Midnight open thread

• Cheney is too secretive for the White House. Wow.

• The unofficial kickoff event for Crashing the Gate will be at Austin's South By Southwest. I will do a book signing, participate in a panel discussion, and whatever else my book-tour overlords line up for me. Info on the rest of the book tour is currently being worked out.

• Speaking of the book, the special edition ships out next week, so those of you who bought early will finally get to judge whether the $25 was worth it. I've got my fingers crossed that you'll like it. And remember, the book is a free beer ticket. As for the pony, it depends on the outcome of the class action lawsuit currently addressing the issue.  

• I'm not a big fan of the Olympics, but I almost prefer reading about the last place finishers than the winners. More personality in the cellar.

• Research suggests that playing video games slows brain aging.

  A new study of 100 university undergraduates in Toronto has found that video gamers consistently outperform their non-playing peers in a series of tricky mental tests. If they also happened to be bilingual, they were unbeatable.

  Is that the secret of my success? Nah, it probably has to do with me selling out to the DLC. The checks they send me every day make it all worthwhile.

• Charlie Cook notes that under best circumstances, the best Dems could probably snag in November would be really thin majorities. Enough for subpoena power, but not enough to wield real power. Thus, is it better to stay barely in the minority (where only a few GOP defections would stymie the GOP agenda), or barely in the majority, where they would share the blame for gridlock and be accused of "obstructionism" and blamed for every ill generated by this misbegotten administration?

  It's actually a question I've been pondering a long time, and have meant to blog if I ever figure out where I stand on the issue.

• Casting call Wednesday for the Crashing the Gate commercial in Oakland. The commercial will be shot in SF on Thursday. Details here. Email [e-mail] if interested and want to more information.

•  Charlie Cook is wrong

  We need to gain a clear majority and then start steamrolling the fuckers,

  then have a civil discourse while we take the Thugs remaining in office to school to educate them

  The more we elect the faster we can start undoing the damage.

  by Tamifah on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 11:29:13 PM PDT

  •  We need to...

    But I don't think it'll happen in this election cycle.

    by archerhouse on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 11:31:37 PM PDT

    •  able

      danger

      by concerned on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 01:54:48 AM PDT

      •  wtf? ap: dems say nsa spying ok? are they crazy?

        by concerned on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 02:08:21 AM PDT

        •  go Feingold! Dems need 2 show spin+oppose nsa spyn

          link

          by concerned on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 02:41:39 AM PDT

  •  How is Cook wrong?

    He merely posits the question -- which is better, narrow majority or narrow minority. It's not a "right" or "wrong" thing.

    "Clear majorities" aren't in the cards, not in 2006. The odds are against taking either chamber, and if we do it will be seriously tight.

    2008, on the other hand, is a different story.

    by kos on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 11:33:23 PM PDT

    •  Sorry misread

      thought you wrote that he thinks we should stay in the minority.

      I doubt we can take an overwhelming majority in either side of Congress in 2006, but one can hope. And with the results coming in from state/local elections, I'm encouraged about our chances so far.

      I do think it is possible that if we all work hard and pull together we can make a lot of gains in 2006 that may not quite be expected, and that is a step in the right direction.

      It sucks that anyone feels like one party has to have a majority in Congress to get anything done. Most of the problems in our country could be handily addressed if the people there now were willing to put country first.

      by Tamifah on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 11:36:42 PM PDT

      •  screw the cries of "obstructionism"...

        We do need supoena power to help put a stop to all the illegal crap that the Bush administration has been doing to this country.

        Look at it this way:

        If i'm being mugged I would love it if someone "obstructed" the mugger.

        What I don't need is someone who comes along and says "Well, let's agree that you give up half of your money, and he won't shoot you, ok?

        With supoena power, there is a chance to put a stop to some of the Republicans illegal actions. Without that small measure of accountability, I would be very concerned about what America will look like come 2009.

        (Not to mention that the Republicans will label the Democrats as "obstructionist" no matter what.)

        To paraphrase Rumsfeld, "You go to Congress with the majority you have..."

        by thought on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 01:11:53 AM PDT

    •  As J.R. "Bob" Dobbs reminds us,

      "Too much is always better than not enough."

