health care with a public option) passes the House, and yet remain silent when the House approves the NSA's ability to record your phone calls, email, and shopping habits without even obtaining a post-facto warrant from an oversight court makes you a hypocrite. I'm not arguing the "right or wrongness" of differing points of view, I'm simply saying that if you are Pro-Life, Anti-Gay Marriage, or supported The Patriot Act, you cannot say that you would never, ever, ever support measures that would dilute "liberty" for the individual. Obviously, you would, but only the one's you agree with in philosophy.

It's impossible to take you seriously. Plain and simple.

The GOP Health Care "Debate"

2009-11-07T16:05:00.004-07:00

Nice (freedom killing job killing illegal immigrant protecting! Grrrr!) "mash-up" video that illustrates the hissy-fit GOPers invoked to cover for their intellectual bankruptcy so far in the health care debate.

House Vote on Health Care Reform

2009-11-07T10:32:00.004-07:00

I'm trying to follow the goings on in the House as closely as possible.

You can follow along via The SideTrack on Twitter.

Many more are doing the same via hashtag #hcr.

Walk the Plank

2009-11-06T17:39:00.002-07:00

Friday night comedy. New ad from the ever-so-in touch American Future Fund.

Astro-turfers Targeting Matheson, Add Your Voice

2009-11-06T13:28:00.000-07:00

Matheson seems to be listening to them too. Utah Health Policy Project in the inbox:

Congressman Matheson and his colleagues will be called to the House floor for a rare Saturday vote on the most far-reaching health care reforms in more than 40 years!

Call Congressman Matheson TODAY and urge him to support H.R. 3962. You can call him toll-free at 1-800-828-0498. Leave him this simple message:
“Please vote in favor of H.R. 3962. This is an historic opportunity to ensure quality, affordable health care for millions of Americans, and Utah needs a voice--your voice--at this critical stage of the process. As a constituent, I will support you when you cast this important vote.”

Rep. Matheson is getting way too many ‘astroturf’ (fake) calls from the opposition, we just learned. To counter this, we need YOU to call him now.

For small business owners, H.R. 3962, brings immense benefits such as cost containment (get more talking points on cost concerns below), insurance reform, tax credits and a robust, competitive health insurance exchange. For all Utahns—whether insured or uninsured—H.R. 3962 ensures affordability for Utah families, provides security for our seniors, does not add to the deficit, and ends discrimination by insurance companies against Utahns with pre-existing conditions. While this bill is not perfect, it is an historic step forward that Rep. Matheson should support.

Saturday’s vote will be historic and we need Rep. Matheson to truly represent his constituents! Call Congressman Matheson TODAY and urge him to support H.R.3962. You can him call toll-free at 1-800-828-0498.

Also tell him “All I want for Christmas is comprehensive health reform." Supporting H.R. 3962 puts us one step closer to giving all Utahns the gift of security and peace of mind that comes with quality, affordable health coverage.

Overestimating the GOP

2009-11-06T09:37:00.001-07:00

PPP:

Just got an e-mail from the party that they're bringing in Doug Hoffman to speak at their Hall of Fame dinner in a couple weeks. The same Doug Hoffman of course who managed to blow a Congressional seat the party had held for over a century.

If the Hoffman model is what they want to emulate they may just find a way to screw it up in a political climate that appears to be very favorable for them. Democrats have kept power in recent years despite one corruption scandal after another because voters in North Carolina think the Republicans are just too extreme and incompetent. You'd think they'd try to learn from those lessons and put a different face forward that could actually appeal to voters in the center but I may have overestimated them.

The question remains is this a duel of strategies within the party, or an inability of GOP leaders to contain and productively direct the tea-baggn' monster they've encouraged since January 20, 2009? TPM has a nice quote that answers the question:

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) resists NRSC chairman John Cornyn big-tent strategy on candidate recruitment: "He's trying to find candidates who can win. I'm trying to find people who can help me change the Senate."

Isn't winning elections kind of the first step in that plan, Jim? The GOP seems stuck in the Underpants Gnome plan for success, still. Step 1, recruit the tea bagger. Step 2: ? Step 3: Change the Senate. Meanwhile, Club for Growth, refusing to learn from days-old history and a 20 for 29 special election losing streak, is planning to lose another election in the name of ideological purity.

