Daily Kos

Roemer on board of Right Wing think tank

by kos

Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 09:45:31 AM PDT

Tim Roemer, who is Reid and Pelosi's latest choice for DNC chair, looks worse and worse by the day. See The Forest has the latest dirt:
Tim Roemer is a distinguished scholar at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University and president of the Center for National Policy.
What is the Mercatus Center? Dave Johnson explains in great detail, but in short, it's part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, a Scaife funded right-wing think tank. But it gets worse.
One of the ways the Right "educates" public officials, opinion leaders,etc., is to send them to expensive "retreats" at exclusive resorts, nice hotels, etc. where they are wined and dined and treated to first-class amenities [...] Following is the text of an e-mail Roemer recently sent out to Congressional Chiefs of Staff, inviting them to a retreat:
Subject: 2005 Chief of Staff Retreat

Dear Fellow Democrats,

I would like to encourage you to join me in Philadelphia on February 4th and 5th, 2005 at the Ritz Carlton Hotel for the 2005 Chief of Staff Retreat. This Retreat is probably the best opportunity of the year for gathering with other senior-level
congressional staff both from our party but also with our colleagues across the aisle.

The Retreat is hosted by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. I have been affiliated with this organization for the past two years in an effort to promote sound economic thinking that leads to a more prosperous and fiscally responsible America. The Mercatus Center is a non-profit and non-partisan group that seeks to educate congressional staff about markets, global prosperity for the poor and economics as they relate to the issues you are working on in your congressional or committee office.

This year's program is highly relevant to the issues facing the 109th Congress. We will discuss topics ranging from drug reimportation to Social Security, tax and pension reform, to understanding learning disparities between black and white children. I will be there to discuss national security and intelligence reforms. While we have made important progress in modernizing our intelligence system, there are several important issues confronting congress.

At a time of partisan divide, this is an opportunity to share thoughts and ideas. Any time that you can get away from the Hill to view issues from different angles, you should do it. I look forward to seeing you there.

If you are interested in learning more, or registering, please click here.

Best regards,

Tim Roemer

This isn't an ideological issue between "conservative" Democrats and "liberal" Democrats. This is about a candidate for the DNC chairmanship, on the board of a Scaife-funded right wing think thank, urging Democrats to attend a "retreat" hosted by said right wing think tank.

Can we please strike this guy from the list?

For the record, I think Pelosi and Reid signed on to Roemer's bid without properly vetting the candidate, based entirely on his excellent 9/11 Panel performance. They should evaluate in light of recent revelations.

  • ::

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 201 comments

  •  This is unbelievable (none / 1)

    They should be falleyed

    Out of the night that covers me, Black as the Pit from pole to pole, I thank whatever gods may be For my unconquerable soul.

    by Descrates on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 09:34:19 AM PDT

    •  This is really ugly (none / 1)

      The man isn't even a "centrist".

      Scaife. shudder

      This would make Roemer as chair a whole new level of disappointment. I thought it would just be more "business as usual, another small step to the right".

      This is bullshit.

      It's not a campaign. It's a movement. Will you stand up?

      by danthrax on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 09:48:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Conflict of interest (none / 1)

        Add this to Kos's "Of Faith and Values" post on the front page and consider them together with Blackwell's conflict of interest.  What do they all have in common?  These people are in thrall to Big Money, which subverts democracy by coopting political operatives, media voices, and election officials.  Do I exaggerate?  Maybe, I'm not sure.  Sure looks that way, though. Interesting that a media pundit feels no need to disclose to his audience that he receives hundreds of thousands of dollars from the government to "comment" in favor of positions the Administration advocates. How likely is he to disagree publicly when he's being paid to advocate in favor of an issue?  Is it relevant to inquire whether Roemer receives money from Scaife's posse in exchange for sitting on one of its boards?  

        by tompaine2004 on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 10:05:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Seperation of powers (4.00 / 2)

          If you thought combining power from religious imporance with power from political importance was bad...

          Well, you already know how bad combining power from economic importance with power from political importance is.

          Power needs to be seperated and fragmented as much as possible. It's the only way to ensure accountability to the powerful.

          It's not a campaign. It's a movement. Will you stand up?

          by danthrax on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 10:10:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes (4.00 / 2)

            I agree.  The Framers got that one very, very right.  Unfortunately, the Constitution focuses on maintaining a separation of political powers as exercised by government officials but does nothing to prevent the influence of financial/economic power from working its will on all three branches of government.  In fact, the First Amendment and other provisions of the Constitutions assure that that influence may be freely exercised.  I suspect the Framers were all for that as well.  So am I, as long as the press remains independent and does its job.  It gets tough when economic interests, all three branches of government, and the press are in cahoots, and the national opposition party is relatively weak or rudderless.

            by tompaine2004 on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 10:57:15 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  I disagree... (4.00 / 5)

        ...I would say Tim Roemer is the definition of "Centrist." Because everyitme I hear someone say the Democratic Party needs to be more Centrist, what they are truly saying is we need to move to the right, which is complete and utter bullshit.

        I realize that probably isn't how you were applying the term, but thats how I read that. Liberal isn't a dirty word. Centrist is.

        As for this new information, I can't say I'm surprised. As long as the democratic leaders don't know what the hell they stand for and what they are fighting for, they'll fall for anything.