      A majority is always better than a minority.

      Speaker Pelosi.

      Majority Leader Reid.

      Let's face it, the Thugs and their media shills are going to keep slandering us no matter what we do, so we might as well go for the glory.

      by Thomas Kalinowski on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 11:36:59 PM PDT

    •  Also,

      "winner" sounds much better than "loser".

      by Thomas Kalinowski on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 11:40:23 PM PDT

      •  today's editorials...

        here and here

        by concerned on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 12:56:40 AM PDT

    •  majority

      Sorry but- are you folks crazy? If there is one thing that must be the dem focus it is to take control of at least one branch of congress. Enuf with the garbage of not being powerful enough to do anything! REMEMBER ONE WORD- SUPPOENA!!!!!!!
       I repeat----------SUPPOENA--------------------
      It is the public comment that maybe we should be hoping to remain as a stronger minority! STOP IT! Answer  this -- How much has our minority been able to do as a MINORITY!
      Oh for gods sake.Wake the eff up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      

      by billjpa on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 04:25:45 AM PDT

      •  here's what we can do

        If we have subpoena power, can we start indicting those Repug legislators whose seats we'd be most likely to take in special elections?

        They're all guilty of something. I don't know the procedures here well enough, but it strikes me that we could get a thin majority and build it to something rather grander over the course of a year. After that, we go after Bush.

        by Karl the Idiot on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 05:38:28 AM PDT

      •  Judges

        The other critical issue is the confirmation of judges in the Senate. If the Dems get control, they can block an extreme pick by Bush in his last two years if one of the liberals (Stevens) leaves the Supreme Court.

        The Dems have to step to the plate and put forth an agenda. This will give them the opportunity to do it.

        Winning one of the two houses of congress is critical.

        by orlandoreport on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 07:14:42 AM PDT

      •  Subpoena Power,

        Properly utilized, will uncover even more of their lies and thievery, providing substantial ammo for the 2008 cycle.  We sure can't stay where we're at!

        Plus, with chairmanships, you can hold hearings, conduct REAL oversight, etc.  I think Charlie's wrong to minimize the impact of even a slim majority.  Just look at how the Repugs have leveraged that. Without a majority in either house, we have no legit platform, and Rep. Conyers is reduced to meeting in the basement.  

        Give us this lever, and we'll move the world!

        by serrano on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 08:51:42 AM PDT

    •  Allow me to translate

      "I don't want to win the majority.  That would mean having to govern and put out plans for 2008 and beyond.  That's too much like work.  I want to lose in a way that doesn't throw suspicion on me by manipulating the point spread."

      What kind of half-assed rallying cry is that?  Yeah, that's real inspiring.  Establishment people can't even FAKE enthusiasm now.

      by BSJinx on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 08:27:05 AM PDT

  •  Agreed

    is it better to stay barely in the minority (where only a few GOP defections would stymie the GOP agenda), or barely in the majority, where they would share the blame for gridlock and be accused of "obstructionism" and blamed for every ill generated by this misbegotten administration?

    I'm actually somewhat shocked that Markos asked this question.  Sitting in the sidelines and hoping we don't get blamed for Bush's stupidity is DLC thinking.  Being passive worked real well for us the last two elections, how's about we try something different.

    On the other hand, having a majority means we have the opportunity to take fruitful risks, the opportunity to attempt to bring about real progress, and the opportunity to show real political courage.  I'm not unmindful of the fact that risks bring pitfalls, but I'm much more mindful of the fact that everything we take for granted now was once an act of political courage, and we would be wrong to forget that.

    by captainebo on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 11:40:26 PM PDT

    •  Ding! We have a winner!

      Make it so that it's Bush who is the obstructionist.

      Propose every popular piece of progressive legislation, and make Bush veto every damn one of them.  Make him veto a minimum wage hike.  Make him veto a plan for better health benefits for veterans.  Make him veto more money for rewewable energy.  Make him veto taxes on oil companies.  And so on.  Make the GOP congressmen squirm when Bush's vetoes show to the U.S. who his REAL constituency is...  

