Alright, so in the first installment of this we discussed Joe Stack, the Tea Party and how Scott Brown connected the terrorist dots.  Here we will go further, back in time and revisit tragedy and the links (the dots) continue.  Remember Scott Roeder?  Back last May he murdered Dr. George Tiller in a church because Dr. Tiller had performed abortions.  Remember Richard Poplowski?  He murdered 3 Pittsburgh police officers driven by the fear that President Obama would take his gun rights away (a fear perpetuated by Tea Party Guru Glenn Beck).  Remember James W. von Brunn?  He committed murder in Washington DC when he killed a security guard at in the holocaust museum attack.  Are these all directly Tea Party related?  No there is no direct connection.  Were any of the players connected to the same group or receiving orders from a clear hierarchy?  Not really, each man was acting on his own volition (even in the the case of Poplowski).  Yet there is a strong thread that ties these cases together and a thread that permeates the entire Tea Party as well.  These were all cases of domestic terrorism of the right wing variety and the forces that compelled these men to such dastardly acts were fear, bigotry and hatred.  Roeder hated Tiller for "what he'd done", Poplowski feared what would happen to this country and Brunn, an avowed white supremacist, saw Blacks and Jews as beneath him.  Well, the very Tea Party movement that has become hitched to the Republican establishment is filled with fear, bigotry and hatred toward the President of the United States.  The worst part is that many of these people don't understand what this could mean.  You see they fear losing  "America as it should be" or "what we know America to be".  Yet they fail to recognize (in some cases individuals choose not to recognize) that in seeking to take down Obama's agenda they are fighting against America as it is and has been for quite some time.  In their zeal against the Maoists, Stalinists and Trotskyites they seem more and more like Mussolini's fascists who embrace the corporate elite.  That has been the Agenda of the Republican party and the royalists for decades and Tea Party populism is the perfect cover.  Moreover the terror component still lingers and as the Tea party Pot boils and begins to bubble over it is disturbing to think what will happen if it eventually bursts.

Link to First Part

This week has been a shocking and quite revealing week in American politics.  The latest (and somewhat potent) edition of political fad/movement, the Teaparty, has been exposed at its fringes at the same time it has become streamlined with the Republican establishment.  The past few weeks have been a blur for the Teapartiers replete with the first "Tea Party" convention that included Sarah Palin (former Republican Vice Presidential Nominee), not to mention the ascension of Scott Brown (Republican Candidate) to the position of Junior Senator from Massachusetts.  Now at the CPAC Convention (a Republican Establishment mixer for "conservative" activists) the teapartiers have come home and this is where it gets interesting.

On Tuesday night Mr. 41 himself, the aforementioned Mr. Brown, gave the introduction to Reagan reborn Mitt Romney and presented himself as an example of the success of Tea Party activism.  One night later, as he sat with Niel Cavuto on Fox News, Mr. Brown inadvertently set in motion the unraveling of the above movement.  When asked about a crazed man flying a plane into the Austin Texas IRS offices (here) Mr. Brown related that there was a connection between the attack and the forces that propelled him from his truck to the halls of Washington.  His point was reinforced by the trivialization of tragedy and terror from Ted Babbin a day later.  These men made clear the implications of the terrorist attack in Austin on Tuesday.  Keep in mind it is not an isolated incident.  We have seen this kind of terror before.
                                          to be cont'd here

Sarah Palin is using this approach and has a constituency but let's not forget what 8 years of "Everyman" running the country is like.  Nuff said.

