Hey, Matt,

We already have Katie O'Beirne around to ridicule feminism. Don't feel you have to join in belittling the idea that women are people too. It's already covered.

/sarcasm

Maybe I just read this at the wrong time, but let me just say, this cute little post really pissed me off. I don't find sexual harassment funny.

Posted at January 25, 2006 2:20 PM in response to Unexpected Benefits

Hooray! Good for you Ed, I was starting to feel all alone and wondering what was in the Kool-Aid of my fellow progressives. By all means, let's celebrate a crack in the conservative monolith.

But this new organization is a pack of rabid jackals who need to be put down for the safety and security of our country. Just because the administration is also comprised of dangerous fiends does not make this new group any more acceptable.

Posted at January 18, 2006 2:40 PM in response to The Enemy of My Enemy--Still My Enemy

Thank you for joining us Rep. Brown! I certainly hope that come November we have a Democrat sitting in DeWine's seat.

I am very interested in hearing any ideas you have for election reform. After the 2004 debacle in Ohio and the 2000 nightmare in Florida, I would like to see some sort of integrity restored to our elections. If people cannot have confidence that their vote will be accurately recorded, they will not participate in elections. Do you have any thoughts on solving this problem?

Posted at January 9, 2006 6:43 AM in response to Progressive Prescription for Change

Yeah, I am starting to hate Joe Lieberman. It sounds extreme, but for christsake (what an inappropriate phrase!) he is doing more harm to the Democratic party than Karl Rove.

Hello - why give any Republican plan a boost?? What a jackass.

Posted at January 6, 2006 6:51 AM in response to The Daily Muck

Whoa, whoa, whoa!!

Hold up a second here - first of all let's be clear about one thing: the Abramoff scandal is a Republican Scandal.

There is no need to go amplifying Republican talking points by repeating them.

Reid did not get a dime from Abramoff and he is not returning any money - nor should he. The money the Repubs keep citing came from Abramoff clients - Indian tribes who had gambling interests.

Now think about it: Reid is senator from Nevada. Can you think of any reason a gambling interest would have for donating to a senator from Nevada? Maybe because gambling is big business in Nevada? If you look at Reids donors, virtually every gambling interest in the nation has donated to him.

Let's get this straight right here: There Are ZERO Democrats who took Abramoff money.

ZERO.

This is all part of an attempt by Republicans to create a false equivalency, to make it seem like this is a "politics-as-usual" type scandal and that is flat out false. Don't believe me: look at the lists of Abramoff donations here and here and please stop repeating the GOP talking points.

Thank you.

Posted at January 6, 2006 6:42 AM in response to The Daily Muck

Thank you for your explanation of how primary politics don't work in Connecticut. I was really at a loss as to why nobody was challenging Lieberman.

At this point, Lieberman has become an anchor for the Democratic party. Much as I would rather wait until we have a majority in the Senate before going about the risky business of replacing an incumbent with a newcomer to the Senate, Joe must go. At a time when it is critical the Democratic party define where it stands with voters, Lieberman has severely undercut those efforts with his remarks.

Now any Democrat who takes a stand on the war will find himself scolded by gleeful Repugs quoting Lieberman. It's pretty sickening.

Posted at December 15, 2005 9:35 AM in response to Why Can't Lieberman Be Challenged in a Primary?

I'm not sure how this fits in exactly with Professor Warren's post, but it is related and I wanted to promote it.

David Niewart at Orinicus discusses the racial aspect of the rebuilding of New Orleans.

Posted at December 5, 2005 7:14 AM in response to Real Support for a Free Market

Sorry Carot, but I disagree.

Being against corruption is always a positive unless your party is neck deep in it, in which case it is hypocrisy. For the Democrats to take a strong anti-corruption stance is simply commonsense. You're right in that they don't need to be presenting detailed anti-corruption policies right now for the GOP to savage. But nailing the GOP on the fact that they are not so much a political party as a crime family makes great sense. Reed proposes this as a theme, not a policy.

The Iraq question is harder but your second assertion that agruments before facts look incompetent does not hold up for one simple reason: we have the facts. The Iraq war is a complete and total snafu up from the moment planning began to the our President's speech today and everything in between. We have the facts, the American public knows what the score is, and but the Democrats have squandered the chance to be the party of principle in favor of trying to outtough the GOP. Reed is right; Democrats come across as spineless, poll driven cowards on Iraq.

Lastly, irrelevance is the last thing the Democrats want. Again, I second Reed. If the Democrats establish a party narrative where the obvious themes (again, themes, not policy)are reform of Washington, saving and rebuilding the social safety net and a principled, rather than poll driven, response to Iraq, they can gain the attention and respect of the American people.

You are right about one thing: the Democrats don't need to be talking policy. They need to be talking about why they are different and a strong, viable alternative to criminals currently in office. In other words, they need to take Reed's advice and promote the themes that will return them to power.

Posted at November 30, 2005 7:21 AM in response to 3 themes

Thank you very much for passing this along.

There really are a limited number of things the US can do to help in this situation. As Daniel Greenbaum points out, we pretty much have chosen to do nothing at all. One of the things we could do is teach condom usage and distribute condoms to Africa. But we have chosen not to do that because it offends the sensibilities of some Americans.

Like many of the things we have chosen to ignore or do nothing about, Americans will not see consequences for ourselves for years to come. But if Africa devolves into complete chaos I would imagine it would be a wonderful place for terrorist recruitment and training. Instead of one country ruled by the Taliban, imagine a continent of nations like that.

Posted at November 30, 2005 6:59 AM in response to Postcard From Pretoria

I really like the ideas Nick is putting forward, but Bragan's suggestion that media companies have to set aside blocks of time for candidates is an essential component of reform.

Actually, I would go further and say that media reform is essential. We cannot win in the long run if we are trusting massive media empires wedded to corporate interests to carry the progressive message on the airwaves. The airwaves belong to the public, not the companies and it is time we took them back.

Posted at November 29, 2005 7:13 AM in response to The Other Side of Scandal: Reform