      And if Bush DOES pass some Dem proposals?  THEN OUR TROOPS GET BETTER BODY ARMOR.  BETTER BENEFITS.  And so on.  See that?  Real world benefits, for people who deserve them.  Even if we don't get to claim full credit for them, we were the impetus for them.  

      Make Bush sweat every single piece of legislation.  Transparency in gov't guidelines, everything.  Hold his feet, and the feet of all other GOPer's, to the fire, and get something done.

      Oh, and subpoena everything that moves...

      by Reed Richards on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 12:05:30 AM PDT

      •  Oh... and we should propose

        the Stop Selling Us To Communist China Act.  Balance the budget, rein in spending.  Make Bush veto a balanced budget.  Then tell the American public, "we tried to cut up Bush's credit cards, and he pitched a fit."  Either he passes it, and things get better, or he looks bad.

        Come on, we need those majorities, and we need to play hardball offense.  

        How nice will it be to stop freaking out every time Frist proposes banning gay marriage?

        by Reed Richards on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 12:11:05 AM PDT

        •  Sadly...

          That'll never happen.

          Notice in your previous post every one of your suggested pieces of legislation involves spending more money.

          That's the shit that keeps getting us into trouble politically.

          by Steve4Clark on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 06:56:14 AM PDT

      •  You are so right

        While I understand Cook's logic on this issue, I think he is missing a big point.  With majories in either the House or Senate, we will be able to propose legislation that shows our values, i.e. minimum wage hike, benefits for the poor, better healthcare, environment protection, etc.  We won't just be sitting there complaining about the Rep's budget or energy plan.  So either Bush vetoes legislation that makes him look even worse (already at 39% while controlling whole govt) or he approves Dem legislation that actually helps our country.  

        by DemBrock on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 06:04:52 AM PDT

    •  We'll be blamed no matter what...

      Imagine Conyers and Waxman with subpoena power.

      Gotta have a majority.

      Gotta win.

      Carolyn Kay
      MakeThemAccountable.com

      by cmkay on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 04:04:42 AM PDT

  •  It's a simple issue

    We need the majority so that congress can begin doing it's job again of oversight.  We don't need to wield power so much as get a giant flood light to point at all the crap that's been going on the last few years.

    1. What happened to all that money in Iraq?
       
    2. What is the nature of the NSA program?
       
    3. Why didn't Bush and Cheney give sworn testimony about what happened on 9/11?
       
    4. What was done with the Iraq intelligence by the white house (i.e. part B of that investigation)?
       
    5. What is the real status of our military forces in Iraq?  What is really happening there?

    We've got a lot of questions that have been left unanswered for a very long time.  We don't need to "wield power" we just need to issue a lot of subpoenas.

    by sterno on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 12:25:56 AM PDT

    •  Procedural Question

      is there some way to take subpoena power and make it so that it is not exclusively controlled by one party?

      I think that beyond bipartisanship, lack of subpoena power is what is causing a lot of problems with the floodlights.

      Also it might provide political cover for Republicans who are voting in lockstep against stuff like this if the Dems can just subpoena stuff anyway.

      by Tamifah on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 01:14:04 AM PDT

      •  Yes actually

        As I understand it, the Intelligence committee has rules that permit a minority of members to subpoena witnesses if a given investigation is not progressing.  There are various rules and technicalities that govern how it can be used though so it requires some careful planning to do it right.
        

        by sterno on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 12:15:34 PM PDT

    •   Subpoenas

      Very true. evidence keeps adding up that imply acts of treason by this administration of an unheard of magnitude. We need to push hard to get the facts out beyond the ability of the corporate press and its handlers to supress.

      by Partisanpoet on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 06:03:00 AM PDT

•  I play Halo before

  practicing for the LSAT. I swear I do better this way.

  Doing riddles helps, too.

  by Desroko on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 11:31:15 PM PDT

  •  fuckin

    logic 'games'

    i'm partial to flying a penguin. or doom. either one really.

    by mbc on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 12:47:04 AM PDT

  •  I Think of Ann Coulter Naked

    So thinking about logic games will seem like a treat.

    by skidrow on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 11:10:56 AM PDT

•  Yeah, if we just stay in the minority forever...

  then no one can blame us for anything!  I'm sorry, but this is really a no brainer for me.  Not to mention, since it's impossible to forsee a wave before it materializes, there's a decent chance that the "best case scenario" isn't.  

  by Asak on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 11:31:32 PM PDT

  •  Yup, a brilliant strategy indeed.

