Latest Threads
Latest
Greatest Threads
Greatest
Lobby
Lobby
Journals
Journals
Search
Search
Options
Options
Help
Help
Login
Login
Home » Discuss » Journals » wyldwolf Donate to DU
Advertise Liberally! The Liberal Blog Advertising Network
Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs!
Canis Lupus Politicus
Posted by wyldwolf in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Wed Sep 06th 2006, 10:45 AM
ABC said it planned to run a disclaimer with the broadcast, reminding viewers that the movie was not a documentary.

But Richard Ben-Veniste, a member of the Sept. 11 commission, said genre confusion would not be a problem for commission members, several of whom saw part of the miniseries last week.

“As we were watching, we were trying to think how they could have misinterpreted the 9/11 commission’s finding the way that they had,” Mr. Ben-Veniste said. “They gave the impression that Clinton had not given the green light to an operation that had been cleared by the C.I.A. to kill bin Laden,” when, in fact, the Sept. 11 commission concluded that Mr. Clinton had.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/06/us/06pat...
Read entry | Discuss (6 comments) | Recommend (0 votes)
Posted by wyldwolf in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Wed Sep 06th 2006, 09:00 AM
From John77 at Digg:

- Why, if this is a non-partisan project, is only the Republican co-chair of the 9/11 Commission being asked to front this project?

- Why were many of the principals of this film, like Richard Clarke, not shown relevant scenes from the movie early on, so that research and scenes could be vetted–and corrected, if misrepresented?

- Why did you provide the movie to only right-wing bloggers and mainstream media in your advance outreach for this project, and not to left-wing bloggers and media?

- Was it the network’s or the PR firm’s idea to reach out in advance only to right-wing blogs, and to exclude left-wing blogs?

- If you were truly intending to provide a non-partisan public service to the American public, why not produce and air a true documentary actually based on the 9/11 Commission Report and vetted by both Democrats and Republicans?

- Did you know about Cyrus Nowrasteh’s and David Cunningham’s extreme conservative views?

- Will you consider pulling scenes proven to be false?

- Will you consider removing the “based on the 9/11 Commission Report” imprimatur from promotional materials, and from the miniseries itself on the air dates?

- Will you consider giving Richard Clarke and/or prominent Democrats, who disagree with this airbrushing of the 9/11 story, the opportunity to point out the movies flaws on network time?

- Will ABC News report on the controversy over this project in the one-hour news special scheduled to air on September 11, following the movie?

And some questions for Tom Kean:
Did you have any reservations about promoting this movie without the Democratic co-chair of your Commission?

- Were you a paid consultant on this project, and if you were, do you have any misgivings at this point about trading in on your Commission role?

- Do you think it’s in the best interest of this nation to offer up this docudrama, which directly contradicts your own report in several instances, as being “based on the 9/11 Commission Report?

- Did you recommend to the screenwriter, director and producers that there should be Democratic vetting of this project as well?

- Do you believe that American children should be treated to well-documented and balanced accounts about 9/11, or do you give your blessing to students being served up lesson plans based on this movie, which has been proven to directly contradict your own Commission’s findings?

Read entry | Discuss (5 comments) | Recommend (0 votes)
Posted by wyldwolf in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Thu Jul 20th 2006, 08:02 AM
Here's a couple of dueling Bill Clinton articles for you having to do with certain states of mind. You'll understand...

First, from the Associated Press:

A man was accused Wednesday in an indictment of making threats against former President Clinton. Three employees at the Edwards Chiropractic Clinic told investigators they heard Williford threaten to "bust a cap," or shoot, Clinton, according to an affidavit.

During an interview with Secret Service agents, Williford denied threatening Clinton but said he believed Clinton was "a communist mole for the Red Chinese..."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/115...



Second, this from the Arkansas News Bureau, on Bill Clinton's mental condition:

A psychologist who teaches at Johns Hopkins University came to Little Rock last week to work on his book that will propose that Bill Clinton has a mental condition that's actually an element of historic greatness.