Genius strategy, if you ask me (the Democrat).

The Unexcited Youth Vote

2009-11-05T13:00:00.002-07:00

Charles Lemos:

The importance of getting the young to turn out cannot be overstated. In New Jersey, 66 percent of those under 30 voted for Governor Corzine. Just 25 percent voted for the Republican Chris Christie. In Virginia given 11 point drop-off and the lack of excitement for the Democrat Creigh Deeds generally, the youth split nearly evenly with Deeds capturing 51 percent to McDonnell's 49 percent.

This is not to blame our poor performance yesterday on the young because there were other factors involved. In Virginia, 15 percent of African Americans turned out compared with 20 percent last year. The bigger factor was both drop-off in the number of independents and their swing to the GOP. Independents made up the smallest part of the electorate turnout in both states - contributing 29 percent of the total vote in Virginia and 28 percent in New Jersey. McDonnell received 62 percent of the independent vote, while Deeds managed only 37 percent. In the Garden State Christie took 58 percent of the independent vote, while Corzine received only 31 percent. This more than anything did Corzine in.

Still, I think this statistic is pretty telling. If the Electoral College vote had been determined by only those 29 or younger, Obama would have trounced McCain 475 to 63. Obama carried this demographic in states like Mississippi, Alabama, Texas, South Carolina, Arizona, Kentucky, Tennessee, Kansas, Nebraska, North and South Dakota. Clearly, it pays off electorally speaking to engage the young and make them "part of something."

Part of something like, say, real health care reform? Real climate legislation? Real immigration reform? Changing direction in economic policy? The achievements of this administration are no doubt understated and flying under the media radar, but we are lacking a cohesive goal and definition that existed in 2008, going into 2010.

Stated (over) simply, the youth vote came out for Obama in '08 because the campaign machine itself included them in something that at least in theory stood for something they could get excited about.

What's to get excited about in watching corporate interests water down the reform you helped campaign for? What's to get excited about in watching the leaders you supported make concessions to Olympia Snowe?

The youth vote will come out again if Democrats can give them a reason, tangible and clearly defined, to call themselves activists for Democratic candidates.

More Election Tea-leaves: Anti-Tax (TABOR) Initiatives Lose Big

2009-11-05T11:08:00.003-07:00

More "under the radar" results from Tuesday's election:

Out of all of the election results from yesterday, the anti-tax ballot measures in Maine and Washington (known as TABOR) provide a better political tea leaf into voter attitudes going into the 2010 election cycle than anything else. The good news is, progressives won big on a topic that will likely define the nature of the midterm election.

A central tenant of the right-wing agenda has been rejected with the defeat of TABOR (known deceptively as the "taxpayer bill of rights") in these two states - states that are diverse from each other in almost all respects. Maine's measure went down with a resounding defeat, 60% to 40%, while Washington's campaign came from behind with a 55% to 45% rebuff.

I understand the political convenience of Republicans championing the VA and NJ races as a win, and Democrats wearing NY-23 as a badge of victory. None of those races will predict the sentiment of voters going into 2010, however. These ballot initiatives, though, might give a little more insight (and bad news for tea baggers) into the demeanor of voters, the majority of whom see themselves as moderates living outside of intra-party power struggles.

Turnout will Decide 2010

2009-11-04T14:06:00.005-07:00

Much of the discussion over the Democratic win in NY-23 and the GOP taking the NJ and VA governors races has centered around Barack Obama, and a "repudiation" or "endorsement" of his policies. If anything, the turnout of all three big attention getting races tells us that Barack Obama's 2008 popularity isn't enough for a Democrat to run on in 2009. Not exactly earth shattering news there. In fact, Democrats finished with a win over the trumped up "TEA party" candidate in NY-23, and a net gain in the House. Hard to spin that as a growing "anti-Obama" national sentiment, thought Michael Steele really really really hopes you won't notice that.

But there is an underlying message here for Democrats much more worth the scrutiny. DS:

[...] there is no denying the McDonnell and Christie victories will hurt with redistricting, and of course, the msm will give them 90 percent of the ink and air time. Although niether win was a referendum on President Obama, they do indicate that his coattails have frayed away with time. More to the point, Democrats have a lot of work to do in figuring out how to mobilize turnout in off-year elections -- and wherever they don't have a charismatic candidate leading the charge.