    Hey, I'll do ya one better! Using this sort of logic, it'd be even better to just give up EVERY seat in the House and Senate! Then they REALLY couldn't blame the Dems for anything that goes wrong!

    Brilliant! Simply brilliant!

    Gah.

    by Brainwrap on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 12:39:29 AM PDT

    •  Indeed

      Instead of "Crashing the Gates" why don't we call it "Barring the Gates" to any good candidates and make sure the usual losers, like Steve Elmendorf and Bob Shrum, run any campaign where we have half a chance.  Perhaps Markos should volunteer to be Rahm Emmanuel's little butt boy too?

      Oh, wait a minute, he already is.

      It was fun while it lasted folks but Markos has been co-opted by the losing-is-winning crowd in DC.  

      Can someone please set up a new Kos-like site for those of us who want to win?

      by SoLeft on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 02:12:36 AM PDT

      •  Kneejerk

        You might want to reread what Kos said above.  

        by Otis29 on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 06:12:20 AM PDT

        •  Markos has been co-opted

          Kos extensively quotes a pro-defeatist Democratic loser who spells out in all its gory detail how victory in November will actually mean that we will be eviscerated by the American people for being....wait...that's right....obstructionist!  

          Here's a little clue, any Democrat who warns us about trying too hard because it might mean we will end up being labeled obstructionist is a TOTAL FUCKING LOSER.

          How does neo-defeatist Markos respond?  Does he reject this pro-defeat crybabying out of hand? Well no, we find out that he's been worrying about this very thing for some time.

          Face it, Kos is already framing a potential defeat in the coming elections as a tactical victory, thus ensuring Demo-loser concultants  like Steve Elmendorf and Bob Shrum will be able to ply their defeatist wares in 2008, because after all, by losing we are really winning!!!

          This much is clear, Markos has been co-opted by the defeatists and is now unquestionably pro-defeat.
          

          by SoLeft on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 07:30:59 AM PDT

          •  Now you're catching on.

            n/t

            by BSJinx on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 08:29:10 AM PDT

          •  Ah, I see

            It is "clear" because you say it is "clear".  Gotcha.

            I don't necessarily agree with the argument that it would behoove us not to win in November, but I do see why consideration of the benefits would be made. How that makes someone a defeatist I'm not sure.  

            I would think that Markos has an idea of the benefits to either winning or losing in November.  Looks like we can't say the same for the "non-defeatists".

            by Otis29 on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 12:01:43 PM PDT

            •  Markos tried to redefine defeat as victory

              First of all, I define victory as taking back the two houses of Congress.  In fact, with good candidates, a fired-up base, and strategic leaders with a burning desire for victory, this should not be all that hard to achieve considering the horrific job the Republicans are doing as well as the fact that we have an inverted yield curve on interest rates which means a recession is likely soon.  

              Did you notice the weak link in the above paragraph?

              Yes, I know you did, it's the part about the strategic leaders with a burning desire for victory.  

              Like it or not, Markos is now one of those strategic leaders, along with Bob Shrum, Steve Elmendorf, Rahm Emanual and others.  So what is he doing?  Organizing, fundraising, cheerleading?  No, he's repeating Republican narratives about Democrats being "obstructionists' and throwing up a trial balloon about how he has been thinking long and hard about whether taking back both houses might actually be a defeat, and that losing by a slim margin might actually be a victory.  It's kind of difficult to rally the troops with that kind of logic, huh?

              I'm sorry but Markos has internalized all the defeatist tendencies of the Democratic elite he was recently invited to become part of.  What's sad is that he didn't even seem to put up much of a fight.  Are those people really that impressive to hang around with?
              

              by SoLeft on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 03:11:34 PM PDT

•  Sean Maloney is looking for a blogmaster

  I wanted to pass this along from here:

  Part-Time Web/Database Position Available Immediately

  The Friends of Sean Patrick Maloney campaign is seeking qualified applicants for the position of Web/Database Associate.