Last year, I like many others in this nation and around the world even was inspired by the audacious campaign of the man that would be the 44th President of the United States.  Against the conventional grain, Candidate Obama sought to bring people together and heal old divisions to take the discussion beyond old contentions toward a fascinating future that started to become visible during the campaign.  President-Elect Obama remained humble and so respectful of his political adversaries during the transition while setting up a centrist cabinet that illustrated the Pragmatism that would reign for at least the next four years in Washington.  Transparency was of the utmost importance and also accountability to the American people in an unprecedented way.  Then the Inauguration with a sober assessment and frugal festivities to follow and still this ever present emphasis on bi-partisan reconciliation.  On stimulus Obama worked with the Republicans and invited them to the Whitehouse to discuss policy as he has done on so many another occasion and so on and so forth for nine months.  Now here we are and finally I'm tired of this game.  President Obama has played the "middle of the road", triangulation, bi-partisanship strategy to full effect and to this point it's payed off with successful legislation the result in most cases (including the current healthcare fight I'm confident).  The price however has been an overwhelming portion of political capital being expended to do what seems to many like compromise.  Now President Obama is running out of that capital with quite alot still left to do and a short second 9 months before the midterm elections kick into high "summer" gear next year.  Now when that time comes, the argument the President and Dems will make is that we pushed for the best solutions in crisis and came up with the best for America.  The reality of where the economy is and what kind of policies are in place on issues ranging from climate change to immigration is still unknown and what the perception of those things by the majority of the voting public is a great mystery.  But I can guarantee the Republicans will be looking for any negatives or complex factors to spin into I told you so's and "the Democrats controlled the whole government with filibuster proof majorities". I'm also sure that most voters won't want to hear that the Republicans played dirty tactics and that we "miscalculated" so give us more time as a response from Dems if things aren't going swimmingly by then.  It will also be another disappointing midterm election season for many voters who feel like they can't tell the difference between the two parties.  There is a way to avoid these scenarios altogether IMHO.  The President along with progressive Dems must set out on a clearly and partisan course.  The time for the post-partisan experiment is over.  The experiment is a failure.  One party cannot a be bi-partisan if the other party refuses to be reasonable and if the other party is being unreasonable then they must be called out and put in their place.  It's time for Dems to smash the opposition inanity with sensible "liberal" solutions that seek to "solve problems" instead of building consensus.  Obama needs to move to the left so that when he's accused of being a leftist, the charge can be at least remotely true and no more of this understanding madness from the other side.  Joe Wilson is a disgrace, Sarah Palin is devastatingly uneducated and the Republican leadership on capital hill is absolutely without new ideas or even talking points for the crucial issues that we currently face.  These are facts and should be stated as such before strong policy is implemented, not in a debate but in a march towards a more progressive future.

Apparently the soon to be ex-Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, is under the delusion that she is an expert when it comes to United States energy policy.  But upon reading the first few paragraphs of her op-ed it becomes evident that she is anything but.  Upon reading such nonsense given space in a respected national paper like WAPO no less I quickly realized that a response was necessary.  Fortunately Andrew Sullivan delivered it and I need say no more.

Who would've thought 8 years ago that Democrats would be where we are right now?  I mean Bush had just been declared the victor by the supreme court and Republicans had control of the House of Reps. and were poised to take back the Senate.  Democrats now control 60 seats in the Senate, a strong majority in the House of Reps. as well as the Presidency.  But way back then it was not easy to see the road ahead or just who would be traveling with us.  Hardly anybody outside Illinois' thirteenth district had even heard of Barack Obama.  Al Franken hadn't even written "Lying Liars" yet.  Nancy Pelosi had just been elected the first female minority whip in congressional history and Harry Reid was majority whip over in the Senate.  Yet here we are all these years later and these are the power players, among others of course.  My point is that most onlookers were oblivious of what  was to come for our current leaders but was the rise to leadership unpredictable (surely in Al's case) or could careful observers have seen the possibilities.  Well I'm an observer and as carefully as I could I have assembled a list of 8 Democrats to watch in the next 8. (years that is)

Legacy Politicians

Christopher G. Kennedy-  The 8th son of the late Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, a businessman and political operative, Kennedy is mulling a run for the Illinois Senate seat currently held by Roland Burris.  With his successful business background and family legacy he'd make a formidable contender and would immediately be a big player in party politics were he to get elected.

Robin Carnahan-  In Missouri, the Carnahan's are political royalty Robin Carnahan's parents both held statewide elected office as Governor (her father) and Senator (mother) and she has been elected twice as the Secretary of State in Missouri, actually setting the record for most votes garnered for any candidate in Missouri electoral history.  Carnahan is a powerhouse in what has been a swing midwestern state and may play on the Presidential stage someday.

Beau Biden-  Well this one is obvious.  The guy is a U.S. Senator if he wants it and there's no reason he wouldn't.  His father is..........  Do I have to explain this one?

