Media allowed conservative religious leaders to define "moral values"

In five days following election, conservative religious figures made 15 media appearances to progressive religious leaders' five

Following the November 2 presidential election, Media Matters for America documented the media's largely unquestioning acceptance of the notion that "moral values" determined the election. In their acceptance, the media did not explain or define what voters meant by "moral values." MMFA found that during the five days after the election, network and cable news outlets gave conservative religious leaders a forum in which to provide that definition; these leaders often appeared without other guests to counter their claims.

Between November 3 and November 7, conservative religious figures appeared a total of 15 times on the major broadcast and cable networks (ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, and FOX News Channel, but not CBS) to discuss "moral values," while progressive religious figures appeared a total of only five times. MMFA excluded Newsday columnists Rabbi Marc Gellman and Monsignor Thomas Hartman of "The God Squad" from this tally of figures. Although the two authors and religious speakers did not openly endorse President George W. Bush's reelection, they did speak of the election results as an indicator of a deeply religious nation, of which the "secular" coastal states are "unaware."

Reverend Jerry Falwell, national chairman of the Faith and Values Coalition and Moral Majority founder, and Reverend Joe Watkins, a Bush-Cheney '04 campaign adviser and talk radio host, appeared four times each in the five days following the election. Reverend Jesse Jackson was the only progressive religious leader to make multiple appearances (three) in that time period.

Four conservative religious figures appeared without opponents on news programs between November 3 and November 7: Watkins, Christian Coalition of America founder Reverend Pat Robertson, Peter Sprigg, senior director of policy studies at the Family Research Council (which "promotes the Judeo-Christian worldview"), and Focus on the Family founder James Dobson. No progressive religious leaders appeared alone.

Further, when not appearing alone, conservative religious leaders were more often paired with Democratic or progressive pundits who are not religious figures than with progressive religious leaders. For example, on the November 4 edition of CNBC's Capital Report, Falwell was paired with syndicated columnist and MSNBC political analyst Bill Press. On the November 7 edition of CNN's Inside Politics with Judy Woodruff, Randy Tate -- former U.S. Representative and former executive director of the Christian Coalition (which identifies itself as "America's Leading Grassroots Organization Defending our Godly Heritage") -- appeared opposite U.S. Representative Barney Frank (D-MA). Watkins appeared three times opposite progressive pundits who are not religious figures (in his November 3 appearance on CNN's American Morning, he was not described as a "reverend" but as a "Republican strategist"). Progressive religious figures appeared only twice without conservative religious counterparts: Jackson appeared with conservative author and nationally syndicated radio host William J. Bennett on the November 7 edition of NBC's Today, and Reverend Al Sharpton appeared on a panel (on the November 3 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews) that also included NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell, Newsweek managing editor Jon Meacham, and Republican strategist Ed Rollins.

Many of the conservative religious figures suggested that Bush's victory shows public support for Republican positions on issues such as gay marriage and abortion. As MSNBC host Deborah Norville pointed out, however, polling shows that Democrats are actually more aligned with the American public than Republicans are on those issues.

Here are some examples of conservative religious figures delineating "moral values":

• Robertson claimed on the November 4 edition of FOX News Channel's Hannity & Colmes that voters' overwhelming opposition to gay marriage was the decisive factor in the election: "President [George W.] Bush ought to send roses to that bunch up there in Massachusetts [the Massachusetts Supreme Court]. I mean, they won him the victory. ... [T]o cater to a two-percent minority in the United States, to give them what they want [gay marriage] is insane. And the American people aren't going to do that."
• Also November 4, Falwell asserted on CNN's American Morning that "because of the issues of faith and family, the unborn, the same-sex marriage, and the war on terrorism ... Mr. Bush had to go back [to the White House]." The same day, Falwell said on Capital Report that in addition to those issues, "questioning 'under God' in the pledge [of allegiance] and 'In God we trust' on the coinage" and "kicking the Ten Commandments out of schoolhouses, [and] courthouses" had also contributed to "awaken[ing] a sleeping giant."
• In addition to anti-abortion issues, on the November 7 edition of CNN's Inside Politics, Tate included "a tax system where families can keep more of their own money to spend on themselves" as a "moral values" issue that benefited Bush at the polls.
• On CNN Live Saturday on November 6, Sprigg added the "type of sex education" that students receive to "the unlimited abortion license and the issues of same-sex marriage" as crucial "moral issues" that determined the election.
• Radio host and WorldNetDaily columnist Rabbi Shmuley Boteach claimed on the November 4 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country that another aspect was "the whole issue of a moral focus ... in foreign policy. Guys like me are sick and tired of the Democratic Party being apologists for tyrants."
• On the November 3 edition of CNN's Paula Zahn Now, Watkins suggested that black Democrats' religious values spurred them to vote for Bush over Kerry: "I had callers calling in [to my radio program] saying, 'I'm an African American, I am a Democrat, and I normally vote Democrat, but this year because of my faith, I'm voting for George W. Bush.'" (According to exit polling, Kerry won 88 percent of the black vote.)
• On ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos on November 7, Dobson warned that Republicans have a duty to implement the policies of "morality," or else "I believe they'll pay a price at the -- in the next election."