        The sleep of reason produces monsters.

        by Alumbrados on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 10:11:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thank you! (4.00 / 3)

          I totally agree, and said so earlier today...from my rant this morning:  

          If I've learned nothing else from my time on this site, it is that the regular people who call themselves Democrats have more heart and soul than (most of) our party's elected leaders, and that the regular people will stand up for and loudly defend their principles.  I am sick of the "liberal"  politicians:  They claim to speak out for us, but that's impossible when the Dems' leaders haven't made it clear what they are speaking out for.  The so-called liberal pundits just reinforce their bad behavior:  Deride them for not being strong like Dear Leader when they don't have a solid position regarding issue X; but then if they do, deride them for insulting the Red Staters.  (Like the conservatives are so sensitive!  But that's a whole other rant...)  

          One thing that Republicans have going for them is that their leaders actually do speak for a majority of the people they represent.   They declare their position on issue X and supply their "facts" to support it; they (mis)lead.  Even if their declared position was directed or their info supplied by the Religious Right, The Heritage Foundation, or the Cato Inst.; Repubs take a stand and don't back down (and usually look very comfortable when defending their back-asswards positions).  

          The wishy-washy stand-for-nothing attitude is why we are losing ground.  The Dems I see on TV hem and haw and don't say much of anything.  If we don't stand up for what we believe in, the undecideds are always going to side with the party that is sure of themselves.    We may be getting better - Ms. Boxer and Ms. Tubbs-Jones have given me a glimmer of hope.   Self-confidence is attractive, after all, and the people will respond if we keep it up.

          "So long as we have enough people in this country willing to fight for their rights, we'll be called a democracy." ~Roger Baldwin

          by spyral on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 10:24:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Wow (none / 0)

      Talk about cross-dressing.....it's close to flat-out infiltration.

      Hillary '08.

      by Athena on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 09:55:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  will they back off now? (none / 1)

    It'll be interesting to see if they publicly disown him.

    Hell, even Bush publicly disowned that crook he proposed for Homeland Security.

    By modern definitions, Jesus was a terrorist.

    by Leggy Starlitz on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 09:36:21 AM PDT

    •  I'm betting no (none / 0)

      The biggest problem I've been having lately (with both parties) isn't assuming the worst, it's imagining an outcome bad enough.  For example, a year ago I would have scoffed at Bush being able to find an Attorney General worse than Ashcroft.  Now I'm starting to miss the Ol' Crisco Kid.

      By this rule, I predict that not only will they not disown their endorsements of Roemer, they'll redouble their efforts to get him the chair.

      Brian

      "History does not always repeat itself. Sometimes it just yells, 'Can't you remember anything I told you?' and lets fly with a club." --John W. Campbell

      by bhurt on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 04:25:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Tim Roemer will make a good chairman... (3.83 / 6)

    ...if the Republicans can get him to run.

    by dryfly on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 09:37:04 AM PDT

  •  wow (4.00 / 2)

    Is this connection well-known among DNC members? If not, I'd think it would be "You sunk my battleship" time for Roemer.

    "The time has come. The time is now. Just go. ... I don't care how. You can go by foot. You can go by cow. Hillary R. Clinton, will you please go now!"

    by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 09:37:10 AM PDT

  •  Scaife? George Mason University? (4.00 / 4)

    Tell me, Roemer, why are you still a Democrat?

    A Crushie for Democracy

    by CarolDuhart on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 09:38:32 AM PDT

    •  He is RIGHTWING! (none / 0)

      He is a rightwinger!

      He may do the DNC talk, but he is doing all the righwing ideology. I wonder where he stands on all Bush policy.

      Use Tor and PGP on the net. (google it)

      by fugue on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 09:41:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What I Find Worst About This (4.00 / 2)

      Is that George Mason is a state university.  Scaife money is being spent to turn a public institution into a dispenser of right-wing propanda.

      "L'enfer, c'est les autres." - Jean Paul Sartre, Huis Clos

      "L'enfer, c'est le GOP!" - JJB, from an idea by oratorio

      by JJB on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 10:23:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Right on (none / 0)

       --but I had a slightly different perspective in Delaware Dem's diary - he was saying that Kos should only allow people who are LOYAL Democrats to post.  My assertion remains that its less about the LABEL Democrat - who anyone can appropriate as is observed with Roemer, than with a set of values and principles.  Until and unless those core principles become aligned with the Democrats again, our affiliation with that party is not only unwise, but actually damaging to setting up opposition to the status quo in this country.  In my opinion, we are moving very rapidly beyond such limited terms as Democrat and Republican to terms that more clearly describe what the choices REALLY are - like fascist and anti-fascist.

      Stop Looking For Leaders - WE are the Leaders!!!

      by SwimmertoFreedom04 on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 10:51:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Signature in cyberblood required. (4.00 / 4)

        I'm extremely uncomfortable with the Loyalty Test.

        I'm a damned good Democrat, down to my soul.

        But what comes out of my mouth and keyboard is, quite often, and without apology, a harsh critique of Democrats who are letting us down.

        I'm about getting Democrats elected. But in order to do that, they're going to have to shape the hell up. It's not disloyal just because I observe it to be true and comment on it.

        by Kimberly Stone on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 12:24:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Agree (4.00 / 2)

          --but challenge you to think about what the label Democrat means rather than supporting the values that you believe in...Please donot just think "inside the box" called Democrat.  

          How did I get here? I am a very middle class, comfortable person, not a radical by nature. But when I stepped back and looked - REALLY looked at what was happening and who was doing what - I had no choice but to start to question that the old paradigm is appropriate anymore.  When our "leaders" are supporting very questionnable positions, or allowing themselves to be used to our detriment - you must - must check it out. Why is Kerry feeling that it is more important to be in Iraq supporting Bush's faux election hoax than sticking up for HIS voters in the black community. Not to overthrow the election, but to help us get a valid and honest voting system.  He should be preaching that day and night! And how about our former President Clinton.  What the f---- is he doing shilling for Bush's poor and pathetic handling of the tsunami crisis? Why is Roemer even MENTIONED and why do our so called Congressional leaders as highly placed as Pelosi and Reed not know this about someone who they are supporting as CHAIR of the Democratic Party - and over a man (Dean) who clearly supports many of the principles that ALL Democrats are supposed to support - who took the vanguard and showed the way to oppose Bush's regime when NO ONE else did?

