Strategically Yours

I've been missing out on blogging...

2006-05-08T21:09:00.000-04:00

I've had no internet connection for the last few weeks. Somehow today, I've been able to key into some far off neighbor's wireless. BTW - Scarborough is using W as a punching bag right now. Always facsinating when they turn on their own.

This kicks ass...

2006-04-22T00:57:00.000-04:00

read and stayed tuned for the next installments.

When is Intelligence Intelligent?

2006-04-22T00:25:00.000-04:00

Leak. Leak. Leak. Drippy faucets all around lately. In the past 2 days we've learned that the noble CIA agent who reported the abhorrent secret prisons in eastern europe was fired thursday and will be federally charged.

Today we learned that our own Secretary of State is just as drippy.

And the ongoing Plame saga shows us how the leaking reaches the upper echelons of the BUsh Administration.

So what makes a good leak? If you're talking politically, obviously, its any leak that benefits Dear Leader. But how is leak different than any other science? Apparently, there is no difference. Suppressing NASA reports, refusing to supply real jobs data, its all the same In a truly proganda state its all relative.

But wouldn't it be great if the federal governemnt HAD to be honest? What if it was against the law to suppress factual information. What if certified data had to be publicized? What if we could put someone away for years and years for hiding or lying to the American public? Wouldn't that be great?

DCSS vs DCCC, Who's More Evil?

2006-04-11T17:19:00.000-04:00

OK, OK, so the word "evil" is a little harsh. Maybe clueless would be better. Perhaps "have no freakin clue what their doing" would be even better.

David Sirota had some thoughts about the "consultancy class" problem:

But here's the thing: most people who have worked on political campaigns know that this consultant bashing is just a bit off the mark.

But the operative phrase is "contributed to" - not "responsible for." Why? Because to focus more blame on consultants - as opposed to the politicians who hire them - is to avoid the real problem. In many cases, that is deliberate avoidance, so as to prevent raising the ire of politicians many in Democratic circles are still afraid to challenge - no matter how many times they sell us out.

Yeah, I was scratchin my head, too. Is Sirota trying to debunk the progressive blogoshpere CW? Has he fallen for the sweet manna of consultancy fees? Wassup with that?

Turns out that dear David has not gone to the dark side. In fact, he takes the debate a step further - Who is it that enables these vampiric DC consultants to come back time after time, failure after failure? Some deep dark underworld lord? Something like that:

This isn't theory - it's fact, and you can confirm it with anyone who has worked on a Democratic race in recent memory. Or, you can look at Ryan Lizza's nauseating, desperate-to-suck-up-to-power piece on Sen. Chuck Schumer. Lizza, attempting to trumpet Schumer, accidentally ends up highlighting what should be embarrassing: namely, that the Democratic Party in Washington - which claims to respect candidates' autonomy - is actually trying to micromanage everything. That means not only insisting on candidates using often bad consultants, but hand-picked staff from Washington - or else face the sharp end of the fundraising bayonet. As Lizza writes:

"In exchange for helping candidates raise money, Schumer makes a demand: no amateurs. Anybody who wants DSCC help must have a campaign manager, a finance director, and a communications director personally approved by Schumer and his aides."

Mr. Money Bags himself, Chuck Schumer. And it's not just Chuck, Rambo Rahm has been playing the same game. See the thing is, it's not dumb hicks running for office out in the heartland. It's well intentioned people who are looking for guidance on how to run what is the biggest race in their lives thus far. And it's not that their clueless either.

In CTG, Markos and Jerome give the example of Brad Carson, Democratic candidate for Senate in Oklahoma, circa 2004. Carson, trying to be smart, hits up Feingold, who's ads are hands down some of the best, most creative ads in the country, for his secret. Turns out Feingold doesn't use those high-priced beltway boys, and eschews them for a local commercial shop who does wonders. So Carson, trying to be ahead of the curve, attempts to bring the WI boys in to OK. Guess what happens next.

A pony for anyone who said "Schumer"! (OK, my lawyer says that ponies can only be given out for pathetically low Bush poll numbers, so choose another cute animal - CareBears?) That's right, the distinguished gentlemen from NY said no way Jose are you getting all creative on me, I decree you must take on a boring out of touch beltway boy as your media consultant or all this lovely DSCC money will disappear.

And this is where I break with David's premise. Sirota claims that in the end it's the candidate's fault for not having the balls to tell Schumer to go to hell. I don't think that's really fair. It's really really hard (unless your self-financing) for a candidate to buck the candidate committees. These guys are the ones that ride in when the going gets tough with a 6 or 7 figure check. How do you say "screw you"? That could mean 10%, 15% of your war chest - gone. Imagine how terrifying that would be, particularly a newbie.