Rising Stars

Gavin Newsom-  Christian Bale's doppelganger?  The Plumpjack guy?  Mr. Gay Rights?  Yes awesome Mr. Newsom has a shot at being the next Governor of California and with his fresh brand of progressivism that is unashamed he's one to watch.  As Mayor of San Francisco Newsom has been agressive and innovative much like his approach to his successful wine business Plumpjack.  Newsom is photogenic and articulate which means national politics is on his horizon.

Corey Booker- Booker is the heir apparent.  Given, Obama has been in office for barely six months.  Obama has set a tone and made explicit his style which should allow him to win re-election and have a successful 2 terms by the time he leaves office.  When that time comes, a power vacuum will be left in the party and a mad scramble will ensue.  Booker will be the man that has to do the least scrambling.  If any politician in America is a reflection of the Obama brand on any level it would be Booker.  Booker was the "new" politician that ended up being elected to replace disgraced former Newark Mayor Sharpe James.  In his short tenure, Booker has been able to attract business to the city, cut down on crime and create a new sense of pride in the New Jersey city.  There is wide speculation that Booker will run for Governor some day (maybe in four years) or take an appointment from the President.  No matter what, Booker is the embodiment of the new politics that has swept the nation.

Artur Davis-  He's a Harvard guy, a moderate, from the south in his third term in congress.  Davis is also running for Governor of Alabama which if he wins would make him only the 5th African-American Governor in our nations History.  Davis is popular in his district and early polls show that he's a strong statewide candidate and with the support of President Obama Davis may be on his way to prominence.

Kamala Harris-  A candidate for Attorney General of California and current District Attorney for the city of San Francisco.  Harris is an interesting figure, her mother is an Indian-American and her father is Jamaican-American.  She has a strong legal record famously challenging the current Attorney General on a capital punishment case opposing the death penalty and winning.  Here is a leader with a serious future in California and maybe beyond.

This Guy Had To Be On The List

Tim Kaine-  OK so Kaine is the Governor of Virginia and the Chairman of the Democratic Party.  He was handpicked by President Obama to oversee and update the organization of the party infrastructure.  Of course, before that there was widespread speculation that he would be the Vice Presidential nominee on the party ticket all the way up to just before Joe Biden was announced.  So Kaine is already in a leadership position but what after this one?  Many a party chairman has used the connections one can build to catapult them further.  It is a fact, however, that Kaine has alread done the Governor thing and that the options he has are therefore diminished.  Still I'd watch Kaine, he may be on a national ticket yet.

Well that's my list of future power players.  I included 2 politicians from the four major regions Northeast, Midwest, South, and West and therefore did not mention all of the potential out there.  Surely my fellow TPMers have some clues on up and coming talent out there plus I'd love to know what you all think of my list.

Well the answer is obvious.  It's Bill Clinton.  Though he has been out of office for almost a decade the man is still a powerhouse on the Global scene.  That he has taken on the special envoy position with the U.N., especially considering his less than pleasant encounters with Haitian restoration during his Presidency speaks to Clinton's commitment.  I'd wager he feels a sense of responsibility toward the situation in Haiti beginning with U.S. policy in the 1990's and has been itching to take a crack at the problems that have spawned from that time.  With that much commitment and all the Clinton clout (around the world with donors in particular) it would seem a great opportunity is available to bring some meaningful change and development for the people of a country ravaged by poverty, lawlessness and corruption not to mention the devastating effects of natural disasters in recent years.  Furthermore, avoiding any puns, the timing could not be better for Clinton to get involved.  Big money has just been pledged in aid for Haiti from the U.S. and the upcoming elections there are wide open with some visionaries running for high offices.  We saw what Bill Clinton was able to do economically for this country against some tough odds with a high rate of success.  He was not able to see his hopes for Haiti achieved at that time but with his new position and the new circumstances I would not be surprised to see peace and prosperity in Haiti's near future.