  General responsibilities will include:

  Consistent maintenance and updates to website

  Hosting campaign blog and other online community forums

  Data entry and maintaining of campaign database

  Maintaining an office filing system

  Assisting with general tasks around the office and at fundraising events

  Minimum Qualifications/Requirements:

  The ideal candidate will be highly motivated, goal oriented, and creative.

  Two Years experience with webpage design and editing.  Campaign experience is a plus.

  Digital video editing experience.

  Experience with NGP Software a major plus, but candidates that are familiar with any computer database program (i.e. Excel, Access, Lotus) are encouraged to apply.

  Preferably pursuing a degree in computer science, engineering, or political science.

  Two letters of recommendation and a writing sample are required.

  A stipends will be considered, and additionally college credit may be available depending on school policy. Immediate availability is best, but all qualified applicants will be considered.

  Please send cover letter and resume to Peter Yacobellis at [e-mail] or mail to 322 W. 11th Street, New York, NY 10014. Put "Webmaster" in the subject line or on the envelope.

  Sean Patrick Maloney is a candidate for New York State Attorney General in 2006. Sean is an attorney at Willkie Farr & Gallagher, one of the country.s premier law firms, where he represents corporate as well as pro bono clients, including the family of Matthew Shepard, the victim of one of the nation's most infamous hate crimes. From 1997-2000, Sean served as a senior West Wing advisor to President Clinton, where he became
  the youngest person ever to serve as the president's staff secretary, a post previously held by Clinton chief of staff John Podesta. Sean was also the highest-ranking openly gay man ever to serve on the White House staff. Sean and his partner of 12 years Randy Florke live in New York City and have adopted three children together.
  Visit www.seanmaloney.com for more information

  by Blue387 on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 11:32:20 PM PDT

  •  *snark*

    I hear Bob Brigham is really good.

    by Tamifah on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 11:33:13 PM PDT

    •  now THAT is funny!

      Bob Brigham, the Typhoid Mary of Political Communication^TM.

      by em dash on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 12:29:54 AM PDT

  •  Sean Maloney for Attorney General

    Sean Patrick Maloney. For New York State Attorney General.

    

    

    

    Sean Patrick Maloney. For Attorney General.
    

    by Blue387 on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 12:46:56 AM PDT

•  Majority

  Majority is better.  Impeachment hearings are the only thing that will slow down this freight train to national oblivion that we currently are riding.

  Were the Democrats in the 1970s "obstructionist" or heroes for forcing Nixon to resign or face conviction?

  I think we're at a similar stage.

  by Ernest T Bass on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 11:32:42 PM PDT

•  Casting Call

  still on for tomorrow? Location? Just sent an email but thought I'd ask here as well.

  by kimo on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 11:33:09 PM PDT

  •  Yes

    The people you emailed will have instructions.

    by kos on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 11:34:41 PM PDT

    •  Thanks

      See you tomorrow.

      by kimo on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 11:36:34 PM PDT

    •  And remember this post will self-destruct

      in 10 seconds

      It's showtime!

      by Thor Heyerdahl on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 12:41:48 AM PDT

      •  Silly me - I get the context now

        and here I was being a smartass with Peter Graves' analogies

        by Thor Heyerdahl on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 01:06:30 AM PDT

•  Anyone see

  John Faso's live campaign announcement last night. He seemed stiff and dull.

  by Blue387 on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 11:33:55 PM PDT

•  Senate Seeker

  is looking for new Democratic members. Senate Seeker is an online game where you can be a congressperson, senator, even president! Propose legislation, debate other members, run and win elections! Click here!

  by Blue387 on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 11:35:39 PM PDT

  •  haha cool

    i'm running for senate in TN now. 3 dems and 1 republican (incumbent)

    by FleetAdmiralJ on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 12:05:17 AM PDT

    •  Hello, fellow traveller

      I am Congressman Tom Livingston (D-New York). Please vote against all blank bills to send a symbolic message against the admins who are interrupting and screwing with the game.

      by Blue387 on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 12:38:30 AM PDT

•  Re: those checks

  Ever heard of Direct Deposit? Saves time, no paper trail.

  by hhex65 on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 11:37:05 PM PDT

•  Subpoena power is EVERYTHING

  To paraphrase Woody Allen: when the American people find out what's been going on in their name for the last 5 years, they'll never stop throwing up.

  by Jim in Chicago on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 11:37:16 PM PDT

•  Remember Jeffords?!?