But consultancy cronyism is not the only problem. Remember Hackett last summer? Hackett loves to tell the story about how he dutifully made the trip down to DC at the beginning of his congressional campaign and sat down with then DCCC Exec. Dir. Hansen about getting the campaign a little start up dough. Hansen turned him away without a dollar in his pocket. Now, like him or not, anyone that's ever sat down with Hackett will tell you he's a charismatic son of a gun who obviously knows how to talk to the pistol carrying average joy Ohian of district 2.It should have been a no brainer - the talent is plain as day. But Hansen wasn't looking for talent, he was looking for numbers. The only two he cares about - dollars in the bank, and percent spread in November '04.

So what's the moral of the story here? The DSCC and the DCCC make some really bad decisions. They make really bad decisions because they think money is everything, spit on raw talent, and because they're in bed with the corrupt DC consultants that whisper in their ears all day, "Don't move, don't speak, don't have an opinion, or you may offend some unknown voter." If we really want to change the problem we have with the pathetic candiates we get year in and year out, then we need to change the campaign committees mentality.

How do we do it? Well, I'll leave it for you in the comments to discuss. I'll start with one idea - change the DCCC and DSCC from the inside. Go work for them.

Getting a job is fairly easy. (Mostly because turnover is high and pay starts low) If you have a college degree, go to a Emily's List campaign workshop. The easiest way to in the door is finance. Train to be a fundraiser. They're always looking for new bodies to raise the big bucks. If you can hang in their for a couple of years, you'll be running the place, as everyone else burns out or goes on to make money in the corporate world (finance people are the ultimate cynics).

Who knows, in a few years, it could be YOU who's making the decisions on which candidates represent our party.

Texas: Fundamentally Flawed

2006-04-07T15:01:00.000-04:00

McKinney, Texas - Today, yet another Texan mother was locked up in a psychiatric ward for murdering her child in the name of the Lord. Dena Schlosser, was found not guilty by reason of insanity today for dismembering her 10-month old baby while listening to hymns. The child did not survive the loss of both arms.

The hymns part is really what stopped me. Who listens to hymns while murdering a helpless baby? Apparentally, someone who thinks god is speaking to her:

Testimony in the first trial showed that several times in the year before the killing Schlosser had religious-based hallucinations and delusions that she thought God wanted her to kill the child.

Now does anyone else think this is a little odd? Why is Texas the home of both Dena Schlosser and Andrea Yates? Why are Texas mothers killing their children in the name of God? Could it be that they both home schooled their children? No, that doesn't make sense. Over a million children are home schooled each year all across the country. Yet this problem seems to be particular to Texas.

As we all know, Texas is a hotbed of religious fundamentalism. And so that's why when I heard the word "hymn" in reference to a murder in Texas, I got thinking. Dena Schlosser thought God was telling her to kill her daughter, Andrea Yates thought that Satan was coming for her children before she drowned them. They were both classified with religious hallucinations. What this really sounds like to me is the precursors to religious hysteria.

Religious hysteria used to be quite a common thing - if you go back to the Dark Ages. There was even a little left over at the birth of our country with the Salem Witch Trials. Luckily, we've been able to grow as a society since then and purge such vile occurances. But with the rise of religious fundamentalism in this country, and with more and more people isolating themselves in their homes and their churches, working themselves up into dangerous fevors, religious violence is making a comeback.

The biggest danger is that the religious fundamentalists are just getting started. And as the politicians pander to the fervor vying to be the "most" religious, escalating rhetoric will only continue to flame these smoldering fires. At what point to people feel that they have to kill to prove their devotion? Have we already reached that point?

Land of the Angry?

2006-04-02T17:49:00.000-04:00

The Economist, while being a conservative rag, is often good at saying what our media will not. In this week's edition, they tackle rage, American style, in "The Rebirth of Outrage":

THE most striking thing about Americans to many outsiders is how nice they are. They have none of the aloofness of the British or the froideur of the French. On the contrary, they go out of their way to be warm and welcoming. This is the land of the smiley face and the “have a nice day” greeting. Put simply, Americans like to be liked.