I must say it has been quite a tremendous experience witnessing the goings on of the last several days in Iran via electronic communication.  It's been truly amazing to have live updates and communications directly from the streets in Tehran and all across Iran.  To see the video and read the translations of the words and sentiments of the people as the struggle for the rights that we sometimes take for granted here in America.  Of course, Josh and co. have been great on TPM providing coverage all weekend in fact and then keeping the information flowing up to now.  Also I must commend Nico Pitney over at huffpost and Andrew Sullivan of the Atlantic (those guys haven't been sleeping) for their tireless efforts.  I'll just say Viva Green Revolutionaries.

Oh and I thought this was inspiring

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwKVLwckDYw

Quick question.  Did President Obama say that US troops wouldn't be out of Iraq until 2012?  Will it then be 2013 then 2016?  What's up with the moving timeline?  Just asking.  And I'm refering to what the President said in his speech on June 4th.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaxZPiiKyMw

about 22 minutes in.  It was such a good speech that I missed it the first time.

Here's the link from back in April

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04/30/justice_souter_to_retire/index.php#comment-3454175

Is there anyone who made this prediction earlier on here?

George McGovern, much maligned as a radical by Nixon-era conservatives is remembered mainly for running an idealistic yet ineffective campaign for the Presidency in 1972.  However, almost 4 decades later, McGovern and his political philosophy (McGovernism) figures as the most prominent 20th century influence on early 21st century American Politics.

At First, this may seem an odd assertion given some of what may seem so very obvious.  After all, this is the era of Obama, a young and inspiring orator who has commanded global affection with a transcendent style that combines a pragmatism that emphasizes success over ideology with a relentless calm in the face of the most daunting challenges.  These are the qualities that propelled Obama to prominence and victory in the 2008 elections and they remain consitent in his administration's approach to the first 100 days in office.  McGovern's '72 campaign, on the other hand, was dogged by a lack of discipline demonstrated in the Miami Convention speech debacle and candidate McGovern was seen as an ideologue whose rhetoric may have been inspiring to some, though his delivery left much to be desired.  It's no wonder McGovern lost in a landslide that fall and there was no 100 days to usher in his era, but enough contrasting.

Instead I want to focus on what makes the title of this offering (in my humble opinion) valid.  Barack Obama is a direct political descendant of the new Democrat identity that began to emerge in the late 1960's and was first given voice, however unconvincing to the majority of American voters that year, by an unlikely speaker.  McGovern did not have the most sonorous delivery but his message was one based on conviction.  As a longtime Democrat he sought reform in the party and as a committed public servant he wanted to implement policy that would benefit the people who would elect him.  In the Democratic Primaries he was an insurgent candidate that wasn't given much of a chance early but remained a positive campaigner with an emphasis on his main issue, the war.    McGovern also had a significant and lasting impact on the Democratic party primary system.  At the 1968 Convention in Chicago, in a Coup, some of his delegates basically rewrote the rules for choosing a candidate placing more emphasis on elected delegates (primaries and caucuses) and less on supers (party bosses/backroom deals) and adding allocation rules for delegates that rewarded areas that vote heavily Democratic in elections.  His platform in 1972 included the Equal Rights Amendment and a focus on honesty in Government.

Now here we are, about 100 days into the Obama Presidency and I believe we have gotten the McGovern promise after a delayed fashion.  Women's rights were front and center when President Obama signed his first bill into law.  Furthermore, Obama has placed honesty and transparency as essentials to good government not to mention his commitment to staying out of divisive excersizes in partisan politics.  He's also established a timeline to withdraw troops from Iraq (which he campaigned on) though the President is seeking to escalate the effort in Afghanastan much to McGovern's chagrin.

All of this to say, finally, it is time that Democrats, liberals, progressives or whatever we want to call ourselves to figure out what the best route towards progress will be.  It was the ideologues that McGovern gave voice to, the young, the hopeful much like Obama.  But Obama's hope is tempered by grim reality and a sense that ideological purity far from being important is dangerous or at the very least unnecessary.  This is natural as it has all been a gradual development up to this time.  It was the McGovernites, unbroken, though jaded by such a  harsh defeat that recalibrated the new Democrat message and ultimately put Bill Clinton in the WhiteHouse.  It was Bill Clinton that pushed the party to the center in hopes that broader support for the party would mean greater power to implement policies.  Things didn't go according to plan however and soon came discontent with the party as unrepresentative of anything in particular and disenchantment with Clinton as deceptive and calculating.  Then came 2008 as a perfect oppurtunity for resolution of the Democratic Party identity crisis and, also, for salvation from the Bush crisis.  Voters had a choice early on for Clintonism (what I like to call Post-Mcgovernism) redux in the person of Hillary vs. Neo-McGovernism personified in Obama.  It was not all together obvious (and surely took me a while to identify concretely) but here was a leader that represented the core arguments that made McGovern inspiring to a certain group of voters in 1972 the same arguments that were quite mainstream by 2008.  To top it off, the most valuable outgrowth of the Post-McGovernism of Clinton called Centrism, Third Way, Triangulation seemed innate in Obama's political disposition(He wrote a book about it in 2006).  Put it all together and we should all be content with the current administration and it's policy agenda except that we are not availed of a way forward.