          Those are just the very superficial things.  There are much deeper issues related to policy stands on Social Security, the war, Medicare, opposing judicial appointments - I don't HEAR MUCH and certainly not frank opposition.  More, clever positioning - like the Dems had "better be careful".  HELL - OUR HOUSE IS ON FIRE and these people are trying to figure out where the garden hose is rather than organizing a bucket brigade of thousands and thousands of us citizens who desperately want to put the fire out.

          Now, am I certain that the paradigm has shifted THAT much? Not absolutely, but I am closer to believing that its changed than thinking that our old frames and notions still apply.  I am ready to move though and I urge everyone to question his or her comfort and old secure notions.  Let us check the reality of our eyes, ears and brains. Let us be ready to put aside our comfort zones to do what is necessary if that proves to be the case with the facts on the ground.  

          I want to be wrong - believe me, Kim. I absolutely want to be wrong.

          Stop Looking For Leaders - WE are the Leaders!!!

          by SwimmertoFreedom04 on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 12:48:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  :::shudder:::: (4.00 / 3)

            I read your post, twice, and got that clenching feeling in my gut that tells me you're speaking some very harsh scary truths there.

            I've learned something the last 6 months. My boss is a good man, a hardworking man, and a wealthy man. A very wealthy man. And I've learned this: on some level, there are no parties, there are no colors, no genders, no politics. There is only wealth and power, and the pursuit of keeping and expanding same.

            And at some point, this becomes a zero-sum game. Who's being zeroed out? You and me.

            by Kimberly Stone on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 01:36:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You got it... (none / 1)

              --join the ranks of the sleepless but resolved.

              I am not saying that we hit the streets yet. Not the time or the solution necessarily. We have to see how to best approach what needs to be done.  Stay alert to what the Dems decide to do or not do.  But lets be ready to call it out loud and clear for starters.  No more facile lies, no more tolerance of clever positioning.

              We want our true leaders to be born during this time of change. They WILL step up. We will see who they are. Don't just expect them where you see them now. Some of them will be us.

              Stop Looking For Leaders - WE are the Leaders!!!

              by SwimmertoFreedom04 on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 01:50:34 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Sigh. (3.50 / 4)

    Wouldn't it be great if there were some big think tanks in the USA that weren't right-wing?

    "A time comes when silence is betrayal." MLK ...... The Green Knight

    by greenknight on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 09:38:41 AM PDT

  •  GMU (none / 0)

    GMU is pretty rightwing leaning campus.

    George Mason University is a Virginia-based University, situated close to Washington, D.C. It is notable for hosting over 40 right-wing research centers and affiliates including the Institute for Humane Studies and the Mercatus Center.

    http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=George_Mason_University

    -------

    I can't fucking believe it if the rightwing has infiltrated the highest level of DNC leadership.

    THis is totally fucked up. Might as well change the democratic party to 'paid and bought by rightwingers'

    Use Tor and PGP on the net. (google it)

    by fugue on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 09:39:35 AM PDT

    •  Umm (none / 0)

      Roemer isn't leadership.

      Better way to put it is, they're trying to infiltrate the higest levels of DNC leadership.

      by kos on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 09:46:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  GMU (none / 0)

      I'm a GMU student.  Love the History department, where I spend my time, but we do produce some freaky-deaky neo-con uber-capitalists in the Econ department.  It was such a shock to me when I was speaking to a UVA Econ major, and realized he was nearly as left as I am.  I didn't know up until that point that economists could be liberal.  Sigh.

      -mousefeet

      by Mousefeet on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 11:49:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm a GMU Econ major...(and very liberal) (none / 0)

        Very cool to see another, er, Patriot, as it were on the Kos. :)

        I just started at GMU last semester(did my AA at NOVA first) and so far I've only taken two econ courses there, so my experience there is somewhat limited.  Of the two econ professors I've had one seemed apolitical and the other(for intermediate macro), while I'm certain that he was a Republican, I can't much fault him on how he taught class.  He did his best to present things in a balanced way and not let his own opinions dominate.  I even learned some things in his class that allow a better critique of the Bush tax cuts.  I am curious to see how the rest of the faculty is, though.  

        As to the student body and econ majors in general, it does seem to be a lot more conservative than what I'm used to.  I grew up in NJ and attended Rutgers University for two years while I was there and since moving down here and going to GMU I'm sort of scratching my head wondering how so many folks my age can be so conservative.  I remember this one guy in my macro class last semester, anytime something political came up he would raise his hand and have a 10 second soundbyte type of answer that blamed Clinton for everything under the sun, and sounded like it was scripted by Rush or Hannity.  It was very disheartening.  

        Oh well.  They say the econ dept there has a pretty good rep.  I just want to get a decent job when I'm done.  Hopefully Bush doesn't ruin the economy such that I'm working at Starbucks after I graduate.

        I'm so metal I have the unlisted Number of the Beast.

        by MjrMjr on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 12:42:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'm a GMU Econ major...(and very liberal) (none / 0)

        Very cool to see another, er, Patriot, as it were on the Kos. :)

        I just started at GMU last semester(did my AA at NOVA first) and so far I've only taken two econ courses there, so my experience there is somewhat limited.  Of the two econ professors I've had one seemed apolitical and the other(for intermediate macro), while I'm certain that he was a Republican, I can't much fault him on how he taught class.  He did his best to present things in a balanced way and not let his own opinions dominate.  I even learned some things in his class that allow a better critique of the Bush tax cuts.  I am curious to see how the rest of the faculty is, though.  

