There's an important question at The Orange this morning, "Why are we here?" by Mark Sumner.
I suspect most of us would respond with some variant of "Because I care and want to make a difference," but can the left afford to simply copy rightwing tactics to make our difference? If we stoop to their level, don't we give up a key part of what makes us better and inspires people to join our cause?
... the right is happy enough to dig down and provide the kind of salacious crap that the press eats up with a spoon. Look at the stories that get "elevated" into the media spotlight. Are they well researched, well written, well reasoned appeals? Hardly. They are pre-packaged scandal chow, ready to be relayed with an arched eyebrow and salacious smirk.
We could match them. There's enough mud in this world for everyone. However, I hope we resist.
Sixty years ago, science fiction editor John W. Campbell set a challenge for his authors, "Write me a creature that thinks as well as a man, or better than a man, but not like a man." We have a similar challenge today. Give us a progressive movement that can catch the public eye, without the screaming lunacy of a Glenn Beck or the purposeful lying of an Andrew Breitbart. We say our ideas are better. Hell, we know they're better. We've got every fact, every number, all the evidence of history on our side. So go sell it.
We need to trust that voters can tell chicken salad from chicken ****, as LBJ said. Have faith in the power of truth and make darned sure the truth is being plainly told, even when it makes other Democrats uncomfortable. Why are we here if not to do that?
Primary season is upon us all over the country and it's distressing to see misinformation and outright lies worthy of Karl Rove served up by some on the left as well as the right. It happened here in Alabama in a few races and it's happening in other places, too.
Mark Sumner has something to say about bad behavior from the left, too, namely that we can't afford to tolerate it:
It's not just the foolishness of the media that needs to be highlighted. There are things being said by politicians that deserve to be dragged out and ridiculed for prejudice, for greed, for plain old idiocy. ... Sometimes those things are said by the same politicians we worked so hard to put in place. Frankly, while I can sympathize with their staff, friends, and supporters who voice some version of "don't pick on our guys," that's not going to stop me from speaking up when I see what appears to be bad policy or silly actions originating from our side of the aisle. Sorry about that.
Fortunately, this is an issue that can be resolved. It can't be resolved by us sitting on our hands and shutting up. It can be resolved by one simple thing. This is a quick message to progressive politicians great and small -- talk to us. Don't send us a representative months after the fact to tell us that you're upset about the pounding you're taking in the blogs. Why should you be frustrated that the blogs are getting your intentions wrong, when you haven't taken one minute to explain those intentions? We have a few senators and representatives who are regular posters on the site. Why is it a few?
You can't fight for truth, justice and the American way by lying, cheating and stifling debate. Sorry, but the ends never justify the means and if progressive Democrats adopt the same tactics wingnuts used to win at any cost, how can they be any different once elected?
(This is a question we've asked a number of times, but this is the first time we've seen it couched in the language of the right. Listen to Rush, Sean, Glenn Beck, Bill O and this is what you think progressives believe - if not worse. I think it's an extremely slanted view but it does offer the opportunity to correct the record. - promoted by mooncat)
I wrote a blog post over at my website (http://politicsalabama.blogspot.com/), and I thought I'd cross-post it here to get your input. I tried merely to define Progressive as I perceive it, and am interested in what folks on the left think of the description. Are the beliefs and goals that I ascribe to Progressives accurate?
I have read several blog posts and opinion pieces asking a simple question... What is a Progressive? I thought that I might take a whack at providing my own definition.
Once upon a time, when I was but a youth, we had two basic kinds of political critters. We had the Conservative critters and the Liberal critters when I was growing up, but gradually the Liberal critters started to get a bad name. They became known for favoring a large intrusive government that had influence and/or control over every aspect of our lives, and most people didn't really like that idea.
So the term "liberal" fell out of favor with those who most acutely "felt the sting," so to speak. By that, I mean the extreme liberal wing. The most liberal Liberals were the ones who wanted to distance themselves from their own reputation... so they selected a replacement name.