  51-49 is all you need (If the damn democrats would stay in line just half as well as the republicans do).
  Anyone who is STILL spouting off about how a slim majority doesn't mean anything- after the last few years of one or two vote margins in the House- is spouting a favorite republican talking point.
  

  by rovinrail on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 11:42:40 PM PDT

  •  Plus,

    if we have even a 1 vote majority, we can keep them from holding votes open indefinitely.
    

    by bartman on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 11:44:43 PM PDT

  •  Out of curiousity

    Are you counting Lieberman in your 51?

    If so, then we'd really only have 50.

    by Steve4Clark on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 06:58:06 AM PDT

•  Those of us who play video games

  have "less aged" brains because we're not cool enough to get involved in drinking and drugs.....
  

  by bartman on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 11:43:56 PM PDT

•  BTW Kos,

  Where do I sign up for the daily checks from the DLC?

  :P
  

  by bartman on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 11:46:04 PM PDT

•  Leaders don't worry about where the blame lies

  If the Dems want to lead, you can't worry about the blame bullshit. Just lead and let the chips fall where they may.

  Hell, the party would probably garner more respect from the independents if they just stood up in that case and declared that they're the majority, their job to lead, and their responsibility to get it done and start kicking some Dem-in-name-only asses like Lieberman.

  Don't whine about it. Get it done, even if you have only one vote. If Bush wants to veto everything for 2 years, tell the people that he's the problem and you'd be happy to impeach his ass to get things on track again.

  by johnsonwax on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 11:46:21 PM PDT

•  Whittington now has had a heart attack.

  See here:

  CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas (CNN) -- The fellow hunter who was shot and wounded by Vice President Dick Cheney has suffered a minor heart attack after a piece of birdshot migrated to his heart, a hospital spokesman said Tuesday.

  by artifex on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 11:47:57 PM PDT

•  Free beer?

  How?  Where?  As a graduate student, I demand answers.

  Sarah

  by Sarah R Carter on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 11:48:35 PM PDT

  •  Olde Frothingslosh

    The new old pale stale ale with the foam on the bottom!

    

    It's your father's beer any more. It's not free, but close enough.

    by Gooserock on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 12:08:23 AM PDT

  •  Cheney is SO there, duuude...

    And he'll bring his own blunderbuss! (BYOB?)

    I got tired of trying to find photos of Cheney drinking, so I fotoshopped my own.

    

    by Swampfoot on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 12:26:36 AM PDT

•  Take the thin majority

  have government financed elections, no registered lobbyist can become a congresscritter for 4 years and vice versa. Keep both houses'  and both parties' hands out of the Federal cookie jar.

  Forget about impeachment until the off off year 2007 elections. Focus on maybe three investications(1)spying, warrentless wiretapping/nameless writs of assistance(datamining)/national security/plamegate, 2)torture/unitary president/signing statements, and 3)money laundering thru non profits), and wait to investigate other things until later. A short agenda, but powerful. President Polk had 4 objectives when he came to office, accomplished them, and left. Underrated, but someone to learn a lesson from.

  by sailmaker on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 11:51:46 PM PDT

•  Helen Thomas Podcast

  from the SFChron

  (aka SFGATE)

  by jillian on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 11:52:59 PM PDT

•  "Crashing the Gate" is a beer ticket?

  Is that like a Wonka golden ticket?
  So seven lucky book buyers will find a golden frontspiece and win a tour of the kossacks factory?  
  Cool!
  Seriously... look forward to reading it and passing it on to a 13-year old precocious pal.  She too is looking forward to dumping the GOPjority and aiding the cause by finding a page spot in the WA statehouse.
  She's like a little Pelosi and Bill Clinton rolled into one Girl Scout-sized package...  formidable...  She may be the first woman to ascend to the US prez, and do it while Condi is still rotting in war criminals' prison.