        As to the student body and econ majors in general, it does seem to be a lot more conservative than what I'm used to.  I grew up in NJ and attended Rutgers University for two years while I was there and since moving down here and going to GMU I'm sort of scratching my head wondering how so many folks my age can be so conservative.  I remember this one guy in my macro class last semester, anytime something political came up he would raise his hand and have a 10 second soundbyte type of answer that blamed Clinton for everything under the sun, and sounded like it was scripted by Rush or Hannity.  It was very disheartening.  

        Oh well.  They say the econ dept there has a pretty good rep.  I just want to get a decent job when I'm done.  Hopefully Bush doesn't ruin the economy such that I'm working at Starbucks after I graduate.

        I'm so metal I have the unlisted Number of the Beast.

        by MjrMjr on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 12:55:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Speaking of VRWC (none / 1)

    how about AMERICARES?

    Can we stop sending them money?

    Booman Tribune

    by BooMan23 on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 09:40:03 AM PDT

  •  But what if... (none / 0)

    ...Pelosi and Reid want exactly that kind of candidate?

    Prepare for the fight guys.

    "All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusion is called a philosopher." Ambrose Pierce

    by jandsm on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 09:42:14 AM PDT

    •  Nah... (none / 1)

      I tend to agree with Kos; Pelosi and Reid didn't do a thorough job of vetting this DINO.  

      -6.75, -4.77

      by The Truffle on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 09:45:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But there's really little excuse for not ... (none / 0)

        Pelosi served in the House with him. Perhaps they weren't on the same committees, and 200+ fellow members may seem like alot, but it's not, really. Not when it's your job, and you've got a paid staff, to know who your own guys are and where they stand ...

        Think this kind of thing could get by the GOP congressional delegation? Slimy as he is, no way would Tom DeLay not know the politix of somebody he was supporting in public ...

        (It's not the same as a sex scandal)

        Obesa cantavit

        by wystler on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 10:49:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Combination of sloppy vetting (none / 0)

        and fear of change.  Their fear overwhelmed their vetting process.  OTOH, putting Rahm Emmanuel at the DCCC seems like a good idea?

        "Do not forget that every people deserves the regime it is willing to endure." ---The White Rose, 1942

        by Mimikatz on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 02:40:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I would back anyone (none / 0)

    working for global prosperity if they would just point out that trade with nations whose workers are not free is not free trade, even one residing in a rightist think tank. If our trade policies encouraged the rights of workers to unionize and bargain collectively for wages and conditions, we would do more for democracy than any amount of propaganda. This is a sea that would truly lift all boats.

    The greatest blessing bestowed on a people is the absence of ignorance in public office. - Confucius

    by cavanaghjam on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 09:43:03 AM PDT

    •  Re: I would back anyone (none / 0)

      working for global prosperity if they would just point out that trade with nations whose workers are not free is not free trade

      This is 100% wrong.  Trade with the USSR in the 1970s and 1980s helped promote social change there and in Eastern Europe.  China, though still not free, is a much more benign place than when it tried to be autarkic.  

      by He Who Must Not Be Named on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 10:50:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks for the introduction (none / 0)

        to a new word. Just when I get so hubric I think I know it all, reality bitch-slaps me.

        I'm not saying no trade with such nations, I'm saying let's include a bit of incentive for loosening the workers' chains. A tariff of maybe 10% on goods and services from countries who prohibit or impede unionization would be a start; said tariff to increase over time were no progress made.

        The greatest blessing bestowed on a people is the absence of ignorance in public office. - Confucius

        by cavanaghjam on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 05:25:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  When Roemer withdraws, go after Pelosi and Reid (2.50 / 4)

    It's purge time.  Let all the conservative schmoozers join the Republiclowns.  We're going to build our base.

    It is better to meet a mother bear robbed of her cubs than to meet a fool busy with a stupid project. -- Pr. 17:12

    by november3rd on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 09:43:34 AM PDT

    •  Pelosi out; Reid way and well in (2.00 / 2)

      Pelosi can and should go, being a big part of the problem. Reid is part of the purple solution for a resurgent Dem party and his peers obviously agree. He ain't goin nowhere.

      Hold the base; take back the center!

      by ringmaster on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 09:47:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Purge purge purge (none / 1)

      DLC wants to purge progressives.  You want to purge whorish centrists, and probably the DLC too.  Whorish centrists are too wishy washy to want to purge anybody, but will go along with the DLC cause thats where they think their lobbyist money flows from.

      With all this purging, who will be left?

      Be patient, Roemer ain't chair yet, nor will he be, methinks.  If the chair is not a reformer, THEN we can purge to our hearts content, cause nothing would be able to save the party at that point anyway.

      Wingnuts hate Big Media cause it sometimes tells the truth.
      We should hate it for the rest of the time when it don't.
      Oh, also when they eat brains.

      by Ugluks Flea on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 09:53:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't want him purged... (none / 0)

        I just don't want him at a leadership level.

        Centrists I can stand, but Roemer could be a plant in our midst. Better to isolate him, confront him about his connections, and use him for our purposes. In other words, turn him into our double agent, even our conduit into the world of the RWC.

