The Sunlight Foundation has gone live. It aims at letting citizens know just where their lobbying dollars are going. Congresspedia, an associated project, is also up and running. Can you guessapedia what Congresspedia isapedia? (The Washington Post has a story on the launch.) [Tags: sunlight politics congresspedia corruption congress]

5 Comments »

I pine for Al. He’s grown. He’s learned from his unfair defeat. He’s smart, he’s funny, he’s experienced, he’s honest (and always was), he’s fiery on the topics that need fire, he understands the connected world better than any other plausible presidential candidate, he has become, yes, likable. The race would be better with him in it.

Does he get into the race if Hillary falters? If Hillary doesn’t falter but looks like she’s going to run a campaign as strangulated and phony as Kerry’s? If we all get together and ask him politely? [Tags: al_gore politics]

3 Comments »

Know what’s a really bad idea for democracy? Have the President’s chief political advisor also be his chief policy advisor. One predictable consequence:

“There is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one: a complete lack of a policy apparatus,” says DiIulio. “What you’ve got is everything—and I mean everything—being run by the political arm. It’s the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis.”

In short: Karl Rove’s resignation of his policy role is waaaaay overdue. [Tags: karl_rove bush politics]

4 Comments »

From the blog of Garth Turner, Canadian Member of Parliament’s blog:

“When my great grandfather Ebenezer Bodwell went to Ottawa in 1867 to be the MP for Oxford, he carried with him the trust of all constituents. He knew that once the election was over, they had no choice but to trust him, since Ottawa was a long ways by horse. He rode off to represent them, since they had no other voice. But here we are. Today the work of MPs and government is well understood by everyone. Media bathes us in information and there is almost nothing our political masters know before we do. We are informed, educated, involved – and wired. And yet we still have a 19th Century political system in place in which we vote for an MP, and with that vote surrender our ability to actually get the laws we want…

So, given the fact we are all involved, and getting more connected every day, why can’t we also have more influence over our own country?

(Thanks to Richard Hamilton for the link and the quote.) [Tags: politics government blogs garth_turner canada]

9 Comments »

If you want the scoop on the Phone Jammer Gate (ok, so it’s not going to catch on), take a look at Betsy Devine’s blog these days. For example, she surfaces a good question from John DiStaso… [Tags: politics betsy_devine john_distaso dirty_tricks bush]

1 Comment »

Allan Lichtman has extended his campaign for the Senate into MySpace. I appreciate his willingness to appear somewhat goofy. Seriously. MySpace hasn’t succeeded because it’s so damn dignified. (Thanks to Thomas Vander Wal for the pointer) [Tags: allan_lichtman politics myspace]

Be the first to comment »

Ryan Lizza at The New Republic writes:

The centrist revolt against the war in Iraq is caused by shame. Americans are angry at Bush not for toppling Saddam without U.N. permission, but for turning Iraq into a symbol of humiliation for the United States. The analogy is not so much LBJ and Vietnam, but Carter and the hostage crisis. It’s not the neo-imperialism. It’s the embarrassing incompetence.

Interesting. Sounds plausible, but I have no way of telling if it’s true or not. [Tags: bush iraq ryan_lizza tnr politics]

Be the first to comment »

I’ve just come from hearing Gov. Mark Warner speak at a dinner put on by the Harvard College Democrats.

Warner speaks well. He seems smart and to have a sense of humor. (A gentle joke directed at Gov. Jeanne Shaheen, who was also there, didn’t go over, which I found endearing.) He’s handsome and likable. He seems to mean what he says. He apparently was quite a successful governor in a Republican state, which bespeaks important qualities. But the speech was a standard issue stump speech, within the normal range of tolerance for any mainstream Democrat, albeit slightly more progressive than the run-for-the-center wing of the party. It’s early in the campaign — Warner hasn’t even announced he’s running yet — so he has time to find his fire. And I can imagine him winning the nomination and winning the election. But on this night of rubber chicken, he didn’t set me ablaze. On the other hand, everyone else gave him a standing ovation.

He began by announcing a theme that I think could work: Rather than left vs. right, the important polarity for Democrats is the past vs. the future. Democrats, he said, have always been the party of the future, and we ought to be painting the Republicans as the party of the past. I think this is a powerful political idea — no, of course it’s not like no one ever thought of this before — but his speech failed to deliver on it. For example, he went through a long litany of complaints about the current administration, but it was the usual laundry list. Don’t get me wrong: It’s a laundry list that ought to get the laundry thrown out and then impeached. But I think it would have been more effective if he had followed through on his announced theme by saying something like:

The Republicans are fighting terrorism as if it were the war in Vietnam.

The Republican solution to our dependence on foreign oil is the old one of opening up another tap

The Republican attitude toward science hasn’t even made it into the 20th century

The Republican attitude toward women hasn’t made it out of the 1950s

The Republicans think the Internet is like television or a glossy magazine …etc.

Then he could have laid out his “bold new ideas” (he actually called them that) in juxtaposition. Without some such framing, the speech was a yada-yada attack on the Republicans followed by a same-old set of Democratic ideas. (By the way, the Warner political action committee has recruited some top political blogger talent, a sign that the campaign is going to take the Net seriously.)

He is an attractive candidate. He could win. But this version of his speech didn’t make me stand up and cheer.

Here are my notes on the content of the speech. (I was scribbling on little pieces of paper, so my accuracy will be worse than usual. The choppiness is an artifact of my notes, not of Warner’s speech.)

People ask how I became a governor in a Red State. There are Democratic governors in lots of red states. The Dem party has to be competitive in every state.

We have to change the debate. Not left versus right. Instead, we should view every issue through the prism of future vs. past. We Democrats have always been at our best when talking about the future.

This is the only country where what you can do matters more than where you were born. I was the first person in my family to go to college. I started some businesses, and failed at some. One of them, Nextel, did well, but all along I got another chance…only in America. My fear is that that chance is potentially disappearing.

We’re at an historical inflection point. I think of this as the Industrial Revolution on steroids. The transformation is being led by technology and globalization. It’s changing everything, including education, health care, defense…etc. I’m afraid that if we get it wrong, those left behind because of economic status, gender or race will be left further behind than ever.

But the Republicans don’t understand these changes. [Now he began the Republican-bashing portion of the speech, not framing the Republican views as belonging to the past.] When it comes to stem cell research, I have a diabetic daughter and a mother with Alzheimers, so this is something I care about personally. [I thought this point worked.] This administration combines gross incompetence and ideological fervor. What do you expect from people who say they don’t like government to begin with?

These changes can bring threats to our doorstep. We’re safest when we unite our friends and divide our enemies. The Republicans have done exactly the reverse. [Good line.]

But, for Democrats to win, it’s going to take more than “We’re against this administration.” Here are my ideas:

We can compete only if we innovate. I would increase the NIH budget, instead of decrease it as the Republicans have done, and I would increase R&D funds overall. We’re 16th in broadband [actually, we’ve now sunk to 20th] and 28th in math scores. In Virginia, I got the biggest funding increase for education ever. But you also have to measure. We funded programs for at-risk 4 year olds, and mid school programs especially for girls and childen of color. We gave failing schools more resources [instead of shutting them down as No Child Left Unspanked does]. We invested in kids who don’t go to college, helping them get industry certification in any of 50 trades. These programs got results: 94% of our kids graduate from high school. [Wow. He cited other very impressive statistics that I couldn’t write down in time.]

Health care needs technology to help. We need electronic records. Everyone should pay for minimal care. We need to separate long term health from critical care. We need to get drug prices under control. We need to work on prevention, such as reducing smoking and obesity. [Except for the remark about everyone paying for minimal care, this was a set of goals without any discussion of how to get there.]

We can’t have swaths of prosperity that leave out inner cities and snall towns. Why can’t we have nodes of engineers spread all over rural America, connected virtually?

The world looks to America for moral leadership. We haven’t led in Darfur which is why the genocide hasn’t been stopped.

I’m a student of history and never have so many threats faced us. We need to come together. But that’s not what Bush has asked of us. My state was attacked. I talked with the families and the fire fighters. I resent the way Karl Rove politicized 9/11.

I’m a business guy and sometimes people ask me why I’m a Democrat. I say it’s because our party has always been about being willing to shake things up. All the great reforms came from our party. Democrats can tell the difference between waging a war on poverty and waging a war on the poor. We have to pay our bills, not mortgage our future. I’m a Democrat because I have three daughters and I want their world to have more hope, less selfishness, and be more secure.

To conclude, everyone deserves a fair shot. [What about viewing everything through the prism of the future?] [Tags: mark_warner politics]

6 Comments »

As always, score your answer as correct if you guess within an order of magnitude… [Tags: bush impeachment puzzle scooter_libby]

1 Comment »

One of the NPR announcers this morning referred to a “Democrat and Republican proposal.”

Sorry, but the adjective is “Democratic.” Republicans started using “Democrat” as an adjective (I think during the Reagan era) because they didn’t like the implication that Democrats are democratic. The news media should not be falling for this twisting of grammar for political ends. [Tags: grammar politics]

2 Comments »