Yet turn on cable television and you are confronted with a series of people who are in a perpetual state of outrage. They are incensed (if they're on the left) that Barbara Bush has stipulated that her Hurricane Katrina donation should be used to buy software from a firm owned by one of her sons; furious (if they're on the right) that Hillary Clinton has invoked Jesus's name in decrying Republican immigration policies; and pig-wrestling mad (and here outrage goes bipartisan) that Yale University has admitted a former spokesman for the Taliban.

It got me thinking, are we angrier than most people? On one hand, America is the land of road rage, Fox News, school metal detectors, and the Minuteman Project. On the other hand, America is not the home of parliamentary fist fights, cartoon riots, or football stadium stampedes. So I have a hard being convinced that we're any angrier than any other nations. The article concurs:

Four in five Americans tell pollsters that they are either very happy (34%) or pretty happy (50%).

So the author narrows his claim, by defining the politically active Americans as angry, and points to O'Reilly as proof.

This got me thinking down another road - are we angry enough? At what point are we too angry? When I say "we" here, I mean is the American Left angry enough? The right has been angry for decades, and I hate to say it, but it seems to have been working for them. Pat Roberts, Bill O'Reilly, Jerry Falwell, Sean Hannity, angry, angry, angry. Angry - but lots of followers. Anger is a great motivator to get people to the polls. And every time the Bush Administration f's up, every time they sell out the American people, I keep on wondering - where's the outrage? what does it take? Does Bush need to starting nuking American cities before anyone notices?

But then my split personality kicks in. See, even though I'm angry, hopping mad angry sometimes, I also yearn for civility in politics that now seems like a bygone era. I'm tired of political pundits who spend their airtime calling each other names instead of debating the issues. I'm tired of a federal government that prefers stonewalling rather than reaching a consensus. And I'm really tired of talk show hosts shouting down sacrificial lamb guests.

Granted, this new era of angry has been ushered in by a take-no-prisoners conservative movement. And as long as they continue along with this scorched earth policy, I don't think the left has any choice but to fight back. And hence I swing back to my "angry" personality.

I don't know which personality is right. I don't know if there's a middle ground, maybe there is only these two polar beings. But I sure wish there was a way to win without the personal attacks, the shouting, the meanness. With a heavy heart I doubt there is.

Trouble with the Follow Thru

2006-03-30T00:40:00.000-05:00

So I keep starting blog posts, but I'm having problems finishing them. I think its cause I keep reading all these other bloggers who seem to do so much research. I keep telling myself that I'll come back to a subject to beef it up, but alas its just not happening.

Maybe I'm not cut out for this blog thing, but I'll give it a few more tries.

Ultimate Power Grab 101

2006-03-21T00:25:00.000-05:00

Recently, I 've been trying to figure out what is the connection between the 9/11 rhetoric, the Iraq War, the terror color coding, the patriot act and the domestic wiretapping. In my gut I could feel that they're part of a bigger picture but I couldn't quite put my finger on it. Then, last night I was watching Feingold on Charlie Rose and all of it came into to focus.

Feingold didn't say what I'm about to propose, but I as I was watching, I kept on thinking to myself, "Why is Russ picking these issues to make a stand on? What is driving him to vote against the war, the patriot act, why the censure motion?" And all of it kinda coalesced - Russ Feingold is trying to prevent the Ultimate Power Grab of All Time. He's standing in the square, in front of the oncoming tank that is the Bush Administration. And all to try to save our society from the coming fascist regime.

Extreme rhetoric? Yes. But say you were president, and say that you wanted to keep you and your cronies in power for forever and ever, and a national tragedy falls in your lap like 9/11. What do you do? Pour in the fear a few dashes of nationalitionalism and stir.

Conservative Crybabies

2006-03-10T10:59:00.000-05:00

I've been trying to get through The Art of Political War by David Horowitz. For those out there who aren't familiar with this crazy conservative, Horowitz is a leftist-turned-neocon who now runs The Center for the Study of Popular Culture. He's also recently started Students for Academic Freedom - a group that demands universities hire more conservative professors.

Anywho, I have been trying very, very hard to force myself to read his tome. But it's been incredibly painful. I'm only a fifth of the way through but his paranoid rants are really starting to wear on me. For example:

"How can Republicans get their message to the electorate? Only by doing what the Democrats do. First they can attack their opponents credibility"

and later:

"This noncombatant attitude is so pervasive in Republican politics that it even affects their ability to hold their ground in territory that is traditionally theirs."

Wow. What world does he live in? For while I thought maybe this book was written back in the 80's (before I was in politics) and that maybe the old guard of democrats that dominated the House really were that bad. But then I checked the date of publication on Political War - 2000. Well after the viciousness of Gringrich and the attack dogs from Monicagate. Well after his party turned into a bunch of rabid animals spewing venom and hate.