The claim that the election was a rejection of Democratic views on social issues was exemplified by a particularly skewed panel on the November 4 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country, which featured Rabbi Boteach, Catholic League President William Donahue, right-wing pundit Ann Coulter, former Republican presidential candidate and MSNBC analyst Pat Buchanan, Boston Herald columnist Mike Barnicle, and former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich. The two religious leaders on the panel attacked and smeared the Democratic Party. Donahue declared, "I think that there's something in the Democratic Party. There's an absolute animus, a hostility to people who hold religion seriously. Either that or they were delirious, in which case, you have got to get the straitjackets. Put them in the asylum." Aside from his claim that Democrats are "apologists for tyrants," Boteach also claimed that "Robert Reich is being totally disingenuous when he blames the corporations rather than the Democrats for the smut in the culture." Host and former U.S. Representative Joe Scarborough (R-FL) suggested that his panel provided a balanced discussion of moral values because Donahue is Catholic and Boteach is Jewish -- but he failed to mention that both men hold highly conservative views: "Rabbi, let me -- we've been talking about evangelical Christians. Bill Donahue, obviously a Catholic. But this isn't just about being a Christian, is it? I mean, it goes beyond that." The "God Squad" appearance on CNN also featured a Christian and a Jew (Hartman and Gelllman) who presented a unified message on moral values and the election.

Boteach and Donahue were not the only conservative religious leaders to use the topic of moral values as an opportunity to attack Democrats. As MMFA previously noted, Falwell said during a November 3 appearance on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 that Kerry's position on same-sex marriage is "like saying 150 years ago, 'I'm opposed to slavery, but if my neighbor wants to own one, that's alright.'" (Kerry opposes same-sex marriage but he also opposes the proposed constitutional amendment to ban it, which the U.S. Senate defeated in a procedural vote on July 14.)

Falwell called NOW "the National Order of Witches"

Reverend Jerry Falwell, national chairman of the Faith and Values Coalition and Moral Majority founder, labeled the National Organization for Women (NOW) the "National Order of Witches," said he was going to invite People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) to Christian men's gatherings called "Wild Game Night" so that they "can sit there and suffer," and called Americans United for Separation of Church and State "an anti-Christ" group.

From Falwell's November 21 televised service, broadcast from his Thomas Road Baptist Church:

And we're going to invite PETA [to "Wild Game Night"] as our special guest, P-E-T-A -- People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. We want you to come, we're going to give you a top seat there, so you can sit there and suffer. This is one of my special groups, another one's the ACLU, another is the NOW -- the National Order of Witches [sic]. We've got -- I've got a lot of special groups.

From the November 22 edition of FOX News Channel's Hannity & Colmes:

FALWELL: Up until this generation with the influence of the American Civil Liberties Union and anti-Christ groups like Americans United for Separation of Church and State --

COLMES: Oh "anti," that's not true, Reverend. They're not "anti-Christ."

FALWELL: It is true. I know those guys and the fact is they're so anti-religious, anti-Christian that they have tried to secularize the country.

Reverend Barry Lynn, an attorney and ordained minister, is the executive director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. Other Christian leaders serve on the group's board of trustees. According to its website, "Americans United for Separation of Church and State is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom."

Calling NOW the "National Order of Witches" was far from Falwell's first expression of his opposition to feminists. Falwell mobilized opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment through his organization The Moral Majority (founded in 1979 and disbanded in 1989). In 1989, Falwell stated:

I listen to feminists and all these radical gals ... These women just need a man in the house. That's all they need. Most of the feminists need a man to tell them what time of day it is and to lead them home. And they blew it, and they're mad at all men. Feminists hate men. They're sexist. They hate men; that's their problem.

And shortly after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Falwell accused feminists, gays and lesbians, and a variety of progressive groups of having "helped" make the attacks happen.

Falwell is pastor of the Thomas Road Baptist Church, a 22,000-member church in Lynchburg, Virginia, affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention. Falwell's weekly services, titled "The Old Time Gospel Hour" are broadcast from the church and reach global audiences by television, radio and internet. Falwell is founder and chancellor of Liberty University, operates the Liberty Channel cable and satellite network, publishes the National Liberty Journal, and writes a weekly column published by conservative news outlets such as WorldNetDaily.com and NewsMax.com. Falwell endorsed President George W. Bush's reelection.