        If the DLC insists on being centrist, there surely are better centrist candidates.

        by Black Brant on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 10:27:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oliver Stone on line 2 (4.00 / 2)

          Got any spare tin foil?

          by JayhawkMax on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 11:08:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Now, now... (none / 0)

            I'm just being properly Macchiavellian. Seems to go along with the age we live in. If his Scaife connection is even only moderate, Roemer is as good as in the GOP's poke. If nothing else, it proves they very strongly influence him. Liberal Dems should directly (but privately) challenge him about his views, point by point. This is not a small point: I point you to David Brock's "Blinded By The Right" as to how dangerous and undemocratic (the movement, not the party) Richard Mellon Scaife is.

            If Roemer does not immediately forsake what Scaife and all his ilk stand for, we should treat him like a mushroom: keep him in the dark, feed him nothing but manure, and if he pokes his head up, lop it off! (Not literally, troll-hunters.) If he feeds the progressives a line, then reverses himself when in power, the ethics issue should then be raised ("Why did you lie to us?") and he should be pulled ASAP from any position of authority.

            We have to hold pro-democratic, pro-justice, pro-environment, and pro-defense (as opposed to pro-Iraq-war) views, or what's even the point of having an opposition party? The future Zell Millers of the world must know their power is firmly under their party's control. Not even the GOP can claim this- why else can Tom DeLay get away with being so utterly corrupt? Tim Roemer is a good place to start enforcing some semblance of party unity. We must challenge him on where his loyalties lie. "Galvanize him", as they used to say during the Civil War.

            Jayhawk, there's an old saying:
            "Just because you're not paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you." And after the last few elections, I know they are out to get us.

            by Black Brant on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 01:11:33 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  What's your beef with Stone...? (n/t) (none / 0)

            cheers,

            Mitch Gore

            Wanna win in '08...?

            Put your money where your mouth is.

            by Lestatdelc on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 02:23:12 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  I Agree About the Purging (4.00 / 3)

        We aren't powerful enough as a Party to be able to purge anyone.  FDR planned to purge southern Democrats after the 1936 election when the Democrats had overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress.  But he fucked up on his court packing scheme and then never had the power to carry though on it.

        As much as I despise the DLC, I think we should be happy these right wingers have come out against Social Security privatization.  We should do everything we can to work with them on this, as well as with Republicans like Arlen Specter (check out Josh Marshall on this) who also are coming out against Bush's proposals on Social Security.  

        You work with whatever you've got to get the results you need.

        What we should be doing vis a vis those we view as having driven the Democratic Party into the ditch is to work within the party to take it over, to exert our influence and decrease theirs.  We should be working and organizing and not expect overnight results.  

        Even when we have gotten more control of the Party, we still shouldn't purge anyone we can work with on any issues.  We should do what we can to keep them from leaving and becoming Republicans.

        But if they cross us on important votes there has to be retribution.  And we should never be shy about running strong candidates against them in primaries.

        This aggression will not stand, man.

        by kaleidescope on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 11:30:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I Agree About the Purging (none / 0)

        We aren't powerful enough as a Party to be able to purge anyone.  FDR planned to purge southern Democrats after the 1936 election when the Democrats had overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress.  But he fucked up on his court packing scheme and then never had the power to carry though on it.

        As much as I despise the DLC, I think we should be happy these right wingers have come out against Social Security privatization.  We should do everything we can to work with them on this, as well as with Republicans like Arlen Specter (check out Josh Marshall on this) who also are coming out against Bush's proposals on Social Security.  

        You work with whatever you've got to get the results you need.

        What we should be doing vis a vis those we view as having driven the Democratic Party into the ditch is to work within the party to take it over, to exert our influence and decrease theirs.  We should be working and organizing and not expect overnight results.  

        Even when we have gotten more control of the Party, we still shouldn't purge anyone we can work with on any issues.  We should do what we can to keep them from leaving and becoming Republicans.

        But if they cross us on important votes there has to be retribution.  And we should never be shy about running strong candidates against them in primaries.

        This aggression will not stand, man.

        by kaleidescope on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 11:33:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I Agree About the Purging (none / 0)

        We aren't powerful enough as a Party to be able to purge anyone.  FDR planned to purge southern Democrats after the 1936 election when the Democrats had overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress.  But he fucked up on his court packing scheme and then never had the power to carry though on it.

        As much as I despise the DLC, I think we should be happy these right wingers have come out against Social Security privatization.  We should do everything we can to work with them on this, as well as with Republicans like Arlen Specter (check out Josh Marshall on this) who also are coming out against Bush's proposals on Social Security.  

        You work with whatever you've got to get the results you need.

        What we should be doing vis a vis those we view as having driven the Democratic Party into the ditch is to work within the party to take it over, to exert our influence and decrease theirs.  We should be working and organizing and not expect overnight results.  

        Even when we have gotten more control of the Party, we still shouldn't purge anyone we can work with on any issues.  We should do what we can to keep them from leaving and becoming Republicans.

        But if they cross us on important votes there has to be retribution.  And we should never be shy about running strong candidates against them in primaries.

        This aggression will not stand, man.

        by kaleidescope on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 11:44:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Al the more reason to dump pelosi and back fowler (1.66 / 12)

    Of course the sierra club is a right wing outfit by Kos' standards, but yeah Roemer's the wrong man for a key job that could become even more pivotal with the right leader.

    Not Dean; maybe Rosenberg; gotta like my man Donnie, though!

    Hold the base; take back the center!

    by ringmaster on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 09:44:37 AM PDT

  •  Merck or Mercatus? (none / 0)

    Wow. Mercatus should also be drug education for doctors.

    by al Isqut on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 09:44:38 AM PDT

  •  For fuck's sake, (4.00 / 4)

    how hard is it for them to do some google searching?