GOTV will be the most important factor for the Democratic Party on a national level. It won't be the TEA parties, or Dick Army. It won't be conservatives running right of conservatives that tips the balance of power in the House. A continued Democratic majority will depend almost entirely on our own ability to get our own out to the polls.

Like a Lead Filled Tea Bag (NY-23)

2009-11-04T00:05:00.003-07:00

Heh. NYT breaking news update, in the inbox:

A staunch conservative conceded defeat to a moderate Democrat early Wednesday morning in a hard-fought contest for New York State's northernmost Congressional seat, a race that exposed divisions among Republicans over how far outside the party's base they should reach as they look to rebuild.

With 88 percent of precincts reporting, the Democrat, Bill Owens, was leading with 49 percent of the vote, while the Conservative Party candidate, Douglas L. Hoffman, had 45.5 percent.

So the wingers run their candidate, undermine the Republican (who isn't wing nutty enough for them), cost the GOP a lot of money defending the Republican against not only the Democrat and the wing nut, and in the end?

The Democrat wins.

Tea Parties. Good for Democrats.

Vote

2009-11-03T11:03:00.001-07:00

If you don't, you can't complain later.

Find out where to go.

Then go.

Now.

Go!

The Future of the Newsroom

2009-10-30T11:13:00.006-07:00

Adapt or face extinction? From E & P:

Ask Jeff Leen of The Washington Post about the state of investigative reporting at his paper and he'll tell you it's as strong as ever. Even after more than 100 news staffers — some of them Pulitzer-minted — took buyouts last year, Leen, the paper's assistant managing editor/investigations, says he still has the seven full-time reporters he's had for the last six years. "We may get squeezed a little bit here and there, but we still have our unit and the ability to pull people from other staffs," he says. "I think you will find that as things squeeze, people will see investigative reporting as the high ground. We have basically held the line."

Rex Smith, editor of the Times Union in Albany, N.Y., says his four-person investigative unit remains, even after his news staff was cut from 127 to 98 this year. He trimmed other things, including the features section Monday through Wednesday, along with television listings and a handful of reporting positions and geographic beats. "We decided that investigative reporting that touches the whole community is more important than what affects a small area," he adds, citing several recent projects including an Albany city parking ticket scandal that led to a state investigation.

"The No. 1 thing readers tell us they want is watchdog reporting," says Randy Lovely, editor of The Arizona Republic in Phoenix, which dropped from 400 news staffers to 325 in the past year but kept its 12-person First Amendment investigative team intact. "I will not cut it. You have to see where else you can nip and tuck."

For Lovely, that has meant fewer copy editors and some upper-management reductions: "The ratio of reporters to editors is higher than it used to be, which I don't love, but I had to do it."

Also described in the article is the collaborative rather than competitive relationship between newspapers and outside sources such as the non-profit ProPublica.

With cutbacks, closing doors, slumping stocks, and reports of intent to bury content behind nail-in-the-coffin online pay walls, reading this article paints a different picture of the future of investigative journalism.

A little creativity and coalition building can keep "watchdog" journalism alive and independent from the bleak future of print journalism. My guess is that those who weather the changing times well will be those who respond to it with new ideas and cooperation with other sources, not those who hope only to maintain the exclusivity of their newsrooms. Milking content for every available dollar may impress your accounting staff, but ignoring the "socialization" (someone organize a TEA party!) of media and dissolving barriers to access is a death sentence.

The commodity of information is evolving, and too many newspaper CEO's are clutching the "intelligent design" approach with a business plan of preordained entitlement. Information flow suffers with each disappearing newsroom (especially local), but something is always poised to fill that gap, as long as people crave news.

Circular Firing Squad

2009-10-28T16:14:00.003-07:00

Trouble a-brewin' for Texas GOP.

It's the Palin vs. Cheney endorsement smackdown.

Should be even more fun than NY-23's Tea bagger vs. corporatist Republican skirmish.

What's the matter with California?

2009-10-28T08:09:00.004-07:00

The Monkey Cage might be on to something when it comes to understanding the breakdown of California's legislative process.

MyDD's Charles Lemos takes a more serious approach.