The way forward is unclear for the ideological left without a distinct leader though our mission is still progress.  How do we get there?

Note:  I left out all detail of Senator McGovern's fantastic work on world hunger and international food aid which I thought was unfortunate.  So I'll say that Obama's focus on beefing up international aid and soft power is quite representative of what has been McGovern's life work.*

George Packer wrote a fascinating article for The New Yorker the other day that picks up on some thoughts on ideology I've been having lately.  Now my thoughts on American political ideology are such that I believe modern moderates like Obama and many other Democrats stand for a type of conservatism that is natural to our politics but not acknowledged because of the radicalism that has taken over the movement conservative.  Movement conservative, from my perspective, seek to radically change the country through policy driven toward some mythical earlier time when everything was to thier liking.  This is radical right wing ideology and not traditional conservatism.  On the other hand, Democrats and so called liberals for the most part seek to protect and preserve our uniquely American laws, institutions and programs.  Twentieth Century programs like the New Deal and laws like the Civil and Voting rights Acts are defended by the Democrats as part of the American tradition.  Individual rights like a woman's right to choose, marriage equality and freedom of speech are championed again by the Democrats.   Tried and true institutions like the Department of Education and the United Nations are deemed essential  and must be protected.  These aren't liberal positions, rather they are conservative principle seeking to protect what already exists.  Of course there is some progressivism in the Democratic party and Obama is progressive  in some ways yet he is still so elusive when it comes to describing his modus operandi.  Maybe Packer has a point.

So basically the Texas legislature thinks students should be carrying concealed weapons on campus as a "deterrent" to violent crimes.  The logic beffudles me but this is really being considered.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hqADC-O0diH8SD6cFG8jsoGeJbewD977QL6G0

What does everyone else think?  Am I missing something?  And shouldn't this be a big story?

The violent drug war raging in Mexico has serious implications for the organized crime threat here in the United States.  From the drugs to weapons smuggling and trafficking, the Cartels involved in the fighting are operating in dozens of US cities and are involved in violent crime and even kidnapping.  These are troubling developments but the Obama administration is meeting it with a strong and sweeping response.  Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano testified before congress on Wednesday that more agents would be sent to the border and that further options (like national guard) were on the table for security purposes.  Furthermore, the State Department, DOJ and the Whitehouse have been heavily focused in recent weeks and are coordinating with the Mexican government on dealing with the main problems.  Our drug policies and also gun laws are under consideration for debate in the coming weeks which will be interesting and important.

For the past few months I've noticed that Dr. Dean has been invited to speak on many a cable news show and a certain topic always seems to come up.  The depressing (for conservatives) topic of fixing the evidently broken republican party is always addressed by the good Doctor with sound and reasonable suggestions.  Dean says that the GOP needs to analyze their failures, find out what caused them and take it from there to build solutions.  One thing he points out as obvious is that they need to expand their message beyond the radical conservative base that offers no chance at strong national standing toward something more broadly palatable.  The advice is actually reminiscent of a few of the steps I saw Dean propose after the 2004 elections to Dems who were downtrodden post-Kerry.  Of course we all know how successful the party has been since that time and that it had alot to do with Deans leadership on party-building and infrastructure.  All this to say that it is sad that conservatives don't see the gifts from Dr. Dean for what they are and will more than likely disregard and in alot of cases never even hear of his wisdom.  Too bad, I like competition and a good debate that they won't be offering anytime soon if that party stays on it's current course.