    Are you a Republican? A conservative? A dumbass? -- The Majority Report

    by Passing Shot on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 09:47:14 AM PDT

    •  All the have to do is read the events agenda.. (none / 1)

      If the way the describe the break out panels does not scream right-wing I don't know what does.

      Every day and in every way is get mor and mor pissed.  GAAAAAAAA.

      We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

      by delver rootnose on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 09:53:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  WTF is wrong with the Democratic party? (none / 0)

    They're a lot like those Social Democrats in Germany, they didn't stand for much, and they got their asses kicked by the nazis.

    "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is." - George W Bush

    by jfern on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 09:47:45 AM PDT

    •  Not fair to attack the Party (none / 0)

      Roemer is but a candidate, and I agree with Kos that I think Pelosi and Reid backed someone like Roemer out of desparation to stop Dean.

      by Delaware Dem on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 09:49:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Delaware (none / 1)

        -- Are you in some alternate universe?  Do you actually think these people CARE about what most of us believe or think - that core values and principles actually govern their choices and decisions?  What kind of desperation to stop Dean - who despite his problems has stedfastly voiced values and principles totally in line with our former party - would lead them to chose someone with this kind of history? If they are this stupid and uninformed, how can they lead us?And why do we owe them blind loyalty if they are what the Democrats are now?

        Many people are so confused in my opinion between supporting the LABEL Democrat and the core values and principles that should be promoted by the party.  There is a huge canyon between those two realities and just papering it over with the necessity for blind affiliation will be ultimately destructive not only to us but to the survival of this country.  I beg you to reconsider how you have framed this issue.  We are rapidly moving past the old paradigm of two parties - the Democrats and REpublicans to a much more radical reality that cuts across both - fascists and anti-fascists.  The longer that we hold on to the old reality, the longer that its going to take to actually begin to save this country.  Yes, I think that its that bad.

        If you and others stay wedded to the old notions, well - it won't work.  You'll see.

        Stop Looking For Leaders - WE are the Leaders!!!

        by SwimmertoFreedom04 on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 11:02:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The only candidates that should be considered (none / 0)

    for the DNC Chair are as follows:

    Howard Dean (my first choice)
    Donnie Fowler (my second choice)
    Simon Rosenberg (my third choice)

    That's it.

    Roemer.  Fuggaboutit.
    Webb.  snore.
    Kirk.  who?

    by Delaware Dem on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 09:49:02 AM PDT

    •  I read that Kirk dropped out (none / 0)

      And Webb's a bit of a longshot, but actively lobbying for the position.

      A Crushie for Democracy

      by CarolDuhart on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 09:53:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Webb deserves a shot. (none / 0)

      He was a competent mayor, is DNC veep, is reasonably progressive, and realizes we need change.  (He was a strong supporter of Howard Dean's candidacy, for example, and while his video presentation and statements are a bit too polished for me, I think he does "get it"--the need for change in the Party.)

      He did not support unions strongly in Denver in a couple instances.  But the "cronyism" of his administration there was trumped up by the winger media we have--he's no Al Sharpton, that is.

      I realize Webb is being handicapped as a long shot.  I still see no reason for a DNC member to vote for anyone other than Dean, but I think Wellington Webb deserves a fair hearing.

      Angie and Bill: Colorado's bright future!

      by ubikkibu on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 10:05:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  For some reason I thought... (none / 0)

        ... you were up Boulder way.

        I don't think he was a competent mayor. Now mind you, during most of his term I was far from a political geek -- just barely informed.  But he totally messed up the Airport contracts, and his administration was filled with rumors and charges of cronyism and nepotism.  Most of the airport criticisms are true, I've since learned.  The two 'isms I haven't looked up.  Actually, I don't have a great deal of trouble with each of those two things, as long as selected buds and kin are competent.  That doesn't seem to have always been the case.

        Apart from that, he was very active in the Party's efforts to derail the Miles campaign.

        Okay, that's what I think/know.  What do you know that I don't that would lead you to support him?

        The chips are down. Find your outrage.

        by sj on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 04:52:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Makes you wonder (none / 1)

    where Nancy Pelosi is coming from.

    Her position on Israel and Palestine is atrocious.  Is she doing other favors for the Military Industrial Complex that belie her supposed liberalism?

    What's it gonna take to keep from fulfilling Nader's criticism that there ain't a dime's worth of difference between the Thugs and the Dems?

    by baked potato on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 09:50:46 AM PDT

    •  asdf (3.20 / 5)

      One can be pro-Isreal and liberal at the same time.  There's a lot of us on the liberal side of the spectrum that think the PLO are full of shit one step removed from terrorists.

      Liberals drive me crazy. Unfortunately, conservatives are even worse.

      by goblue72 on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 09:55:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree. (4.00 / 2)

        Israel and the PLO are not a litmus test for liberalism.  

        by Delaware Dem on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 10:00:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  asdf (4.00 / 2)

          Thanks - although I was probably a little harsh in my language.   But I agree, the Israel-Palestine issue should not be a litmus test for liberalism.  (Esp. considering the magnifying glass focus and criticism that Israel recieves compared the umpteen number of truly despotic regimes around the world - its funny, but I never see the Left organizing protest marches to oppose all the U.S. foreign aid and support that goes to prop up a truly despotic regime like Mubarak's Egypt)

          Liberals drive me crazy. Unfortunately, conservatives are even worse.

          by goblue72 on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 10:07:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Actually (4.00 / 4)

            I really don't think it's possible to support the policies of the Likud party and still call oneself a liberal.

            Then again, I don't think it's possible to support the policies of the Likud party and still call oneself "pro-Israel", either...I don't think most "pro-Israel" americans give a rip about the future of the people in that country. They're quite content to see hardworking Israelis ruined by those fundamentalist nutjobs in the settlements, without nary a peep of protest.

            (And last I checked, "other people are worse" isn't a legitimate excuse for doing nasty things. If so, anything short of genocide will be morally acceptable. Let's raise the bar a bit higher, eh?)

            Drop by Mackerel Street: Lit & Photo Blog

            by decembersue on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 10:36:18 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Protests.... (none / 0)

            Last time I checked Egypt wasn't getting any F-16's from the US.

            by morph on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 10:50:12 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Without Aid, Where Is Egypt? (none / 0)

            What happens to Egypt if aid to Mubarak is withdrawn?

            (tap, tap, tap ... drip, drip, drip ...)

            oof ... another fundie islamic theocracy, this time on israel's border ... yum ...

            Obesa cantavit

            by wystler on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 11:03:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  why does USA give aid to Egypt? (none / 1)

              And isn't aid to Egypt a bribe to keep the peace between Egypt and Israel anyway? This aid is really a further subsidy of Israel's unwillingness to make a just and lasting peace with its neighbors.

              If you are interested in the politics of Proviso Township in Cook County, Illinois, visit Proviso Probe.

              by Carl Nyberg on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 11:05:31 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Ditto for Jordan. n/t (none / 0)

                by shumard on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 11:22:51 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Such a Simple and Succinct Question (none / 1)

                An attempt to answer your question, Carl, could fill the Library at Alexandria. Though I know I'm not sharing anything you don't already know ...

                US policy toward Israel tends to be driven by two
                compontents:

                • the Jewish vote in the US;
                • the natural resources of the Persian Gulf.

                The current indigenous players are too numerous to mention individually, but the breakdown is:

                1. Zionists (Israeli Jews)
                2. Displaced/disposesed Arabs (Palestinians)
                3. Militarist Secular Arabs
                4. Islamic Theocrats
                5. Arab Royalists (intially propped up thru tribal connections by Brits)
                6. Arab Democrats (small club)

                All of the above have numerous representative groups, most of whom each have disparate interest. And there are a few who purport to be Islamic theocrats, but really are militaristic secularists.

                On the outside, all petroleum-importing nations have a direct or indirect economic interest in the region.

                And, no, Carl, it's not so much a bribe as it is cash to enable Mubarak to manage to govern. Without the aid, he'd be overthrown by a popular revolution that would likely be as radical, if not more so, than that of Iran in the early 1980s.

                Obesa cantavit

                by wystler on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 11:32:41 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  the jewish vote in the US and oil? (none / 0)

                  do you know what a tiny percentage of votes the Us jewish population makes up?  and israel is one of the few middle east countries that doesn't have any oil, so how does supporting israel help the US vis-a-vis the enormous natural resources of the arab countries?

                  by DemInPa on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 05:18:21 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  2 complex 4u? (none / 0)

                    do you know what a tiny percentage of votes the Us jewish population makes up?

                    big enough group to swing florida.

                    and israel is one of the few middle east countries that doesn't have any oil

                    (i can't comprehend this needs explanation, but ... nah, i'll let somebody else ... i''ve had enough of politics 101)

                    Obesa cantavit

                    by wystler on Sat Jan 08, 2005 at 12:36:39 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  um, excuse me? (none / 0)

                So it's Israel that won't make peace with its neighbors?  Are you living on the same planet as I am?  Do you realize how many times Israel has, over the course of its short history as a nation, tried to make peace with its neighbors?  Do you realize that the reason there is no peace between Israel and its neighbors is because the arab countries, after they attacked Israel, would only sign armistice agreements, and refused to sign peace agreements?  Israel gave up the land of a country that attacked it (i.e. Egypt) in order to have peace. So I don't really understand what you mean.  I think you should blame the arab, anti-israel fanatics for the absence of peace agreements, and not israel.

                by DemInPa on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 04:01:13 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  your talking points are Right Wing BS (none / 0)

            So now you're using Right Wing talking points.

            Did you support invading Iraq?

            If you are interested in the politics of Proviso Township in Cook County, Illinois, visit Proviso Probe.

            by Carl Nyberg on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 11:03:59 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  what's it mean to be a liberal? (none / 1)

          If you support denying Palestinians human rights and annexing their land to give it to Israeli settlers, how's this square with being a liberal?

          If you are interested in the politics of Proviso Township in Cook County, Illinois, visit Proviso Probe.

          by Carl Nyberg on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 10:57:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  It depends on the meaning of pro-isreal (none / 1)

          Because, it is not like Likud is the only party in Israel (and I don't think what they are doing is in anyway good for Isael).

          So, saying someone is "pro-isreal" does not really mean much. So, the real issue is does she support the policies of Sharon or not.

          Most of the US "liberals" are to the far right of Isreali liberals ... I wonder why this is so ?

          As a resident of a low quality, insignificant state I need no president.

          by nataraj on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 11:04:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  the world according to Israel-hawks (4.00 / 2)

            Here's the logic of the Israel hawks.

            supporting Israel's right to exist = supporting Israeli policy, including taking land from Palestinians

            If you don't support taking land by force and all that goes with it, you don't really support Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. And that makes you an anti-semite.

            As policy and philosophy this is incompatible with my understanding of liberalism.

            If you are interested in the politics of Proviso Township in Cook County, Illinois, visit Proviso Probe.

            by Carl Nyberg on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 11:09:52 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  A lot (4.00 / 2)

        of 'terrorist' organizations have successfully morphed into active political parties that have distanced themselves from their previous violence - the ANC, for instance.

        However, there are many more on the trash heap of history who did not.  Time will tell with the PLO.