Twitter Shuts Down Conneticut GOP

2009-10-26T15:52:00.002-07:00

In response the CT attempt to "tweet" as their Democratic opponents by setting up accounts in the Democrat's names (brilliant strategy, huh?), Twitter has shut down the CT GOP for TOS violations. The GOP response is worth framing. From DS:

There are lots of valuable ways in which Twitter can be used in political communication, and there's no doubt that we've only just begun to see the new directions to which campaigns and candidates take this service as they innovate.

But reading and understanding terms of use has to be a basic threshold for utilizing any Internet tool. That's just as true for individuals as it is for political parties.

Which makes the Republican response to the Twitter take-down all the more ridiculous:

"That's unfortunate," was state Republican Chairman Chris Healy's response when told of Twitter, Inc.'s decision. "I'm not quite sure what the issue is, other than that the Democrats were successful in stopping free speech."

Again, Twitter's rule about impersonation is simple and short enough to be written as a Tweet:

You may not impersonate others through the Twitter service in a manner that does or is intended to mislead, confuse, or deceive others.

When you're unclear about an issue as transparent and indefensible as this, perhaps it's best if you step away from the Internet.

The GOP in this country may be toning down the crazy, but the stupid is still in full swing. And this type of behavior wins voters (outside of student body elections), how?

This isn't political strategy, it's a temper tantrum. A very entertaining temper tantrum.

Support Reid's Public Option Vote Roundup

2009-10-24T12:38:00.003-07:00

Bold progressives in the inbox.

Urgent news: Multiple media reports say that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is very close to rounding up the votes needed for a public health insurance option, but "the White House is pushing back against the idea" in order to get the support of Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME).

Tell the White House that the support of one Republican isn't worth a bad bill.

PLEASE SIGN OUR EMERGENCY PETITION TO PRESIDENT OBAMA TODAY:

"Every day, insurance companies deny care and let people die. Getting one Republican senator's vote is not worth delaying reform -- too many real lives are at stake. We need you to fight and state clearly that anything less than a strong public option is not change we can believe in."

Click here to sign the emergency petition. Then, please send this to others.

The Washington Post confirms that the White House "wants Snowe on the bill" and is seriously considering Snowe's proposed "trigger" -- which would delay, and effectively kill, the public option.

As Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) recently said, "Olympia Snowe was not elected president last year."

Medicare +5

2009-10-22T11:24:00.005-07:00

Good news from the House today.

It's now the Senate's game to lose for the Democratic Party.

The debate within the Democratic Party over health care reform generally, and the public option specifically, raises several bigger questions about the party. These questions predate the health care debate, but the controversy surrounding the extent of the Democratic Party's commitment to extend health care to as many Americans as possible brings this into sharp focus. If the Democrats do not pass a meaningful health care bill, with a public option it will be hard to answer the question of what the purpose of the Democratic Party is.

The Democratic Party has not been burdened by a unified ideology, or even vision, for quite some time. The last major legislative victories by a Democratic president occurred during the mid-1960s during the Johnson administration. Even the accomplishments of the Clinton presidency, the most successful Democratic administration in at least a generation, were products of good management and small scale legislative changes, not sweeping reform or major new programs.

During most of the last 40 years, the Democratic Party has defined itself primarily through opposition to the ascendant Republican Party.

Now the party needs to carve out it's own definition. Read more @ HuffPo.

Birds of a Feather

2009-10-21T21:28:00.004-07:00

I can't think of any two Reps. better suited to be supporting each other into the history books. Chapter 7: Bat-shit stew.

If they breed, we're screwed.

Lobbyist Food Chain

2009-10-21T11:22:00.000-07:00

The Monkey Cage's Lee Drutman discusses a seldom considered aspect of the Rep-to-Lobbyist cycle in American politics.

In my interviews with lobbyists, I noticed a pretty standard career path. Most started out in government. But at some point they realized they need to make more money – and also work a little less, so they could spend time with their kids. One lobbyist put it this way:
The Hill’s very interesting place to work. A lot folks do that in 20s and 30s. But by the time they get into their 40s, they decide it’s time to get a real job.
I think the implications of this are actually potentially somewhat profound.

It’s not just that these lobbyists have access. It also means there is a constant transfer of experience and expertise and rolodexes and process know-how from the public sector to the private sector.

These people are then replaced by somebody less senior, with less experience (possibly their former subordinate). This hasn’t been well-studied, but it ought to be. It is, I would venture, a very important source of lobbyist influence.