The author, John Gartner, contended in a previous book that Americans have achieved inordinate wealth because ours is a nation of people who had the gumption to take chances. From that heritage, his theory goes, we have seen the spread of a gene that causes the occasional person to have chemical and brain wave actions called hypomanic.

That means low manic, and it is not considered a disease, like manic-depressive. It's just a thing, like a hot temper or grouchiness.

The hypomanic person, as Gartner explained, lives in a place of high brilliance with low insanity not far away. His condition impels him to invention, innovation, entrepreneurial venture, maybe even the presidency.

He tends to be charismatic. He also tends to have a stuck accelerator. He's impulsive, risk-taking, perhaps sexually indiscreet, given to grandiosity, unconfined by convention and consumed excitedly with ideas, some great, some absurd.

http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2006/0...

Others with the "condition" have included Christopher Columbus, John Winthrop, Alexander Hamilton, Andrew Carnegie, Louis B. Mayer and human genome discoverer Craig Venter.





Read entry | Discuss (0 comments) | Recommend (0 votes)
Posted by wyldwolf in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Sat Jul 08th 2006, 10:33 AM
Several Georgia DUers, including myself, have been stressing about Ralph Reed's run for Lt. Governor. Now fellow Georgian Ed Kilgore of the DLC provides his take:


Boy, the calendar really snuck up on me like a crafty pick-pocket: the Georgia primary that will, among other things, determine Ralph Reed's political fate is just eleven days away.

The Man Who Would Be Lieutenant Governor of Georgia, as part of a Master Plan to stroll into the White House in 2016 or so, is fighting for his life against primary challenger state senator Casey Cagle. A poll taken by the Georgia-based firm Insider Advantage on June 26-27 has Reed ahead of Cagle 32-27, with a gigantic 41 percent still undecided. According to a report from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Jim Galloway and Tom Baxter, here's what Insider Advantage's savvy Matt Towery had to say about the poll:

Those who are shocked at the large undecided percentage in this survey should understand that these two candidates have only been up on broadcast television for under a week. As we’ve noted in the past, Reed may be well known in political circles, but the average voter has little if just a hazy idea of who he is and what office he is seeking. And Sen. Cagle suffers from the same anemic name identification.

Towery thinks the dynamics help Reed. I dunno. The release of the final Senate Indian Affairs Committee report on the Abramoff scandal, which toted up Reed's take from casino tribes to campaign against competitors at more than 5 million smackers, did not come at a good time for Ralph. And Cagle's final TV blitz is all about Reed and Abramoff (Reed is retaliating with ads claiming Cagle got fat and happy from his own state legislative service).

As a Democrat, I hope Reed wins the primary; his nomination will not only give likely Democratic nominee Jim Martin a good shot in November, but could wreak holy havoc on the whole GOP ticket, headed by Governor Sonny Perdue, whose private opinion of Ralph is unprintable in a family-friendly blog.

But as an expatriate Georgian, who bleeds Bulldog red-and-black, yearns for the sight of landmarks like the Big Chicken, and goes home pretty regularly to get re-crackerized and eat some decent grits--I don't want my home state to do much of anything to facilitate Ralph Reed's visions of grandeur. His exposure as part of the Abramoff scam, along with long-time buddy Grover Norquist, is a perfect reflection of his role in the mutual corruption of social and economic conservatives in the latter-day GOP. Whether he loses on July 18 or in November, he needs to lose, and it will be a fine day in Georgia when the chickens all come home to roost, and Ralph Reed's political ambitions finally expire.


This mirrors my though ts as of late. Originally I was promoting the idea that Democrats should cross over and vote for Cagle to deny Reed the election. Then a friend of mine who works as a lobbyist in the State Capital told me that the State GOP is actually worried about a Reed victory, citing insider polls that say his numbers in the general are low and that voters would be less likely to vote for GOP governor Perdue with Reed in the general.
Read entry | Discuss (7 comments) | Recommend (0 votes)
Posted by wyldwolf in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Thu Jul 06th 2006, 12:13 PM
A day early, I know!

The ultimate status symbol is a long term marriage.