        Wingnuts hate Big Media cause it sometimes tells the truth.
        We should hate it for the rest of the time when it don't.
        Oh, also when they eat brains.

        by Ugluks Flea on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 10:09:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes. Google "Stern Gang" Irgun, (none / 1)

          "Yitzhak Shamir" and "Menachim Begin", for another good example of terrorist organizations/leaders morphing into respectable political entities/states.

          Just for kicks, also google "Deir Yassin".

          by shumard on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 10:24:31 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  More on Terrorism in Palestine (none / 0)

          Here.

          Gee, these tactics are much like those of the terrorists in Iraq today.

          Do you think the Iraqi terrorists are taking a lesson from history, and will end up like those earlier terrorists in Palestine?

          by shumard on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 11:06:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  liberal Israel hawks? (none / 0)

        Of the liberals that support the Israel-hawk position, what percentage fall into one of the following categories?

        • they're Jewish
        • they are elected officials (or Democratic functionaries) and therefore afraid of AIPAC
        • former elected officials tyring to be consistent with past positions
        • media people that have to be concerned about offending Israel-hawk bosses or Jewish audiences

        I just don't think there are many liberals left that think Israel is pursuing peace in good faith.

        If you are interested in the politics of Proviso Township in Cook County, Illinois, visit Proviso Probe.

        by Carl Nyberg on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 10:53:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  sore spot (4.00 / 2)

          this is on example of where the liberal side of things rubs against the grain of mainstream politics and exhibits an untypical groupthink. i, myself, am a very liberal on most issues, but i take a centrist position on isreal/palestine.

          this is a highly polarizing issue, and i find it unsettling that people often blindly deify arafat, a corrupt and duplicitous career terrorist (yes, i used the "t" word on a liberal blog). agreed, hard right stances such as those by netanyahu were ultimately inflamatory and counterproductive. but this whole thing where sharon went to temple mount and "caused" the current war? am i the only one who didn't see this as an excuse for hamas et al., and the rest of the fanatically right-wing fundamentalist "islam" forces and age-old antisemitism to go apeshit? don't forget it's the sworn position of these forces to exterminate all jews everywhere. have you ever heard even the rightest right of zionism advocate such brazen genocide? i haven't.

          i personally believe the jewish state has a right to survive. while their foreign policy has left a lot to be desired, at least their aggression is done, however sloppily, in the interest of national security, which in and of itself puts him FAR to the left of the neocon cabal running our country.

          countries such as france, germany, etc., support the palestitinian cause, but are concealing rampant antisemitism that occurs in these european cultures (which I have seen firsthand many occasions).

          liberals can be a little too optimistic about human nature; too quick to always point out the party with lesser power as necessarily the victim. by that metric EVERY other country in the world is a victim right now because of american policy. while, sadly, this is becomnig closer to the truth, other first-world countries still have some autotonomy, thankfully. while it's EASY to understand how american foreign policy is giving terrorists recruiting posters, we should be careful on this blog not to praise, directly or indirectly, terrorism in the middle east, regardless of how justified the anger on that side might be. i don't think michael moore talking about terrorism as a just uprising against us is going to help our cause, as much as i praise F9/11. liberals too easily forget that jews have been and continue to be the most persecuted people for thousands of years. think this is different not just because isreal gets US aid? that's their only lifeline, and i shudder when otherwise reasonable progressives suggest cutting ties with isreal. with the way our policies have united arab countries against us, i wouldnt be surprised if the war of 1968 went a little different this time.

          Fixing Republican screw-ups: it's what Democrats have been doing for 100 years

          by SonofFunk on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 01:04:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  yes, thank you (none / 0)

            i'm really so sick of people who don't know much about much attacking israel, "sharon=bad" "israel=colonizers" palestinians=victims" - the situation in israel is so much more complicated than this. I could go on and on, but I don't have the energy to get into it.  But I would advise people to stay away from black and white thinking on the israel-palestine issue.  And consider this (just one example of how complicated the situation is):  If Israel hadn't conquered territories in 1967, or if it had given the conquered territories right back, would we now be discussing an agreement of a return of the territories for peace, or would arabs still be trying to get israel out of haifa and tel aviv?

            by DemInPa on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 03:54:35 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  carl really took issue with this post (none / 0)

              in fact, i was so peeved that he went and used stereotyping to insinuate there must be wrong with anyone who's liberal and supports israel in any fashion. i posted a diary on this today based on this post, a very lively debate indeed, but carl crashed the party, sent troll ratings inappropriately all over the place, and twisted people's words in a dileberate attempt to egg them on.

              Fixing Republican screw-ups: it's what Democrats have been doing for 100 years

              by SonofFunk on Sat Jan 08, 2005 at 12:11:17 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  too much kool-aid (none / 0)

                carl and wystler have been drinking too much anti-israel kool-aid, their comments don't make too much sense, so it's not that interesting to get into it with them.  oh well.  glad there also some voices of sanity here on this issue, such as yours.

                by DemInPa on Sat Jan 08, 2005 at 07:11:36 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  That is why (none / 0)

      --in my opinion, the old labels Democrat and Republican are becoming more and more meaningless. Try fascist and anti-fascist. That gets at the real loyalties and values.

      We must not be fooled again.

      Stop Looking For Leaders - WE are the Leaders!!!

      by SwimmertoFreedom04 on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 11:07:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Off topic (none / 1)

    but I think that Armstrong Williams story deserves some more time as the HEADLINE story here.

    That is a fucking outrage.  

    Booman Tribune

    by BooMan23 on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 09:52:54 AM PDT

  •  Perhaps Mr. Roemer should be (none / 1)

    encouraged to reform his own party (clearly th