It's easy to demonize lobbyists, and most times politically expedient to do so. But the lobbyist is a part of our political machine, and I doubt one that will fade anytime soon. If ever.

I can also sympathize, somewhat, in the desire to "move on" from representation to an "actual job" as one ages.

But the idea of older, experienced representatives "retiring" into the lobbyist world, replaced by younger inexperienced representatives who may also be in the pocket of their "senior" who helped them along eludes to a cycle of indentured servitude that begs three questions. How do we balance representation, public opinion, and lobbyist agendas? At what point does this cycle reach critical mass, in which the entire process, from election to representation to retirement happens at the behest of lobby groups with undue influence? And what, if anything, can be done to slow or stop the cycle?

Maybe it's not the end of the world, and representation is simply "evolving." But those are still questions worth exploring.

Colorado Governor, Senators Declare Support for Public Option

2009-10-21T09:19:00.003-07:00

The letter (via Huffington Post):

Dear United States Senators,

As Colorado's elected officials and concerned Americans, we urge you not to filibuster the public option.

A public option is a crucial part of real reform. It would inject choice and competition into our health care system, both of which are lacking now. Moreover, it is backed by a majority of Senators, Representatives, and the American people.

Even if you oppose a public option, we urge you not to hold it hostage with the threat of the filibuster. Stand up for the people, not the insurance industry, and give the public option the up-or-down vote it deserves.

Sincerely,

Sen. Michael Bennet, Gov. Bill Ritter, Sen. Mark Udall and the Undersigned

Meanwhile, here in Utah...

A Note on Long Legislation

2009-10-20T12:56:00.001-07:00

One of the most superficial, yet prevalent attacks from conservative Republicans on health care reform legislation has been the (gasp!) length of the bill. It's ridiculous, and WaPo's Ezra Klein provides one of the most clear explanations of why:

But that's not because it says anything substantially different than the original Senate Finance language. Rather, writing laws is not like writing blog posts, or newspaper articles: It requires an archaic, clunky vernacular that spends a lot of time explaining how one piece of text amends another piece of text, and expends a lot of words clarifying the most technical matters at the most granular level. Legal language requires more words than plain English, just as Chinese uses more characters. When people complain that legislation is slightly longer than a very long book, they're saying something about their understanding of the difference between legal language and plain English, not about the law in question.

It's slightly understandable, though no more valid a complaint to lodge, coming from right-wing bloggers and conservative activists. When the same complaint is coming from both state and federal representatives, who simply know better than the very words coming out of their mouths, it's just laughable and insulting.

This has been another edition of They're Either Morons, or They Think You Are. You're welcome.

Trailer: "8 - The Mormon Proposition"

2009-10-20T09:56:00.002-07:00

Trailer for a documentary submitted to the Sundance Film Festival (and others). Via Pam's House Blend:

American Family Association's Randy Sharp is a Perv

2009-10-19T08:09:00.000-07:00

Rawstory:

A conservative pro-family group is slamming 7-Eleven for choosing to stock the November issue of Playboy, which will feature cartoon character Marge Simpson on the cover.

"Most American dads know the dangers that porn represents to young males," American Family Association Special Projects Director Randy Sharp said in a press release. "It’s irresponsible of 7-Eleven to display porn in front of boys who pop into 7-11s for a hot dog or a Slurpee."

You know what is more twisted than "cartoon porn?" The man who considers a cartoon porn.

Randy Sharp needs a therapist.

A Conservative for Higher Taxes

2009-10-17T11:57:00.002-07:00

Interesting discussion via bloggingheads.tv:

Democracy Corps Bravely Goes Inside the Mind of the GOP Base

2009-10-16T11:05:00.002-07:00

Political Wire:

These base Republican voters dislike Barack Obama to be sure -- which is not very surprising as base Democrats had few positive things to say about George Bush -- but these voters identify themselves as part of a 'mocked' minority with a set of shared beliefs and knowledge, and commitment to oppose Obama that sets them apart from the majority in the country. They believe Obama is ruthlessly advancing a 'secret agenda' to bankrupt the United States and dramatically expand government control to an extent nothing short of socialism. They overwhelmingly view a successful Obama presidency as the destruction of this country's founding principles and are committed to seeing the president fail.