They chose the word "progressive" for a reason. Take a look at the word. It obviously means "one who favors progress." And the word "progress" means "to move forward"... and who doesn't want THAT? So the most liberal of Liberals began to self-identify as Progressives.
But here's my major question... exactly what are they making progress towards?
I am the Afghanistan Blogging Fellow for The Seminal and Brave New Foundation. You can read my work on The Seminal or at Rethink Afghanistan. The views expressed below are my own.
Earlier this week, I wrote about an impending civil war in Pakistan, projecting a possible "complete collapse of Pakistan as a recognizable entity," referring not to its geography (it has survived breakaway provinces before, with national identities still intact) but rather to its structure as a modern, democratic society. Some readers were understandably skeptical.
As long as we've been keeping track, that's how long Terri Sewell has been running on progressive ideas.
Here's the latest talking point from Sewell's detractors: "Terri Sewell didn't start supporting progressive issues until AFTER her Ivy League buddy and soon to be ex SD 7 Congressman Artur Davis went down in flames for not supporting progressive issues ..."
OK, I'm beyond disgusted at the way some so-called Democrats act like a good education disqualifies a person from public office -- surely those aren't our values? -- and I don't know what "SD 7" means either. But let's get to the substance of this complaint, the allegation that Terri Sewell isn't progressive and has modified her positions since June 1.
False.
It's simply not true, as with so many things people try to tell us in the silly season of political campaigns. The ADC and AEA are backing Shelia Smoot these days, so maybe this argument shouldn't come as a surprise, but recycling the anti-Davis gameplan won't work against Terri Sewell because she's been progressive since day one. In fact, her enthusiastic support for health care reform legislation is probably the reason she beat all comers on June 1. Follow me below the fold for supporting information.
Nobody else is going to do it for you. From Organizing for America ...
“We are at one of those rare moments in history where we’ve been given the opportunity to change our country for the better. But it’s never easy, and it never starts in Washington.It Starts with You."– President Barack Obama
You're looking for a savior. And like that Savior of biblical fame, s/he isn't coming, as long as there are people like me out there. I personally won't work for a company or organization that goes against my personal convictions. But 99% of us certainly will.
If you want to win, you will ORGANIZE. You will organize in the same way the Right has done for the last 40 years, and you will spend money on persuasion, where it really matters. You will, in short, make the politicians as afraid of you as they are of them. The Right has built vast networks of think tanks, newspapers, periodicals, cable news channels, and political advocacy organizations to spread their finely tuned, well-honed messages. Their politicians may fail them, and their actual policies may be deeply unpopular, but their message machine nearly always works its magic to get them what they want, even when Democrats are in power.
That's partly because the American political Right never quits and never gives up. They know that organization is the key to their success, and they don't trust politicians to do their work for them. Democrats, on the other hand, get disappointed and quit when our politicians don't pan out the way we wanted. That's why we lose.
Now, OFA may or may not be the best vehicle for organizing, I really don't know. The point is, we have to get the job done one way or the other. Get yourselves ready folks, because this is going to be a long war -- unless you plan to just roll over now.
Most of the focus has been on the advice Rep. Alan Grayson (D, FL) offered to Dick Cheney -- STFU -- and, hilariously, Matthews either didn't or pretended he didn't understand what that meant. That's the last part of this segment, but this video also captures the earlier, equally interesting if less entertaining portion.
The first thing I noticed is that Grayson seems generally pleased with the Senate proposal on health care reform and confident there will be a bill on the way to signature before Christmas. Finally! He makes a great point that the Medicare infrastructure could readily be used for everyone and we're wasting that provider network by making it available only to seniors. He also restated, "What I want is the Medicare provider network available for everybody. If we had medicare for everybody I'd be fine with that, but what I really want above all is health care for everybody.
I think that's what most of us really want, at bottom. Maybe we'll get there eventually. Now for the "what is a Progressive" bit:
Matthews: Are you a Progressive?
Grayson: Yes.