The psychic break from reality that Horowitz must have had is just too jarring for me to take in more than small pieces. So I'm going to put Political War down for a little while, and start The Republican Noise Machine by David Brock - I'll let you know how it goes.

Draft Paul Hackett...

2006-03-03T03:54:00.000-05:00

...to become a radio personality. Within the political set there's several rumors that Paul Hackett is entertaining contracts to do talk radio. Personally, I can't think of a better resolution to this whole debacle. As someone who has met Paul, I can tell you - the guy can talk. Meeting him as a candidate, I got to say I was actually slightly concerned about his propensity to yammer. It's hard for a candidate to project "I feel your pain" when he's chatting about himself a mile a minute.

However, that is perfect for someone on radio. And while, you may not be more inclined to vote for him after he describes his sons' inclinations towards violence against each other and themselves, he is very entertaining. Quite honestly, I can't think of a better role for him.

The Two State Strategy for Enviromental Success

2006-03-02T23:53:00.000-05:00

So I bought Jerome and Markos's new book, and I'm starting to delve through it. As I make my way through I'm going to dissect certain points in it. Very early on, they go into a significant diatribe against the enviro groups, and a lot of it is warranted.

When one talks about the advocacy organizations on our side, you only need to to think about one figure - $100 million. The intake of the Sierra Club in 2004. No other C3 on our side comes even close. According to Crashing the Gate, the largest enviro groups took in approximately $415 million. In one year. And nothing to show for it. CAFE stardards? nope. Global Warming initiatives? ha. Solar Energy? Wind Energy? not even close. zip. zero. nada.

The green groups are sucking up progressive dollars, like giant Dyson vacuum. And while I don't prescribe to the belief that there is a fixed number of progressive dollars in there, it does seem like there's a huge inefficiency going on here. Lot's of money without much results.

So I decree that enviromental groups should no longer operate nationally. In fact, the environmental groups should only be allowed to operate in 2 states - California and New York. California has the largest economy in the country, and ranks somewhere between fourth and ninth in the world. New York is either the second or third largest economy in the country (Texas may be bigger), and the eleventh largest economy in the world. Together they're about equivalent of France and Italy's economies put together. We're talking serious purchasing power here. And we've all seen enough political maps to know how blue they are.

How does the Two State Strategy work? In the perfect world, all the various environmental groups decide to focus the vast majority of their piggy banks to push green friendly laws that directly apply to businesses doing business in these two states. We've already seen examples of this in California. California significantly raised CAFE standards for all cars sold in the state. The result? Every major car manufacturer is now scrambling to meet these standards or risk being shut out of a population of 40 million. When they do make these changes, they're not going to create a special line of cars that sell just to California - they're going to make the changes across their entire fleet, because economically it doesn't make sense for them to produce 2 different sets of cars.

So where else can we apply this lesson? Target number one - energy companies. Energy companies that don't comply to a certain set of standards would no longer be able to sell their units to the Dynamic Duo. These standards could be anthing from an emission standard to a requirement on a company's energy portfolio that must diversify into renewables. And these standards must hold across the country as a whole, not just their operations within the Dynamic Duo. And the strategy doesn't end there - logging standards on lumber producers, clean up standards on mining companies, protecting the organic label, etc., etc.

Implementing the strategy is very simple. The green groups use their serious money to install democratic governors, democratic legislatures, and democratic judiciary. Then they start crafting legislation. Once things start passing, the green groups protect these new laws from the inevitable corporate lawsuits with the best legal defense available. And then they can work to bring other states into the fold. All of a sudden, the southern strategy doesn't even matter. All things are very doable with the amount of money in their coffers. It's up to
them (and us to push them to do it).

Activist Alert: Do you give money to one or more of the environmental groups? Email them and ask them to follow through on the Two State Strategy.

Making Slime Stick

2006-03-01T18:14:00.000-05:00

John over at AmericaBlog has a great new name for Coulter - "Assination Ann". I don't know if he's the first to use it, but it's the first I've seen it, and I have a pretty voracious appetite for blogs. Having a name like that stick would be a great coup. Why? because then we've branded her - anytime, anywhere she pops up, the world "Assination" will pop into every American's head.