The Carters were married on July seventh, 1946, in Plains. They spent the first night of their honeymoon at the Biltmore Hotel in Atlanta.

Read entry | Discuss (19 comments) | Recommend (0 votes)
Posted by wyldwolf in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Thu Jul 06th 2006, 10:51 AM
Welcome home, Reagan Democrats!

Donkey Rising points to admittedly anecdotal evidence of mass Republican defections to the Democratic Party:

Paul Harris of the Guardian Unlimited Observer reports on the resignation of the Kansas GOP Chairman Mark Parkinson and his candidacy for Deputy Governor --- as a Democrat. Writes Harris:

His defection to the Democrats sent shockwaves through a state deeply associated with the national Republican cause and the evangelical conservatives at its base. Nor was it just Parkinson's leave-taking that left Republicans spluttering with rage and talking of betrayal. It was that as he left Parkinson lambasted his former party's obsession with conservative and religious issues such as gay marriage, evolution and abortion.

Sitting in his headquarters, the new Democrat is sticking to his guns. Republicans in Kansas, he says, have let down their own people. 'They were fixated on ideological issues that really don't matter to people's everyday lives. What matters is improving schools and creating jobs,' he said. 'I got tired of the theological debate over whether Charles Darwin was right.'


Could this be a harbinger of a nation-wide trend of substance-hungry Republicans becoming Democrats? Maybe, suggests Harris:

...in a swath of heartland states such as Kansas, Democrats are seeing the first signs of their party's rebirth. Parkinson is not alone in switching sides. In Virginia, Jim Webb, a one-time Reagan official, is seeking to be a Democrat senator. In South Carolina, top Republican prosecutor Barney Giese has defected after a spat with conservatives. Back in Kansas another top Republican, Paul Morrison, also joined the Democrats and is challenging a Republican to be the state attorney-general.

...Parkinson's defection encouraged other moderates to abandon a party controlled by right-wing religious zealots. In political terms they are called Rinos, or Republicans in Name Only. If enough Rinos desert, the strict ideologues in the party are likely to drift further right.


Yeah, we know, this is largely anecdotal. But significant Rino defections have also been documented in recent polls (see Alan Abramowitz's May 17 EDM post, for example).


http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblo...
Read entry | Discuss (51 comments) | Recommend (0 votes)
Posted by wyldwolf in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Wed Jul 05th 2006, 12:49 PM
Rep. Rahm Emanuel, the hyperactive Democrat from Illinois charged with winning control of the House for his party in the 2006 elections, was trying to goad a colleague to move into attack mode. And so he phoned. And phoned. And phoned again.

For days, Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. (D-S.C.) received about three calls daily from Emanuel, urging him to run a political advertisement criticizing the Bush administration's decision to let an Arab company manage U.S. ports, an issue sparking nationwide outrage at the time. With Vice President Dick Cheney heading south to campaign for Spratt's GOP opponent, Emanuel thought the best response was to run an attack ad in the local newspaper — quickly.

"Rahm smelled blood," said Chuck Fant, Spratt's press secretary. "He latched on like a pit bull and never let go."

Spratt finally agreed to put out a news release, one that was less in-your-face than Emanuel wanted. But the fact that the lawmaker was prompted to act at all was a tribute to the intensity, persistence and abrasiveness that Emanuel has brought to his job as field marshal of the Democrats' battle for the House.

Those edgy traits are shared by Emanuel's counterpart in the party's fight to gain Senate seats — Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York. It is a convergence that has gladdened the hearts of many Democrats; both men are credited with having boosted the party's chances for a strong showing in November. But, in the bottom-line world of politics, both will share the blame if those expectations are not met.

Emanuel, 46, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and Schumer, 55, head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, have deployed tactics reminiscent of the smoke-filled rooms of yore.

Emanuel and Schumer have brought an aggressive intensity to the 2006 campaign that is akin to the famed treatment used by Lyndon B. Johnson, former president and Senate majority leader, to sway lawmakers.