Matthews: OK, Progressive means getting there one step at a time, doesn't it?
Grayson: Well we're making progress, that's true.
Matthews: A Radical is somebody who wants everything the way they want it now. That's what a Radical is. A Progressive is somebody that moves along step by step so that everybody can get aboard so that we have a democratic process that get's aboard ... this new change we're getting into.
What do you think of those definitions of Progressive vs. Radical?
(Because being right ISN'T enough, dammit - if it was we could all just be happy purity trolls! - promoted by herding old cats)
There are a ton of political self-help books on the shelves these days but Being Right Is Not Enough: What Progressives Must Learn From Conservative Success remains one of my favorites.Though it was published in 2006, the ideas in it remain as relevant, even prophetic, as ever. A friend and myself often refer to as it as "the progressive political bible."
In plain-spoken and sometimes brutal honesty, author Paul Waldman, now a senior correspondent at The American Prospect, offers insightful analysis about the state of American progressivism.
Among other things, Waldman ablely dispels the myth that America is a "conservative country" with simple facts. Moreover, he takes on the notion that conservatism, as a political philosophy, has been a positive for the nation with this reminder:
"Progressives who find themselves quick to accept the suggestion that America is fundamentally conservative, has been so and will always be so should stop to recall just how many progressive goals have been accomplished over the years. Progressives ended slavery, established the forty-hour workweek, abolished child labor, enacted food safety laws, obtained voting rights for women, established the Social Security and Medicare systems, ended Jim Crow segregation and passed laws to protect our water and air. Every one of these advancements was achieved over the vigorous opposition of the conservatives of the day."
The author masterfully cuts through all the calculation and babble about "framing" and suggests a return to the progressive message that "we are all in it together".
In confronting the natural aversion to collaboration that some progressives suffer from, Waldman offer this:
"For too long the left has been a collection identity-based and single issue groups, each of which held its focus so narrowly that acting together was difficult, if not impossible. Progressives need to stop thinking of themselves as environmentalists or pro-choicers or civil rights advocates and start thinking of themselves as members of The Progressive Movement."
In talking about progressives oft times love-hate with the Democratic Party, Waldman suggests:
"Progressives should look to their own history and understand that their goal is not to find the right Democrat but to build their own movement until it produces its own leaders and no Democrat can ignore it. Waiting for a politician to come along and lead you out of Egypt is a prescription for failure; progressives need to stand up and start walking."
The Democratic Party's continued abandonment of its progressive and "party of the workingman" ideals makes clear that progressives have a long journey ahead, in Being Right Is Not Enough, Waldman presents a clear and unambigous way forward.
Well after some thinking and debating myself, I have decided to make known why I support Ron Sparks for governor of our fine state. First though I should give you some background about myself. It is not often I shed the anonymity of the internet and just throw it all out there, but this is an issue too important for us to quibble about.
I have been a Democrat all of my life, hell that was just the way I was raised, but just as much as I was raised as a Democrat, so too was I raised as a Christian. You see in my world the two go hand and hand not some kind of crazy opposite world where Jesus said that I had the right to deny a woman the right to choose what to do with her body, and most defiantly not the world where Jesus said that I was supposed to not give a damn about my fellow man. I was raised to hunt, fish, love God and just a little below God I was supposed to vote Democrat no matter how crazy some of our Californian brothers and sister democrats acted.
So I guess you could say that I was raised to be level headed and not swing too far right or left of any issue, but to always err on the side of the little guy and not some corporate interest. My Grandfather died when I was ten, but that man was one hell of a Democrat. He walked from the shores of Normandy all the way to Stuttgart, Germany in World War II; his brothers and himself earning multiple medals but in particular all three purple hearts and his one brother Mylon McElyea, was shot by a German Sniper and paralyzed from the waist down. In other words not only were my forebears Democrats, but yes PATRIOTS who also shed blood for this great land, and my Pop (grandfather) always said "Hell republicans ain't out for no one but them that's got money".
So I too went and joined the long line of patriots, that can be traced all the way back to a pensioner of the Revolutionary Army (on the McElyea side of my family), and joined the Navy at age 18. Then after I got out of the service I went to college and wasted a lot of time and money and then got a job at Dunlop, where I joined my first real Union, the United Steelworkers. I had joined the union as a bag boy at Kroger and Food World grocery stores, but I did not really get involved with any of it other than calling my union steward once when I came in late, when i was in high school at Tanner High School.
I'd like to come up with a list of progressive politicians (or progressive folks who might/should be persuaded to run for office) and am looking for input. Progressive is the obvious requirement. Currently in elective office isn't required, but it doesn't hurt. Likewise, youth is fine but I wouldn't exclude anyone based on age.
Alabama State Courthouse 300 Dexter Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 (334) 242-4590
OverallThoughts: There are apparently seven statewide judicial positions up for election in 2010 (as far as I can tell, and all the incumbents appear to be Republicans). As I understand it, there will be two positions on each appellate courts – Criminal Appeals and Civil Appeals – and three positions on the Supreme Court. It represents a peach opportunity for Alabama progressives to take a position.
However, this last time around, we ran four people – one for the Supreme Court, two for criminal appeals and one for civil appeals – and we got four damned goose eggs for our trouble. Granted, Paseur came the closest, but close counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, not elections.
Next time we are going to have to do something different.
The Republican campaign was both well funded and well organized. In 2010, we need to have our campaign one or the other. Well organized seems more accessible than being well funded.
Next time we need to have our judicial races coordinated, where they and their staff members work together in terms of campaign appearances, getting the word out, capitalizing on advantages and the like. Also, it seems likely the Republican’s will again organize a bus tour for their candidates. We don’t have to do that, but next time lets have some of ours go out and heckle them at some of their appearances.
Specifics and Speculations… (Continued) Congressional District 1:Jo Bonner (GOP) Josiah Robins (Jo) Bonner, Jr. (born November 19, 1959), has been a Republican member of the United States House of Representatives since 2003. He was unopposed in the 2008 race.
Alabama’s First Congressional District includes Mobile, Baldwin, Washington, Monroe, Escambia and parts of Drake counties. Traditionally the area and the district has been one of the most GOP-supportive areas in the country. He is not likely to be challenged during the Primary.
Thoughts: If we can arrange to get Vivian Figures to run for this seat – her home district – and then get great heaping gobs of campaign money, the race would cause ripples and get attention, which would force the Republicans to spend money. But the race will not be won by us. Is it probably not worth the time and effort to get the Republicans to spend their resources here. It is just an option. However, investing in the legal (i.e. eligible to vote) Latino population of Alabama (and many area in the Mobile Bay area) is probably a good idea.
Congressional District 2: Bobby Bright (Dem.) Bobby Neal Bright (born July 7, 1952) is the mayor of Montgomery and Congressman-elect. Bright received 143,997 votes to Love's 142,231 votes – a margin of 1,766 votes, or just over 0.6 percentage points.
Alabama’s Second Congressional District includes Autauga, Barbour, Bullock, Butler, Coffee, Conecuh, Covington, Crenshaw, Dale, Elmore, Geneva, Henry, Houston, Lowndes, Pike and parts of Montgomery Counties. The congressional redistricting of 1990 did much to change the nature of this district and now the voting power of the Black Belt is outweighed by the population of the Wiregrass area.
Thoughts: Bright narrowly won – we need to remember that. In 2010 the Republicans will focus most of their attention on the Wiregrass areas as a means of attacking Bright. We can hold this seat, but we will have to fight to do that.
Congressional District 3:Mike Rogers (GOP): Michael Dennis (Mike) Rogers (born July 16, 1958), has been a Republican member of the United States House of Representatives since 2003. Knowlegis, a nonpartisan lobbying information firm, dropped Rogers from being ranked as the 138th most influential Representative to being 402nd in that category in 2006.
Alabama’s Third Congressional District includes Calhoun, Chambers, Cherokee, Clay, Cleburne, Lee, Macon, Randolph, Russell, Talladega, Tallapoosa and parts of Montgomery and Coosa Counties. Politically, this was once home to populist white Democrats. However, Republicans took the seat over in 1997.
Thoughts: Rogers should have lost the 2008 election because he is an incompetent prick. Rogers was a recipient of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay’s ARMPAC campaign contributions. DeLay is being prosecuted on charges of felony money laundering of campaign finances and conspiracy to launder money. To date, Rogers has not offered to return any of the $30,000 he received. Rogers said that DeLay is innocent until proven guilty, and that he would not return the money "while the judicial process runs its course.” If we are lucky, DeLay will be in jail and we can attack Rogers over this connection.This is one we can take, so let’s keep that in mind.
Congressional District 4: Robert Aderholt (GOP): Robert Brown Aderholt (born July 22, 1965) has been a Republican member of the United States House of Representatives since 1997. In 2008, Aderholt theoretically ran against Nick Sparks in a race that was hypothetically contentious and totally not a waist of everyone’s time.
Alabama’s Fourth Congressional District includes Franklin, Marion, Lamar, Fayette, Walker, Winston, Cullman, Blount, Marshall, Etowah, DeKalb and parts of Morgan, Pickens Counties, as well as parts of the Decatur Metropolitan Area, and the Huntsville-Decatur Combined Statistical Area. While Democrats have a substantial majority in voter registration, most of them tend to be quite conservative on social issues.
Thoughts: If a progressive who is serious, and not entering the race on a damn lark, makes the run, then this one is doable. Aderholt voted in favor of CAFTA, which did tremendous damage to manufacturing industry within the district. If we attack him on that, then this one is possible.
Congressional District 5: Parker Griffith (Dem.) Dr. Parker Griffith (born August 6, 1942, in Shreveport, Louisiana) is a Democratic member of the Alabama Senate, representing the 7th District since 2006 and the congressman-elect. He received his medical degree from the Louisiana State University Medical School. Griffith carried all but one of the district's seven counties, but only narrowly won Madison County, home to Huntsville.
Alabama’s Fifth Congressional District includes Colbert (Stephen tells me the "T" is silent), Lauderdale, Lawrence, Limestone, Madison, Jackson and parts of Morgan County. Liberal politics have become an increasingly hard sell, and the region has increasingly voted for Republican presidential candidates since the defeat of Jimmy Carter.
Thoughts: In 2010 the Republicans will do the same thing to Dr. Griffith they did in the 2008 race, just meaner and with more money in 2010. We can hold this seat too, but we will have to fight to do that.
Congressional District 6: Spencer Bachus (GOP): Spencer Thomas Bachus III (born December 28, 1947) has been a Republican member of the United States House of Representatives since 1993. His is a difficult man to challenge in political circles because he is supported by the Bacchae.
Alabama's Fifth Congressional District includes Chilton, Bibb, Shelby and parts of St. Clair County, Jefferson, Tuscaloosa, and Coosa counties. It forms a horse-shoe shaped area around Birmingham. A continual process of redistricting by state governments has seen the sixth district increasingly become one of the most Republican districts in the country.
Thoughts: Unless he is found to be a homosexual (in which case the Republicans will quickly abandon him) or a cannibal (in which case the Republicans will reluctantly abandon him), and he chooses to run again, then this will a hell of an uphill battle. Better to spend our resources on battles we have a better chance of winning.
Congressional District 7:Artur Davis (Dem.): Artur Genestre Davis (born October 9, 1967) is an American politician who has been a Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives since 2003, arts of Jefferson. Davis's name has been mentioned as a possible nominee for Attorney General in President-Elect Barack Obama's administration and as a possible gubernatorial candidate in 2010. He was unopposed in the 2008 race.
Alabama's Seventh Congressional District includes Greene, Choctaw, Sumter, Marengo, Dallas, Wilcox, Perry, Hale and parts of Jefferson (specifically, the Birmingham metropolitan area), Tuscaloosa, Clarke, and Pickens counties. The 7th district was created as a black-majority district in 1992.
Thoughts: By 2010 Davis will have made up his mind about what he is going to do, and so this seat is likely to become vacant. We need to work to make certain they are a competent and progressive person.
The election results are mixed blessing, which they always seemed to be.
Nationally, the Democrats won the White House and a greater majority in both the Senate and the House. Locally, proving Alabama is home to some progressive voices, Bobby Bright and Parker Griffith won their races for congress. Proving that Alabama progressive voices are sometimes lonesome cries in the wilderness, Democrats lost most of the other races around the state.
The Future…
Like brain-eating zombies that refuse to die, the Republicans will be back in 2010. That mid-term election will see them make a major push to retake as much as they can of what they have lost and to keep what they have.
Alabama Races in 2010:
State Elections;
(Office)(Current Office Holder)(Party)
Governor:Bob Riley (GOP)
Lieutenant Governor:Jim Folsom Jr. (Dem.)
Attorney General: Troy King(GOP)
Secretary of State:Beth Chapman(GOP)
State Auditor: Samantha Shaw(GOP)
State Treasurer: Kay Ivey(GOP)
State Commissioner: Ron Sparks(Dem.)
Supreme Court Seat(Which seat is up?)(GOP)
Civil Appeals Seat(Which seat is up?)(GOP)
Criminal Appeals Seat(Which seat is up?)(GOP)
Federal Elections;
Senate: Richard Shelby(GOP)
Congressional District 1: Jo Bonner(GOP)
Congressional District 2: Bobby Bright(Dem.)
Congressional District 3: Mike Rogers(GOP)
Congressional District 4: Robert Aderholt(GOP)
Congressional District 5: Parker Griffith(Dem.)
Congressional District 6: Spencer Bachus (GOP)
Congressional District 7: Artur Davis (Dem.)
Brace for Impact…
The Republicans will fight like hogs to keep the positions they have now and to take they positions they do not. They will spend wheelbarrows full of money on these races and they will fight dirty.
So, what are we – Alabama progressives – going to do to get ready for this coming fight? What plans are we going to work out in advance? It will be better, in terms of strategy and tactics, to start developing a game plan now.
Specifics and Speculations…
Governor: Bob Riley cannot run for governor again, owing to term-limits required by Alabama law. Possible Republicans running for governor include; Bradley Byrne (Chancellor of the Alabama two-year college system), Troy King (Attorney General) and Jack Hawkins (Troy University Chancellor).
Senator: Richard Shelby will be 76 in 2010 and might retire. If he runs again, then he will not likely face any challenges from other Republicans during the primaries. He will also be a tough target for any Democratic challenger (he has something like $13 million in his campaign war chest). If he does not run again, then there will be nasty battles in the primaries and in the main event later in the year. If Shelby elects to retire, then I’m betting $20 that Bob Riley will run for this senate seat. Remember, before he ran for governor, Riley served as a representative of Alabama 3rd Congressional district from 1997 to 2003.
I’m Gene’O of Pine Belt Progressive. I’m a Mississippi blogger with Alabama roots, and I am thrilled to be here. I’m here to help. I’m writing this just for you. First, a couple of quick offerings. Then a bit about my mission in life below the fold.
To see some people taking positive steps toward demanding accountable local government, go and check out the comments to this story at the Hattiesburg American. It concerns a war protester arrested under questionable circumstances. Read the comments. Really.
If you want an object lesson in the correct way for a Christian Progressive to deal with being sneered at and tagged as a socialist by a conservative, see my exchange with Patrick Sperry in comments to this post.
AL-01 Democratic congressional candidate Ben Lodmell on the current state of the American economy.
Economy is one more Bush-Bonner failure
First there was Iraq, which is costing us $9.6 billion a month. Then came worldwide anger over the Bush-Bonner gang’s go-it-alone and shoot-first tactics. Then there was Katrina. And let’s not forget the VA scandal. Or the sub-prime housing debacle. And what about the infamous tax cuts for the rich, while working families got squeezed, the poor got poorer, and millions of children continued to live without health care coverage.
Whoops! Almost forgot the Bush-Bonner pro-oil company policy that subjects the country to a perilous dependency on $100-a-barrel oil. And to top it all off, we’ve seen the worst federal government spending binge in history and, as a result, an astronomical hike in federal debt that makes us more and more vulnerable to the whims of cranky foreign government lenders.
So why should we be surprised that economy seems ready to be flushed down the toilet, thanks in large measure to Mr. Bush and those none-for-all Bushketeers that crafted all this chaos. Our particular thanks goes to Bush’s man in Mobile, Congressman Jo Bonner, for being behind the President - every failed step of the way. Good going, Jo!
Now it seems that Bonner and the rest of the frantic Bush-Bonner gang has been scurrying about in Washington for the past couple of days cobbling together an agreement among Democrats and Republicans on a $150 billion plan to rescue the economy from its first recession since 2001. The plan is simple: Two-thirds goes for tax rebates to spur consumer spending, with the balance earmarked for tax breaks aimed at jump-starting new business investment. Bear in mind that the people making this deal are the very same people who only yesterday couldn’t agree on the time of day.
Well, we will soon see how much they really agree when the rescue bill goes to the floor of the House next week and after that to the Senate, where chances are good that partisan politics will re-rear its ugly head. The continuing irony, of course, is that some economists fear the Bush proposal may be too little too late – that the economy has already been flushed down the toilet. Hopefully, the Bushketeers will follow suit in the next election.
We at the Lodmell campaign wanted to pass on a few updates to our growing video diary on YouTube. Check out the embedded videos below for a taste of some of the new content. You'll find some footage of Ben at work on the streets of Mobile, as well as his conversation with a local supporter about the political importance of this race. On a lighter note, there's even some profound (and delicious!) moments from Ben's very own kitchen.
Be sure to check out the entire video diary at YouTube.com/BenLodmell. You'll get a revolutionary look at how a modern congressional campaign is waged on a day-to-day basis, and you'll also get a very candid look at exactly who Ben Lodmell is, and exactly why we so desperately need the change he'll bring to us when he wins in November.
Enjoy the videos, check the YouTube diary regularly for updates, and be sure to also explore our other campaign links at the bottom of this post.
(Some recent musings from Ben Lodmell, Democratic Congressional Candidate in AL-01)
A Fresh and Refreshing Look at Conservatism
When hell freezes over and pigs can fly! That’s when big time conservatives will look at themselves critically and not like what they see. At least that’s what I thought until lately. But not any more. It seems two of the biggest right wing advocates in American journalism have broken ranks with their brethren and begun questioning the efficacy and thrust of conservative politics in America today.
In a recent column by Los Angeles Times Syndicate writer, Cal Thomas, the often outspoken supporter of the Christian right, wrote these startling words when commenting on a recent Republican presidential debate: “Ideology once again seemed to take precedence over something the voters might consider of greater importance in next year’s election. That something is competence.” Wow. Did Thomas hit the nail on the head or what? “I suspect,” he went on to write, “most people are more interested in which candidate is best equipped to run the government.” Finally, he wrote, “I care about social issues and the eroding morality of the country, but I care more about competent government… Let’s have a little less ideology from the presidential candidates of both parties and a lot more talk of how to repair broken government.” Now, that’s a mouthful of inspired insight coming from a dyed in the wool conservative.
A second instance of healthy political introspection comes from none other than one of America’s premiere authors and conservative journalists George Will who recently warned against “heroic conservatism.” Another name for it, Will writes, is “national greatness” – otherwise known as empire building, something Teddy Roosevelt yearned for, along with most present-day Republican presidential candidates. To make his point even more forcefully, Will quotes David Keene, Chairman of the American Conservative Union: Can anyone imagine one of today’s neoconservative absolutists backing away from any fight anywhere?” Not me.
Now there’s a pair of political ideals any Democrat or Republican should be willing to support: Competency in Government! And No Empire Building! Would that Congressman Jo Bonner, Bush’s man in Mobile, would subscribe to either or both of these ideals. But no, Jo, like all of the Bush-Bonner gang, prefers ideology above ideals. Just the opposite will prevail when I go to Congress next January. You can bet on it.
(Y'all have any ideas to help Lewiscm out? - promoted by mooncat)
From a friend in California who has a lot of family in the South -- Could anyone recommend some good books on Alabama history from a progressive perspective? Thanks.
Just a little challenged in the new ideas department, shall we say? Not much interest in good jobs, in universal health care, in better education, in fiscal responsibility or even in national security, but everything imaginable about homosexuality -- true or not. Is it any wonder that a recent Rasmussen poll found:
35% would consider it a positive description to call a candidate politically progressive. Just 18% react negatively to that term. Those figures reflect a huge swing, from a net negative of nineteen points to a net positive of 17 points. On the other side of the ideological spectrum, being called politically conservative is considered a positive description by 32% and negative by 20%.
Sounds like Representative Artur Davis (D, AL-07) is channelling Barack Obama on bipartisanship these days. Matt Hawk of the Tuscaloosa News reports Davis' remarks at the Indian Hills country club where the Chamber of Commerce gave him the Spirit of Enterprise award.
“My theory is that somewhere in the middle ground there is this vast zone of responsibility in American politics."
“So much of the argument in Washington D.C., and an increasing amount of the argument in Montgomery, begins with the premise that your ideology gives you a perfect template for viewing this world"
“People are responding to this idea that what we have in common is so much more powerful than what divides us."
There is bipartisanship and there is appeasement. There is bipartisanship and there is capitulation. There is bipartisanship and there is just caving to pressure because it's too hard to fight for what you believe and besides, it's just so messy. Achieving women's suffrage was messy. Achieving civil rights, to the extent that we have done it, has been incredibly messy, and often partisan. And it couldn't have happened without the messiness. People who are in power don't give it up, or even share it, without a fight. Ever.
Bipartisanship is fine, in areas where you genuinely have common ground with the other party. But the clash of ideas, and the robust discussion of differing ideas, is a healthy thing for a Democracy. That is how we make progress in America. I don't want any bipartisanship that is just a code word for giving in to the other party just to be agreeable, and I hope that isn't the kind of bipartisanship Rep. Davis longs for either. Sometimes you really are right (please refer to the Constitution for guidance on this) and you have to stand up and fight. Anything less is morally indefensible.
As for this quote from Rep. Davis,
“People … are yearning for a sensible politics that speaks to our conservative impulses of responsibility and accountability, and to our more progressive impulses of shared obligation."
it sounds like something a political consultant ginned up in an attempt to have it both ways. Let me offer a simple explanation of terms -- you can call these Mooncat definitions:
Conservative = Averse to change or innovation.
Progressive = Favoring or promoting change or innovation.
You can't be conservative and progressive at the same time, no matter what the consultatocracy tells you. Voters aren't stupid. Regular people hear that stuff and either think you're a hypocrite who's trying to pander to everyone or that both parties really are the same, so why vote anyway. This is non-productive rhetoric. Just talk about responsibility and accountability and shared obligations and leave off the conservative and progressive labels -- they're meaningless in this context anyway.
The two parties are not the same, and Rep. Davis belongs to the better party. I just wish he would sharpen his rhetoric so that everyone can tell it.
I am thankful that progressives in Alabama are finally coming together and making themselves heard. It all comes down to knowing there are other people like you and working together for change to make this state the state it can be.
T.H.E. Social Work Agency Adoption home studies & care management services in the North Alabama area.
Licensed, certified, caring social workers. blog advertising is good for you