But why would we care what the public thinks about Ann Coulter? Well, actually we don't care directly about Ann's PR problems, but it becomes very advantageous if we can make her a PR problem for Republican candidates. For example, in 2004 I worked on a Senate race in a red state. The Republicans favorite attack? Show pictures of our candidate next to Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, and Edward Kennedy. Follow it up with a "Does candidate X share your values?". Red state gold right there.

So what do we do? Well we have to defend, but we also have to be able to put pressure on them. That's where "Assination Ann" and "Pat Jihad Roberts" come in. Then anytime a Repulican official or candidate comes within a 50-mile radius, your run the ad - the Republican side by side with Ann and Pat. It's vicious, but it has to be done. We have to keep them on the defensive.

American Taliban Targets Oprah

2006-02-28T02:45:00.000-05:00

Aparently, Oprah talks about sex. Someone get out the fainting salts. I am shocked beyond belief. Oprah has an honest and open conversation about sex addicts, and the moral walls are crumbling.

OMG. SEX. OPRAH. How dare she? How dare she ask someone about the number of sex partners they have? How dare she ask about the experiences they've had? It boggles the mind. But there's a bigger question here. Why are Americans obsessed with sex? More importantly , why is the American Taliban obsessed with sex?

For the same reason that any other fundametalist cult is obsessed with sex. It's about control. Whether it's food, cleanliness, or sex, it's about controlling the everyday aspects of people's lives. For it's control that is all important. Ultimately if a cult can control the everyday mundane life, if they can have that type of influence, they have a convert. For it is that type of sacrifice that makes a true believer. Doesn't really matter if they follow throough, it's about the collective mindset. Good vs Evil. Even if you blow off the teachings in your everyday life, if you're evangelizing to everyone else that your way is the right way, then all is well. As long as you have something to rage against.

Here, Here

2006-02-26T01:01:00.000-05:00

So, so glad someone has called her out on it. Hillary Clinton does not need $17 million to run against an imaginary candidate. My question is: Why the hell are people giving to her? What the hell is she going to use all that money for? Well, obviously, her presidential run.

It's the chicken and the egg problem. The CW says that to win you need gobs and gobs of money. But to raise gobs and gobs of money you have to be well known. And to, you know, be well known you need to raise gobs and gobs of money. So the MSM can write those oh so important process stories about fundraising prowess. Cause you know that experience and policy isn't going to cut it as newsworthy in the editor's eyes.

Anyways, sometime soon I'm going to lay out why nominating Hill to be the Dem candidate will cause the Dem Party to completely implode. But for now, why don't we sit back and imagine all those needy congressional campaign this year, like Ciro, who could truly use a few hundred grand from that stash that Hill is sitting on. It's not like MoveOn can fund every worthy candidate.

Why Hackett Mattered

2006-02-24T15:52:00.000-05:00

So it's been over a week since Hackett dropped out of the OH race, yet the controversy continues. I've yet to see a good eulogy on Hackett's political rise and fall and what it means for the future. So I'm going to try a hand at it.

Hackett was never the perfect Democratic candidate. He had a thing for guns. He had the mouth of a drunken sailor. He was hot headed. He had very little political experience and even less money. And for those exact reasons that he left a bad taste in the Democratic establishment's mouth, are the reasons why he was the perfect progressive candidate.

For the progressive movement to begin to take over the Democratic Party, we're going to need our own set of leaders. We have Dean and Schweitzer, and they're a good start,but we're going to need a whole lot more people elected to Congress, or working in political organizations, who are down in DC, shouting down the DINOs and taking a stand on progressive issues. Hackett would have been one of those guys.

And for the record, Hackett wasn't a librul. There's was plenty of reasons, the guns thing just being the most notable. But Progressive != Libral. And that distinction needs to be made clear. Progressivism is about being a populist, being pragmatic, being a reformer. Hackett embodied all of that and then some. More importantly he knew how to verbalize it. He's didn't talk like a politician, he talked like a guy sitting on the barstool next to you. That, my friends, is worth more in a race than any trust fund that can be raided for a slate of ads.

In the end of the day, I think the Democratic Party still has a good chance to win the OH seat. But we progressives missed out on having one of our own elevated to the next level.

Books to Read

2006-02-24T03:11:00.000-05:00

So I want to share my evolution as a democratic insider (if that's what you can call it). Quite honestly, nothing in my upbringing suggested that I would become a hardcore partisan. But I did. Thus when I made the leap into politics I was woefully unprepared. So after my first campaign, I sequestered myself, and went into a period of self-education. I want to share the materials that has prepared me thus far. So during my interim as a hermit (and beyond) this is what I read:

The Bible: Before the Storm

Knowing Thy Enemy: Blinded by the Right

The Lay of the Land: Right Nation

Birth of a Movement: Conscience of a Conservative

I'll add more later.