Those who have received the Emanuel treatment include Heath Shuler, a retired NFL quarterback trying to topple a House Republican in North Carolina. When he was deciding whether to run, Schuler told Emanuel he was worried that serving in Congress would cut into time with his children. In response, Emanuel peppered Shuler with dozens of phone calls over two weeks to report what he was doing with his own three kids.

"He calls one Monday morning: 'Heath, I'm taking my kids to school,' then he just hangs up," Shuler recalled. "At 11:30, he calls and says, 'I'm leaving my office to eat lunch with my kids.' Then, 'Heath, it's 3:30, and I'm walking into school.' "

Shuler got the message and signed up for the campaign...


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...

Read entry | Discuss (2 comments) | Recommend (0 votes)
Posted by wyldwolf in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Thu Jun 29th 2006, 08:15 AM
... His segment, titled "Worst Person in the World," is a strong measure of the MSNBC host's overwhelming bias against conservatives as the segment has served as a launchpad for attacks against conservative figures and positions at a dramatically greater rate than against the left. As reported by the latest Media Reality Check, by a staggeringly lopsided 8 to 1 margin, Olbermann has targeted conservatives, sometimes with substantial venom, while hitting a comparatively miniscule number of liberals.

Gee! Ya think? Do you feel MSNBC should be "fair and balanced" like FOX News?

Wonder what the ratio of liberal vs. conservative targeting is on Hannity and O'Reilly? Have you checked THAT?

From a comment on this story:

Isn't it funny how people like DNC "Master of Puppets" Dean proclaim that the Government of George Bush keeps everything in secret and from the public; yet amidst news that is reported as is happens across the globe, and with leaks pouring out of Washington like Lake Ponchetrain Levee, that the DNC truly has identified it's target market: Ill-informed and pathetically ignorant and stupid Americans, most of them poor, uneducated and wanting a father figure.

Stop! Your're killing me! This bit of hysterics comes from a Reagan supporter, no doubt!

Olbermann is clearly a Paid Hack, the type of person the DNC really needs, to keep feeding the mass of people who clearly avoid digesting the truth over some saucy appetizer called "headlines".

There seems to be a growing belief that anyone who believes anything different than you is "paid" to say so by your enemies. Sad.
Read entry | Discuss (29 comments) | Recommend (0 votes)
Posted by wyldwolf in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Tue Jun 27th 2006, 03:03 PM
WASHINGTON - The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.

The former vice president's movie — replete with the prospect of a flooded New York City, an inundated Florida, more and nastier hurricanes, worsening droughts, retreating glaciers and disappearing ice sheets — mostly got the science right, said all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read the book and answered questions from The Associated Press.

The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate change theory. Most scientists had not seen the movie, which is in limited release, or read the book.

But those who have seen it had the same general impression: Gore conveyed the science correctly; the world is getting hotter and it is a manmade catastrophe-in-the-making caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060627/ap_on_...

Read entry | Discuss (10 comments) | Recommend (0 votes)
Posted by wyldwolf in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Fri Jun 23rd 2006, 10:46 AM
I suspect that Al Gore will be annoyed at me for writing this article. He has never so much as hinted to me that he is or will be a candidate for the Democratic nomination for president. At most, he has been coy about the matter--as he was coy about it on television last Sunday. Still, I want to assure the reader that I have not written it in consultation with Gore at all. I haven't even hinted to him that I am writing it. This is written out of solidarity with those political moderates and liberals who are desperate to find a nominee about whom both their minds and spirits can be intellectually sure and psychologically fervent.

The first pragmatic reason to be for Gore, then, is that he is electable. He won once. He can win again. This is not simply a slogan; it is a serious thought. I find, moreover, that there is an undercurrent of guilt around the country about the fact that the presidency was taken from him by a vote of 5 to 4, with the 5 votes coming from Supreme Court justices who, on any other matter, would otherwise have reflexively deferred on a matter of Florida votes to the power of the Florida courts whose judgment would have resulted in Al Gore being president and not George Bush. These "strict constructionists" and "originalists" suddenly turned activists. That Bush has been such a clot as a president, such a golem magnifies Gore's stature as a thinking person with beliefs he can defend honestly and persuasively. Imagine what would be the outcome of a rematch. My guess is that if there were a poll asking voters whom they had voted for in 2000, Gore would win by a landslide. I know people who are actually ashamed of having cast their ballots for George Bush. But Gore will not be running against Bush....

...I was first for Al Gore for president when he ran in the primaries in 1988. He lost to Michael Dukakis in that year's suicide of the Democratic Party, an ignominious campaign by a smug and utterly disconnected governor from the only state that had voted for George McGovern. Jesse Jackson was the celebrity candidate, with his hip-hop language that some patronizing folk will still tell you is eloquence. Had Al Gore been the nominee in 1988, he likely would have defeated George Herbert Walker Bush, and the nation would have been saved the grim experience of his unlikely and uncomprehending dynasty.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w060619&s=p...



Read entry | Discuss (74 comments) | Recommend (0 votes)
Posted by wyldwolf in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Wed Jun 21st 2006, 03:30 PM
Emanuel has been a leading strategist, fundraiser, cheerleader and recruiter for House Democrats as chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) since the beginning of last year. His uncommon pairing of cunning efficiency and profanity-laced outbursts has won him both plaudits and opprobrium, but nearly all Democrats concede that he deserves substantial credit for their rosy election prospects this year.

Although most DCCC chairmen serve only a single term, many Democrats welcomed Emanuel’s presence and held out hope he would serve a second term. Emanuel’s comments came just as the DCCC was releasing its latest fundraising total. The DCCC raised $5.5 million in May, slightly behind its rival, the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), which raised $5.6 million. The Democrats finished the month with $24.5 million on hand, compared with $21.9 million for the Republicans.

The DCCC chairman acknowledges that he has had a rocky relationship with some colleagues.

“There’s no doubt I could change my style and be more patient,” he conceded, noting that his wife had suggested they name a fourth child Patience as a “subtle reminder.”

But he argues that he does not play favorites.

“I am impatient, I’m impatient with everybody. ... I push the Blue Dogs as hard as I push the New Democrats as hard as I push the CBC. Either you do or don’t believe this is a historical election.”

He lamented a lack of effort from some of his colleagues.

“I’ve ruffled feathers with a purpose. There’s a sclerosis that’s set in. I’ve ruffled feathers of elder members of caucus with intention of recruiting younger members. I’ve ruffled of New Democrats and Blue Dogs. I’ve ruffled feathers, no doubt about it.”

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheH...


Read entry | Discuss (76 comments) | Recommend (0 votes)
Posted by wyldwolf in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Tue Jun 20th 2006, 04:05 PM
More than 14,500 Rhode Island Democrats have switched their voter affiliations within the past six months to participate in the Sept. 12 Republican primary, a figure that experts say will probably help incumbent Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee in his campaign against Cranston Mayor Stephen P. Laffey.

State elections records compiled by the secretary of state's office show that 13,596 Democrats switched their affiliations to independent -- or unaffiliated in the state's political argot -- which would make them eligible to vote in the primary. An additional 987 Democrats switched to Republican, thus making them eligible to vote in the GOP primary.

Under Rhode Island's hybrid primary system, these independents can vote in either the Republican or Democratic primaries. Registered Republicans however, are eligible to vote only in the Republican primary, and registered Democrats only in the Democratic primary.

Additional stats:

Switching from the GOP to unaffiliated were 3,768 voters, and changing from Republican to Democratic were 457. The number of unaffiliated voters switching to the Democratic Party was 2,432.

Ninety-seven Green Party enrollees moved to the unaffiliated column in the last six months.

http://www.projo.com/news/content/projo_20...

In Georgia, we have a similar quandry. Do we vote in the GOP Lt. Governor's race againts Ralph Reed or do we root for Reed, believing his candidacy will drag Gov. Perdue down?

Read entry | Discuss (8 comments) | Recommend (0 votes)
Recommended Reading




Untitled 3
>
Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
 
Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals  |  Campaigns  |  Links  |  Store  |  Donate
About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.