— N.C.

Posted to the web on Tuesday November 23, 2004 at 3:27 PM EST

Redistrict Illinois
by Joe in DC - 11/24/2004 11:23:41 AM

The elections in Illinois showed a clear mandate for Democrats again. Obama got 70% of the vote. The state has a Democratic Governor and the Senate and House are controlled by Democrats. Yet, because of antiquated districts, the Democrats only have a one seat advantage in their U.S. House delegation.

Is it time to redistrict Illinois? In Texas, the Republicans faced a similar situation. Under the watchful eye of Tom DeLay, the Texas legislature drew new boundaries. Without the Texas seats, the House Republicans probably would have lost a seat this year.

DeLay and Texas set the precedent that there is no reason to wait for the census to redistrict. Power is enough. I bet Illinois legislators could do an even better job and do it without all the illegal activity that apparently took place in Texas.

Dennis Hastert and Henry Hyde are two dinosaours who clearly don't represent the new Democratic trend in the state. I bet there are some creative ways that their districts, which abut one another, could be made much more demographically representative.

Based on the trends, it is clear that Illinois should have more Democrats in Congress. With more appropriate congressional district boundaries, that can happen.

December Meetup Agenda

The next two months represent an exciting opportunity to grow our Meetup groups and influence the future of the Democratic Party. Nationally, Democracy for America is experiencing rapid growth and many Meetup groups are reporting a record number of new signups. In the coming weeks, we need to make these newcomers feel welcome and help the entire DFA community get involved locally to make a difference in the months ahead.

December Meetup Goals:

1) Discuss election results and DFA's success stories, such as the ten DFA-endorsed candidates who defeated incumbent Republicans, as well as the other notable Dean Dozen successes. Dean Dozen candidates won elections at all levels of government, in both red and blue states. No other comparable organization experienced this kind of success and demonstrates the power of the grassroots. For more information, see http://democracyforamerica.com/dd_returns.php.

2) Start planning and recruiting candidates to run for office in 2005. Brainstorm what offices are up for election in the spring and assign one member of the group to research filing deadlines and requirements. Many offices have filing deadlines in late December and early January!

3) Build participation in your local Democratic Party. Over the next two months, many local party committees will be undergoing a process of reorganization, where they elect new officers and executive committees. The only way for us to have a role in this process is to get involved and attend our local meetings at the town, county and state levels. Before the Meetup, please check both DFA's website and your local Democratic organization's website to find the schedule of meetings in your area. At the Meetup, you should work with your group to lay out specific plans for how your Meetup attendees can get
involved in their local Democratic organization and influence the future direction of our Party.

4) Grow your Meetup group. Set the goal of doubling your November Meetup attendance over the next two months. Ask everyone in your group to bring one new person with them to each Meetup.

You can download the full agenda at:

http://www.democracyforamerica.com/meetuphosts

The December Meetups are an important opportunity to harness the renewed enthusiasm and support of DFA members and newly-activated voters into a proactive force that can make a difference in 2005 and beyond.

Tom Hughes
Political Director
Democracy for America

PS: Governor Dean will be taping a Meetup message this week and we will post it online later in the week. We will send an email when the video is ready for download.

5 days, 5 ethical travesties - The Case Against DeLay

	• Travesty #1: Protecting Their Own (The Case Against DeLay) • Travesty #2: Scuttling the 9/11 Intelligence Reform • Travesty #3: The Istook "Big Government" Amendment • Travesty #4: Unemployment Benefits Nay, Presidential Yacht Aye • Travesty #5: Another Stealth Attack on Roe v. Wade • News From the Blog

Right now in Louisiana we are fighting to grab two more seats for the Democrats in runoff elections, and keep two more Tom DeLay rubberstamps out of the US Congress. As you read through the case against Tom DeLay and the outrageous record of the Republicans in Congress during just their first five days in session, consider helping us in our stand against their daily disgraces.

Contribute Now!

Make your secure donation now, and we'll continue to do our part to put more Democrats in office and hold the Republicans accountable. Thanks for all you've already done, and thanks in advance for your help today. The elections are less than two weeks away, and we need your help!

Contribute Now!

Travesty #1: Protecting Their Own
(The Case Against DeLay)

When the Republicans voted to change their rules to allow Tom DeLay to continue to serve as their leader even if he is indicted for major crimes in Texas, it marked more than just a new low for the GOP Congress. It also marked a conscious shift in political strategy, as the GOP prepared to wage an all out propaganda smear campaign against the Travis County District Attorney in charge of the case. Henry Bonilla, the chief supporter of the rule change, gave this explanation:

"This takes the power away from any partisan crackpot district attorney who may want to indict."

But is it so? Is the case against DeLay so frivolous that the DA must be on a "partisan witch hunt" as DeLay himself has called it? Allow us to lay out the evidence, and you can decide for yourself.

Let's start with this key statistic, which is difficult to overcome:

"'The only people I antagonize more than Republicans are Democrats,' [District Attorney Ronnie] Earle said later. He said the record showed he had prosecuted 12 Democratic officials and 4 Republican officials, although for much of his time in office, he acknowledged, Republicans were on the outs. 'We prosecute abuses of power,'' he said, ''and you have to have power to abuse it.'"

Those figures, for the record, have been confirmed by press reports throughout this scandal. But let's get to direct evidence. The starting point for looking at this case is the law itself, 100 years old now, that specifically bans corporate and union fundraising except for purposes of "administrative overhead." That the Texans for a Republican Majority PAC (TRMPAC), which was founded by DeLay, raised corporate money is not in question - at least $600,000 to be fairly precise.

The GOP legal defense has been that the exception for "administrative overhead" is vague enough that virtually anything can fall under that category. Michael King of the Austin Chronicle addressed that defense this way:

"There's been loud pettifoggery from the usual brace of lawyers - unfortunately echoed by some news outlets - that Texas campaign finance law is 'vague.' But on this score, it has been plain enough for a century that the brazen defiance by the GOP is essentially unprecedented. Commented Craig McDonald of Texans for Public Justice, which filed the original complaint that eventually led to the TRMPAC indictments, 'It's about as plain as the law that says you can't steal another man's horse.'"

But judge for yourself whether these activities sound like overhead:

"State law generally prohibits corporate money from being spent on campaigns except for a political committee's administrative overhead such as rent and utilities. Texans for a Republican Majority spent corporate money on pollsters, phone banks and consultants, arguing that the expenses were part of the committee's overhead."

Still not convinced? Then let's go to the horse's mouth. This was a fundraising appeal TRMPAC sent out early on, which one might argue is the single most damning piece of evidence in the case:

"Unlike other organizations, your corporate contribution to TRMPAC will be put to productive use," the piece said. "Rather than just paying for overhead, your support will fund a series of productive and innovative activities designed to increase our level of engagement in the political arena." [emphasis added]

Ouch. So you see that the entire point of the PAC was to get around this law, but unfortunately that appeal completely dashed their sole defense. Now in the course of the 2002 campaigns for the Texas legislature, TRMPAC made several clutzy moves to try to dance around the law. For example:

"A political committee connected to U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay sent $190,000 in what internal memos say were corporate donations to the Republican National Committee, which then doled out the same amount to seven candidates in Texas House races. It is illegal in Texas to use corporate money in political races, and some open-government advocates suggest the transaction smells of a money-laundering exercise."

Jim Ellis, who became famous for authoring this despicable memo on the redistricting that snidely celebrated the threat to Democrats, wrote that check, and it should therefore be no surprise that he, along with another DeLay aide named John Colyandro, were indicted for money laundering.

All told, 32 indictments have been handed down so far, and obviously with good reason. The only question that remains is whether DeLay was personally involved. Of course as we noted, the entire purpose of the PAC, which again was founded by DeLay (whose specialty is corporate fundraising) was to get around or above these laws. But more importantly, there are at least three particularly potent pieces of evidence demonstrating his involvement.

Westar:

"...in May 2002, an executive at Westar Energy discovered his company was about to make a political donation that, on its face, seemed rather odd. Westar Executive Vice President Douglas Lake didn't understand why his Kansas-based energy company with no operations in Texas and no stake in the state's elections would give $25,000 to a Texas congressman's PAC that operates solely in Texas campaigns.

"'DeLay is from TX. What is our connection?' Lake emailed a colleague. Westar Vice President Douglas Lawrence responded that contributions to DeLay, Texas Republican Joe Barton, Billy Tauzin (R-La), and Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) were necessary to get 'a strong position at the table' during a House-Senate conference committee hammering out a federal energy bill..."

Enron:

"In May 2001, Enron's top lobbyists in Washington advised the company chairman that then-House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) was pressing for a $100,000 contribution to his political action committee, in addition to the $250,000 the company had already pledged to the Republican Party that year.

"DeLay requested that the new donation come from 'a combination of corporate and personal money from Enron's executives,' with the understanding that it would be partly spent on 'the redistricting effort in Texas,' said the e-mail to Kenneth L. Lay from lobbyists Rick Shapiro and Linda Robertson."

The Tauzin Fundraiser:

"A newly obtained memo indicates U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay had personal involvement in directing some of the fund-raising activities of a political action committee that is under a grand jury investigation…"

"The August 2002 e-mail by one of TRMPAC's paid fund-raisers stated that she was acting on DeLay's behalf in an attempt to set up an event featuring U.S. Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-La."