Meta Blogging

2006-02-24T02:57:00.000-05:00

So I really wish that Blogger offered tags. Cause this is one to be definitely filed under Meta. Unfortunately, I'm stuck with Blogger, as in my line of work I require a certain amount of anonymity.

Anyways, this my first foray into blogging. I've had many inciteful and experienced people tell me that I need to write down my thoughts, so this is the first stab. Gotta admit, there's something satsifying to it. Eventhough probably no one will ever read this blog, there's something rejuvinating in getting all these thoughts down and being able to revisit them.

Live and Let Live

2006-02-24T02:30:00.000-05:00

So I was reading over my previous post, and I realized I left out an important component. The sound bite. So how do we talk about this broad umbrella (rather than an issue silo)? It's all in the 15-second sound bite. My recommendation?

Live and let live.

Nuf said.

What It Means to be a Progressive - the Social Aspect

2006-02-24T01:35:00.000-05:00

Since this blog is devoted to looking at what the progressive movement is, and what it means to be a part of it, I've come to realize that means not just discussing tactics, but also analyzing values. So I'm going, as a card carrying progressive, throw my values out there. Many may disagree, but I think that it's important to have this conversation and develop what should eventually become a values statement.

So social values. The great wedge issues. Abortion, gay and, guns, yadda yadda yadda. To tell you the truth I find all of these discussions to be dragging progressives into the weeds. All those single silos are detrimental to the movement. It doesn't allow enough wiggle room. Quite honestly, normal, everyday people don't fit into silos. Everyone has a different variation on what is important and why. So I'm going to make a broad decree - no more silos.

That being said - we do need and over-arching theory on what it means to be progressive and why. Actually, that part isn't that hard. I would say that progressives believe that every American should have the freedom to do what it is that they as an individual find to be fulfilling so long as it does not harm another human being. Pretty simple, yes? Make your life fulfilling, just don't hurt anyone else. Fairly simple.

So where does it break down in the great debate? Well, the obvious example would be gay marriage. Sanctity of marriage! Sanctity of marriage! The conservatives scream and cry. But there is an obvious answer to this. Is anyone harmed by gay marriage? Sure, there's imaginary grievances. Like those propagated by the religious right. Does gay marriage stop anyone from being marriage? Does it lessen the feelings of love and commitment? I challenge anyone to come forward and claim "I love my spouse less because gays get married." Ultimately this is a false choice and needs to be framed as such.

This will be a continuing debate and discussion on this site.

Rewarding Good Behaviour

2006-02-24T00:44:00.000-05:00

So in case you didn't notice, there's a nice little narrative rolling thru the progressive blogosphere today, as can be seen from here, here, and here. Why is this important? Because molding a progressive movement means identifying the good guys and the bad guys within the sphere. And now we know. Planned Parenthood - bad, Naral - bad, NOW - good. And this may change in the future, but it's important to draw those lines. These organizations are taking in and spending progressive dollars - they should be doing progressive work.

Should Planned Parenthood and Naral be forever delegated to the dog house? No. But someone needs to call them on their bad politics. At some point one needs to assess - are you with us or against us? And those that are flushing valuable dollars down the toilet are against us. And for those of us who don't have the big bucks to garner attention from these groups? Well, the only thing we can do is publicize the failures and celebrate the successes of those who are spending the big bucks. But don't down play that just as cheerleading, this is what forms conventional wisdom.

The WHY

2006-02-20T00:44:00.000-05:00

So what's the point of this blog? It seems to me that there is lots of discussion on where is the democratic party going. What's its message? What does it stand for? Lots of people have opinion. There's lots of books coming out. Some from progressive leaders, some from those who are ingrained but do not know necessarily what the progressive movement is all about. And those that are on the outside, not necessarily looking in from the right angle.

So there's lots of talk. Some I agree with, some quite frankly is bullsh*t. But I figured someone has got to tell the story from the inside the beast. So enjoy. You probably won't agree with most of my take, but at least you know its honest.

Getting There.....

2006-02-18T17:05:00.000-05:00

Well the banner is now up, plus I've fixed the width to the wider and more common 760 px. There's still lots to do with the CSS, but I think it's good enough to get going on the writing.

banner number two

2006-02-18T16:55:00.000-05:00

My First Post

2006-02-18T16:25:00.000-05:00

Let's see if this works. This is the banner I'm going to use for now: