The Liberal Coalition

Kos sees it as a threat to the farmers; vote our way our you’ll never see a cent. I see it as cash for votes; vote our way and we’ll give you presents. Either way Hastert is using our money to try to influence the vote in an election. Of course, while spending taxpayer money on projects to gain votes is really the very definition of “pork barrel,” Hastert is so blatant in his quid pro quo that he is pressing the barrier between the merely unethical and the flagrantly illegal to the breaking point.

U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert pledged for the first time yesterday that he would push a tobacco buyout plan to the House floor -- but only if Republican Alice Forgy Kerr is elected to Congress.

Tobacco growers attending the $50-a-head Kerr-sponsored event in Lexington applauded Hastert's remarks. A Kentucky Farm Bureau representative was more reserved, saying the group was encouraged but would fight for a buyout regardless of who wins the Feb. 17 special election for Gov. Ernie Fletcher's vacant 6th District seat.
[…]
Jason Sauer, spokesman for Chandler's campaign, said he could not comment on Hastert's specific words.

"But if it's a political condition being put on something as important to farmers across Kentucky and the country, then that's unfortunate," he said. "That's playing politics with the farmers of America. And that seems beneath the office of the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives."

Democrats at all levels need to seize on this kind of behavior and publicize it. In 1998, in the middle of the impeachment farce, and in a midterm election, we did the best we have in a decade by making a symbol of Newt Gingrich and running against him. This year we need to publicize the dirty politics, bad sportsmanship, and outright corruption of DeLay, Cheney, and Hastert and run against the symbol.

posted by John McKay @ 1:35 AM |

I've already devoted posts and pixels to the discussion on gay marriage, and I probably will again. But let me ask this: How does the issue of whether or not two people can live together in a legally binding relationship actually threaten the rights of others and the welfare of the state? Answer me that.

From Bark Bark Woof Woof.

posted by Mustang Bobby @ 5:49 PM |

Okay, it's all over. Kerry's going to win the Democrat nomination, so let's forget Edwards, Clark, Dean, Kucinich and Sharpton (no, seriously, let's really forget Sharpton), and unite behind Kerry. His momentum is unstoppable. Well, anyway, his momentum is unstoppable if no one tries to stop it. And Kerry's the most electable candidate anyway, isn't he? Isn't he the Democrats' best hope of defeating Bush?

No. I believe that Kerry can beat Bush. Considering the Bush record, I believe that Dennis Kucinich could beat Bush. So instead of choosing the frontrunner in order to satisfy a self-fulfilling desire to back a winner, why not support the best candidate?

The rap on Dean is that he's too liberal and too angry. But Dean was a very centrist governor of Vermont, while Kerry has a Senate voting record as liberal as Ted Kennedy's. Sure, Dean has strong opinions and states his case emphatically, which is why the right has successfully cast him as 'angry' or 'not presidential'. But the most electable candidate is the one who will attack Bush's record from every angle and not back down. That's exactly what Howard Dean will do.

So I want to urge folks to help Howard Dean. It's true that his campaign is in trouble, but he can still turn things around this weekend in the Washington state caucus. Washington provides a number of delegates second only to California on the west coast, and Dean is still competitive there. A Dean win in Washington will give him momentum going into the Wisconsin primary on the 17th, which will in turn allow him to make a strong showing --- maybe even reclaim frontrunner status --- in the March 2 Super Tuesday round.

Dean can win Washington. Even U.S. Rep. Adam Smith, who's running Kerry's Washington campaign, acknowledges it's Dean's race to lose:

"Kerry 'is the only candidate in the race who's running a national campaign,' Smith said. Though he conceded that Dean still has to be the favorite in Washington 'given everything that he's put together,' Smith said that some Dean supporters have come over to the Kerry camp."

So please consider contributing to a resurgent Howard Dean campaign. Yeah, if you contribute and he loses, you'll be sorry if he doesn't get the nomination. But you'll be more sorry if he comes close to making it, and doesn't, because he ran out of money.

And if you live in Washington state, hightail it out to the caucuses on Saturday and stand up for Dean!

posted by David Bailey @ 2:01 PM |

Salon.com's Christopher Farah has an article that strikes close to home for a lot of bloggers: the "anonyblogger."

You don't have to look long to find the names of a slew of public (and often media) figures held up for some serious derision on the blogs Atrios, Media Whores Online or The Minor Fall, The Major Lift.

[edit]

It takes a certain courage to shoot half-cocked into the media landscape like that. Or does it? These and other bloggers have made names for themselves by having no names at all -- and by using the safety and security of their secret identities to spread gossip, make accusations and levy the most vicious of insults with impunity.

Anonybloggers have given various reasons for the decision to withhold their identity. MWO's proprietor told Salon in a detailed e-mail that MWO writers and producers were concerned that if their identity were known, it could "detrimentally affect their employment," given the site's controversial content. "There is a long tradition of anonymous speech in America," writes MWO, adding, "the right is consistently protected and defended by our courts." MWO went on to claim that mainstream publications would be better off if all their articles were published anonymously. "Editors and publishers would be far more concerned with accuracy and credibility if they understood their entire news organization would be accountable."

But what about the hypocrisy in attacking others while protecting oneself from any sort of retaliation? MWO says its critics "are able to respond directly to our content, and they do. Should any contributor run afoul of any free speech regulations, there would be legal accountability." Atrios, meanwhile, refused to comment at all for this story, saying, "I just don't think it's an interesting topic."

[edit]

Not surprisingly, journalism experts suggest anonybloggers are operating outside of any reasonable ethical line. "One of the things that's going to have to become a standard for the Internet is, if you want to be taken seriously, you have to be identified," says Alex Jones, director of Harvard's Shorenstein Center. "Anonymity is almost always, for the mainstream anyway, something that says, 'Be very, very careful.'"

Maybe it's just me, but do I detect a tinge of jealousy in Mr. Jones's warning?

Many of my fellow Liberal Coalition colleagues use pseudonyms, and we have our reasons, either serious or whimsical. It wouldn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure out my real name (the members of TLC know it) and I don't keep my blogging a secret from my friends and family. There's a difference between the anonybloggers like Atrios and MWO and those of us who write under a pseudonym. They have their reasons for keeping their identities under wraps. I respect them, and it really doesn't bother me that I don't know what name is on their driver's license; it's their business, and I let their writing speak for itself. (Besides, how do we really know - or care - if "Christopher Farah" is the real name of the author of the Salon.com article?) As for going off "half-cocked" with wild stories and rumors, I take as much care with my sourcing and citations as I would if I were writing a research paper (old grad school habits die hard) regardless of what name appears on the post. After all, we read half-cocked and rumor-filled stories by people who use their real names - Jonah Goldberg, Pat Buchanan, etc. - and it doesn't make them any more or less believable.

[Update: Check out Nick Confessore's take on this issue at TAPPED.]

Reprinted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.

posted by Mustang Bobby @ 12:21 PM |

SoonerThought attempts to explain--with info from Paul Krugman--just how damaging the Bush tax cuts are--even to the Dittoheads. We doubt they will listen.

Excerpt:

"If all the Bush tax cuts--those actually passed in 2001, and those the administration is now pushing--were fully in effect, they would reduce annual taxes collected per family by about $2,500. But averages can be deeply misleading. When Bill Gates enters a bar, the average net worth of the patrons soars, but that doesn't make everyone in the bar a billionaire. So it with the tax cuts., which bestow most of their benefits on the very, very affluent. Most families will see their taxes fall be less than $800--in many cases much less. Meanwhile, a handful of people will benefit hugely: The top 1 percent of families, with incomes averaging less more than $1 million, will get tax breaks to the tune of $80,000 each."

posted by Anonymous @ 10:14 PM |

Over at my blog, I'm looking for book recommendations. There's a list of ones I'm thinking about, though any recommendation would be appreciated. Thanks.

posted by Speedkill @ 8:06 PM |

War hero and former Democratic nominee for President Sen. George McGovern gives his views on Wesley Clark at SoonerThought.

posted by Anonymous @ 9:01 AM |

Just to inform all you rabid fans of the Blogger's Chess Match between NTodd and myself; he has emailed me his move and I've uploaded the image file of the move to OSP. The post itself should be up within, oh say, about two weeks from now.

Oh, alright, I'll behave. I'm sure NTodd will do his level best to get the post up as soon as possible. However, I do plan on having my Birthday Party ready, just in case................

posted by Rook @ 12:49 AM |