The Westar case, of course, was one of the incidents cited in DeLay's recent string of ethics admonishments.

So there you have it, the case against DeLay. Obviously nobody knows for sure whether the Grand Jury will see fit to indict DeLay, and their may be issues of jurisdiction that allow DeLay to slip away, but in ethical terms it is hard to see any distiction between the acts of those already indicted and those of their boss, Tom DeLay.

So let us close by bringing this back to the change in party rules passed recently. The Chicago Tribune writes:

"...it's hard to read much more than arrogance in what the GOP did Wednesday. If DeLay is indicted, he should step down from party leadership immediately, at least until the charges are resolved. Allowing a high-profile leader such as DeLay to continue to serve as a spokesman for his party while he faces criminal charges would be crippling for the Republicans.

"Republicans must know this stinks. They did it behind closed doors Wednesday and there was no vote count.

"DeLay has responded to all this with his usual bluster. Maybe that works in Texas - though his relatively narrow re-election would argue that even Texans are growing weary of him. DeLay can bluster, but the Republican Party has to show that it understands political leaders have to set a high ethical standard. Their actions on Wednesday suggest they want to protect DeLay at any cost - even the cost of the party's reputation."

Help us fight back...

Travesty #2: Scuttling the 9/11 Intelligence Reform

Having already stalled up the 9/11 Intelligence reform bill by inserting "poison pill" amendments, including provisions from the defunct Patriot Act II and another legalizing the deportation of suspects to be tortured abroad, Republicans in the House killed the final compromise version of the bill, going against the will of Democrats in the House, the entire Senate, the 9/11 Commission and victims' families, and even President Bush:

"Long-debated legislation to dramatically reshape the nation's intelligence community collapsed in the House yesterday, as conservative Republicans refused to embrace a compromise because they said it could reduce military control over battlefield intelligence and failed to crack down on illegal immigrants…"

"Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), the committee's top Democrat, said, 'I think those who are vehemently opposed are not going to come around.' She said it is up to Bush, Hastert and other GOP leaders to overcome the House conservatives' resistance. If a bill is not enacted by year's end, efforts would have to start anew in the 109th Congress that convenes in January..."

"Another conferee, Rep. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), said: 'Clearly, House Republicans never really wanted this bill. . . . Sadly, there are those who are so wedded to the Department of Defense that they, ultimately, ensured the bill's demise.'"

As a result, the current 108th Congress will have failed to pass this reform, despite having had a full three years and two months to consider it. Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi denounced the failure in this blistering statement:

"House Republicans single-handedly doomed that compromise by insisting on weak and unrelated provisions. When the 9/11 Commission issued its recommendations, it did so with urgency. But that urgency was never matched by House Republicans, who did not want the 9/11 Commission in the first place, and who never truly wanted to pass a meaningful reform bill..."

Travesty #3: The Istook "Big Government" Amendment

In the final days of the 108th Congress, the House and Senate were all but prepared to pass the final version of yet another mediocre and massive spending bill when an odd thing was discovered. Buried in the legislation was this provision:

"Congress passed legislation Saturday giving two committee chairman and their assistants access to income tax returns without regard to privacy protections, but not before red-faced Republicans said it was all a mistake and would be swiftly repealed."

Republican Senators exclaimed that the provision was inserted by "some staffer" and that it was "more than a mistake, it's a terrible disaster." But unfortunately they did not manage to get their House counterparts on the same talking points:

"House leadership aides said the controversy was a knee-jerk reaction to a misunderstanding of the provision, which was inserted by Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla., whose House Appropriations subcommittee oversees the IRS.

"'It was not any surprise,' said John Scofield, spokesman for the House Appropriations Committee.

"'The Senate was in the room when it was negotiated.'"

Odd that the Senate was so offended if the provision was so harmless. Indeed, noting the carefully crafted language, which was strikingly similar to amendments ardently pushed by Rep. Istook in the past, one Democratic Senator astutely called the Republican bluff:

"'We weren't born yesterday, we didn't come down with the first snow,' said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. 'This isn't poorly thought out, this was very deliberately thought out and it was done in the dead of night.'"

Caught red-handed, the Senate has agreed to language removing the provision. The House has promised to do so as well, but it remains to be seen whether they will follow through, and some worry that the provision may temporarily become law and that Republicans may utilize it in the brief window before it is repealed. The precise motive remains unclear, but Senator Grassley, a Republican put it this way:

"Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said the measure will 'bring us back to the doorstep to the days of President Nixon, President Truman and other dark days in our history when taxpayer information was used against political enemies.'"

Travesty #4: Unemployment Benefits Nay, Presidential Yacht Aye

We'll keep this one short and sweet. Even as millions of Americans go without work, many having seen their unemployment benefits expire at the insistence of the Republicans in Congress, they approved spending for a Presidential yacht for George Bush. The Chicago Sun-Times lists the pork in a $388 billion spending bill:

"A potential boon for Bush, $2 million for the government to try buying back the former presidential yacht Sequoia. The boat was sold three decades ago, and its current owners say the yacht is assessed at $9.8 million and are distressed by the provision."

All part of the "mandate," right?

Travesty #5: Another Stealth Attack on Roe v. Wade

Hoping to slip it in under the radar, House Republicans inserted an embarrassing attack on abortion rights into that same $388 billion spending bill:

"In the first sign of post-election power by abortion opponents, Congress on Saturday approved a sweeping $388 billion spending bill that would permit hospitals and HMOs to avoid state requirements that they offer abortion services."

Democratic Leader Pelosi took the floor in an inspiring speech denouncing the amendment:

"Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Weldon amendment, an extraordinary sneak attack on women's rights and a disgraceful display of ideology over health.

"This language is a radical change in policy that the House has not debated on the floor, and the Senate has never considered, debated, or voted on. Republicans simply slipped it into the appropriations bill when they thought no one was looking. It is entirely outside of the scope of this omnibus spending bill. Yet it is a part of a 'must-pass' bill at the insistence of House Republican leaders.

"This language makes a mockery of Roe v. Wade. Under this provision, a woman will not know where her right to choose will be honored and where it will be denied."

Again, Republicans knew full well that this move was wildly unpopular, which is why - in what is now becoming a tradition - they inserted it quietly like a thief in the night. For shame.

News From the Blog

Bring on the National Sales Tax
Republican Max Burns got nailed with "The Max Tax" and lost his seat in GA-12. Now Billy Tauzin will have to fend off Little Billy's Big Tax.

Own the Northeast
Life is tough for Republicans in the Northeast.

Big Government
A column in Texas mulls the possibility that local papers were intimidated into supporting Republican Joe Barton.

Cast Thy Shame
Utilize a program we devised to email your favorite GOP Member of Congress and ask them why they will allow indicted individuals to serve as their leaders.

Dionne on DeLay
Washington Post columnist E. J. Dionne takes on the DeLay rule change.

One of the things I take from this election is that...as each day passes since November 2nd...it gets clearer and clearer that we on the activist/netroots wing of the Democratic party need to:

reform this party.

It's also clear that when we look at the elected leadership of the Democratic party...the folks we rely on, for better and for worse, to represent us...the single quality that we hunger for is fight.

Basically, if you can't be a fighting Democrat in 2004, then you really shouldn't be a Democrat at all.  Because without fight, at this point, we all know that we are lost.

What does this mean?  I think it means two things:  

• one short term and ideologically flexible
  
• one long term and visionary....

In my view, as far as short term battles go...as far as what it takes to fight back against the GOP machine in 2005 we need every single fightin' Democrat we can get.

I've said before that we need a new hybrid tactics when it comes to how we fight our battles.  That applies here.  When we look out to the broad playing field of Democrats, in the short term, the single most important characteristic to judge someone on is whether they will fight for our party and help us retake legislative majorities in the legislatures of this nation by fighting for our constituencies.

I don't care if you're liberal or progressive, and vote for everything I support...if you can't get out there, stick your neck out and pitch in to our common fight, then, sad to say, we don't need you.

What does this mean in pragmatic terms?  Well, for one, it means that in 2005 we are going to have to come up with a set of judgements about how our candidates are doing....and be prepared to run primary challenges in 2006 against those who are simply "phoning it in."  

Phone-it-in Democrats no longer cut it, and need to be told so...and that is the dominant message the activist wing of the party needs to send. (not ideological purity...not litmus test issues...not "we can help you with the internet"...fight in spirit and in deeds is our demand.)

And, I think one thing is clear to me now, that wasn't two weeks ago.  When you get right down to it...if you can't fight for election reform, you are not a fighting democrat.

As we get more locked into the vote counting and recounting process and the case for "election reform" gets sorted out from the case for claiming that the "election results" were rigged...it becomes crystal clear to me that you cannot be a fighting Democrat if you don't express outrage at how the last two Presidential elections were conducted:

• from the voter suppression efforts in Democratic districts by GOP challenges that should be made illegal...the GOP admitted in Florida that the challenges were a 'feint' to scare voters and make the Dems spend money on lawyers...true.
  
• to the inexcusable long lines largely in Democratic districts that are a disgrace to our nation
  
• to the paid RNC operatives who broke the law in Nevada and South Dakota and perhaps elsewhere
  
• to the use of flawed felon rolls to intimidate wide swaths of voters from voting
  
• to the use of "citizenship" challenges to intimidate immigrant voters from voting
  
• to the fact that HAVA did not create the perception of a fair and impartial election this year and the machines whose use it engendered are currently unworthy instruments upon which American citizens should be asked to vote
  
• and the fact that HAVA failed in it's main goal: creating a properly run election worthy of the citizens of the United States.  We need to have same day registration, driver's license registration, and early voting in every state in the Union...and Federal funding and oversight to make sure that election day runs smoothly for every single American citizen.

And the broader case:

• that the Bush/Cheney campaign engaged in a widespread, divisive campaign of lies, distortions, and personal attacks on John Kerry  and the Democrats unbecoming our nation's values.  Calling Kerry a "Massachusetts liberal" should be held up for scorn....President Bush, you are President of Massachusetts too!  Does that mean you don't represent the Blue states, Mr. President?
  
• that Bush/Cheney surrogates outright smeared our candidate's Viet Nam  service and his wounds in combat and GOP sympathiser media networks sought to tilt the coverage of this election: from Sinclair's documentary...to Fox's biased coverage of the DNC.
  
• that the GOP has distorted fair legislative process with gerrymandered districts and off year redistricting  whose only  purpose is a bald grab for power in Congress.
  
• we Democrats MUST begin fighting the inequities in our system that rig the govenmental and tax system so that cities, including Washington D.C. are underrepresented, overtaxed and underfunded.  We are American citizens too....our votes count too, our money counts too.  And 56 million voters deserve more than what we're currently getting from D.C.  

If we can't fight on these fronts, if we can't make these claims loudly, clearly and repeatedly then we don't deserve to call ourselves a "fighting party."...to be real, not even a party at all.

Now, the fight must be broader than that.   We need to define our core constituency, we need to define our core values and issues, we need to draw a new map and fight for votes in every state and region.  And I've highlighted what I think of that in previous diaries like the face of the Democratic Party and drawing a new Map, defining a new DNC....

In a nutshell, we need to be ideologically flexible, hybrid fighting Democrats over the next six years as we fight to win back legislative majorities in States Houses and in D.C. and at the same time we on the left need to look beyond that.

We need to redefine our ideological core.

We need to define a new ideological core for the Democratic Party that we work on over our lifetimes, and we need to do this by looking back to our roots and innovating forward.  We need to have big goals that we start working on now, knowing that we will not achieve them anytime soon, but that they represent the core values we want to emanate from our new Democratic Party.

In my view the central core of this ideology needs to be a marrying of three things:

• the environment
  
• the economy
  
• education

Around a core set of values:

• equality
  
• community
  
• justice

We need to begin to work out the structure of a "new" New Deal....one that looks at how education and the environment are linked to our economy.  How green technology...and building a workforce educated in how to capitalize on it, is what will make our economy strong for the next century on the premise of respecting the earth and educating every  citizen with the skills for success in that century.  The Democrats, the "red" party of Labor, and Labor itself, must become more Green, more hi-tech, more future looking and internationalist.  We know that to do this the people must take back the planet and our government from the corporations...and to do that we must be the party that invents the process by which that happens successfully through the marriage of education, the environment and the economy.

And, at the same time, we need to do that in ways that make the Democratic party the party that is truly "pro-prosperity", "pro-innovation", "pro-fiscal responsibility", "pro-trade", "pro-development" and "pro worker."  We can do this if we put our minds to it....and we must.

We need to aspire to a "Greater Great Society"...one in which the dignity and potential of every citizen is respected and protected from childhood to old age.  We need to redefine, as we become a society in which the old will be increasingly old and the young increasingly diverse that we are the party that can bring everyone together at the same table and work things out.  We need to finally, and once and for all, be the party that reforms health care....through innovation and cooperation and building a coalition of the old and young to work for everyone's best interest.  And, I think, we need to be the party that incorporates some form of "national service" into the educational program of the United States, whether voluntary or not....we Democrats need to win back the mantle of patriotism with a proposal for national service that works...bringing equity to military service and broadening, once and for all, the concept of "service to country" beyond the act of taking up a gun to defend it.

We need to ring the bell of a new Civil Rights.  A stronger, broader, more inclusive vision than our nation has dared before.  And we need to find a way to have the religious and the devoted sit down with the secular and the humanist and carve out an innovative new legal framwork so that every citizen born in the United States can expect equal treament under the laws of this nation in all 50 states...and that every citizen of this planet might know that the United States will carry itself by legal and moral codes in our foreign and domestic policies that live up the moral fabric of our national ideals.

We need to reinvent the aspiration and the dream that began in the 1960's..when Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert Kennedy laid out the best of what America might be...and take that and put it right at the core of our Democratic Party so that everyone will know exactly what it means to be a Democrat...and how that is different from the corporate friendly, anti-environment, rust belt, old school GOP path of division and discord.

So, yeah, there's alot to fight for.  And the fight has just begun.

In the short term, there will be Democrats who don't share this vision....but we'll support them if they are fighting Democrats...

we know, however, what direction our vision leads and what the framework and foundation of the Party reform we are undertaking must support.

If equality and justice and community are not at the heart of this new Party...if we cannot innovate a new platform that brings the environment, education and the economy together....than why should we put our political lives behind something that can only be:

the same old, same old???

Nope, it's time for reform and a new vision.  Agree or disagree on the particulars, I think you can agree:

we fighting Democrats have got work to do.

Tuesday, November 23, 2004

November 23, 2004 PERMALINK
Minority Rules
(posted Nov. 22 11:45 PM ET)

Perhaps the most stunning part of the intel reform debacle is that the Speaker of the House admitted he had the votes to pass it.

Just not enough GOP votes to avoid making the Dems look good.

From the NY Times:

[Speaker Dennis] Hastert did not want to split his caucus and did not want the bill to pass with less than "a majority of the majority," said his spokesman, John Feehery.

"What good is it to pass something," Mr. Feehery said, "where most of our members don't like it?"

Well, there is a little thing called "the public good."

But that requires putting governing ahead of politics.

And that's not how the GOP got to where it is, so why start now?

Of course, saying the bill doesn't have support of the "majority of the majority" is a fancy, self-serving way to say a loud minority is opposed.

And that when a loud minority is opposed, it's important to wait -- as Senate Majority Leader Frist said -- until we "get it right".

Hmm. Does Frist apply the same logic to, say, judicial nominations?

Not exactly. As he said on CBS' Face The Nation this Sunday:

...let's take a nominee from the president, who has majority support in the Senate, and let's deny senators the opportunity to vote. It's wrong.

Any attempt to claim simple majority rule is a consistent principle of the GOP is now shot to hell.

So when the GOP tries to use it later, it should be quickly shoved down their throat.

We all know the Framers wanted the minority to have rights, to prevent a tyranny of the majority.

The question for the public to judge, both with today's intelligence reform and tomorrow's judges, is not if the minority has a right to object. Of course they do.

Instead the question is, what is the quality of the minority's objections?

Is the Pentagon's loss of turf, and lack of unrelated provisions on undocumented immigrant workers enough to warrant delay on the intelligence reform the 9/11 Commission says is "essential"?

And should the Senate roll over for activist right-wing judges who want to turn the clock back on equal rights, labor protections and environmental protections?

Media largely ignored Rep. Istook's inconsistency on tax provision

Many major media outlets merely reported Representative Ernest Istook's (R-OK) November 22 revelation that he "didn't write," "didn't approve," and "wasn't even consulted" about a controversial provision inserted into a $388 billion omnibus spending bill that would have allowed lawmakers to examine the tax returns of private citizens -- failing to note that just the day before, Istook had defended the provision and made no attempt to deny responsibility for it.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) called the provision the "Istook Amendment" on November 20, and on November 21 the Associated Press reported that "congressional aides said it had been inserted at the request of Rep. Ernest J. Istook Jr." Also on November 21, CNN.com reported that Istook -- "the Oklahoma Republican whose subcommittee was responsible for the provision" -- defended the provision, saying that it had been misrepresented, that "[n]obody's privacy was ever jeopardized," and that the language was meant to "include visiting and inspecting the huge IRS processing centers, but not inspecting tax returns."

It wasn't until November 22 that Istook took steps to distance himself from the provision, releasing a statement in which he claimed to have "had nothing to do with inserting this language. ... My name shouldn't be associated with it, because I had nothing to do with it, and didn't even know about it until after the bill was done and was filed."

Yet despite this inconsistency, most subsequent media reports accepted at face value Istook's denial of responsibility for the provision. A November 23 article in The Washington Post presented Istook's most recent assertions that he was "bypassed" and knew nothing about the provision without any mention of his defense of the provision the day before:

Micah Leydorf, Istook's spokeswoman, said she understood the language was added by the full Appropriations Committee staff or by Istook's subcommittee staff at the direction of staffers for the full committee. "We have a problem with how bills like this are put together," Istook acknowledged. "The subcommittee chairman should never be bypassed like I was in this case."

The Post's report was reprinted in several media outlets on November 23, including The Boston Globe, The Seattle Times, and MSNBC.com.

Similarly, the Houston Chronicle and USA Today simply reported Istook's November 22 denial without noting his inconsistency.

The New York Times -- in a November 23 article criticized by Media Matters for America for other reasons -- was an exception in this regard. Reporter David E. Rosenbaum noted Istook's change in position.