  As to other threads, I highly recommend "San Francisco" (MGM 1936).  Nice pace, rich-ish characterizations, and fun (even if I had to fast forward through most of Jeanette's songs).  There's even a political contest subplot to keep it real.

  Valentine's day is 6 minutes from closing.  Viva la doctora roja!

  by yojimbo on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 11:53:39 PM PDT

•  I once was a Pong hotshot.

  No fr%$^$ing wonder!

  And I played video games even before.

  I am still waiting for Kos's book to be delivered.

  I think this one is very useful right now since we are in a dogfight with the Repugs.

  by Shockwave on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 11:55:18 PM PDT

  •  There were no video games before PONG.

    !

    by jalepeno on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 12:06:29 AM PDT

    •  There Must Have Been, When President

      Washington was wiretapping British spies during the Revolutionary War.

      by Gooserock on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 12:10:30 AM PDT

      •  technically it wasn't wiretapping

        but "string tapping" between two tin cans.

        by jalepeno on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 12:13:33 AM PDT

    •  Pong was the first popular game.

      But they'd been around for about a deacde by the time it came out.

      by Desroko on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 12:23:45 AM PDT

      •  no offense, but you are incorrect

        You might be thinking of Atari.

        I do remember the very first video game ever. It was an arcade game in the truest definition.

        http://www.pong-story.com/...

        by jalepeno on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 12:51:46 AM PDT

        •  Actually, I'm quite correct.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/...

          by Desroko on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 01:53:22 AM PDT

          •  Reading more,

            it turns out that the first electronic tennis game was created all the way back in 1958, and that there were simple electronic games in existence as early as 1947.

            by Desroko on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 02:11:33 AM PDT

•  WaPo editorial on Cheney

  David Ignatius: An Arrogance of Power

  Cheney's shooting of a fellow hunter and, most revealingly, not immediately informing the WH or the press, has become a defining moment of this regime.

  CNN has a behind the scenes article that gives an insight to the media's access, and how situations like this are normally dealt with as opposed to how it came about this time.

  Both are very interesting angles on the actions of a vice president who cares little for how he's perceived, by anyone.

  by PatsBard on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 11:56:13 PM PDT

  •  I can't resist...

    "ALWAYS BRING DOCTORS SO YOU DON'T GET CHARGED WITH MURDER: Sure it's awesome to shoot stuff, but on the off-chance you "accidentally" hit a "friend" in the face after guzzling some hipflask whiskey, you don't want land in jail and get your enormous dimpled heiny drilled by white-collar criminal Yalies named Chad for three to five years. So make sure at least two or three top-notch cardiovascular surgeons are with you - AT ALL TIMES! "

    http://www.dickcheneygunclub.com/

    by comrade on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 12:14:40 AM PDT

  •  In the sports pages

    Let me suggest that this story is bigger when you have headlines like this in THE SPORTS PAGES
    Hunters don't see Cheney as blameless

    This was a story by a KC Star writer in the sports section.

    And, here are the first two paragraphs.  

    The official line out of the White House is that Vice President Dick Cheney wasn't to blame for accidentally shooting a hunting partner during a quail hunt over the weekend.

    But Kansas City-area quail hunters aren't buying it.

    Notice: it is not KC-area angry liberal Democrats who are not buying the Cheney story.  

    Does the sports page of the paper you read have stories like this one?
    

    by MoDem on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 05:42:15 AM PDT

•  This may not mean much

  but, I've seen a drastic change in the way the media is covering (or covering up for) the administration from my perch here in the great white north.

  Watching cbc,bbc,cnn,fox over that last 6 months has made me firmly believe that a capital D beside the name on the ballot will be worth as much as name recognition.

  Even another Rovian war won't stop the tide from turning Imo

  Fool me once... can't get fooled again.
  

  by AnonymousArmy on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 11:56:17 PM PDT

•  A majority is a majority!

  How many bills have the Republicans passed by just a couple of votes? It seems as though I'm always reading items like "216 to 214", or "51 to 50 with Dick Cheney casting the tie-breaker."

  If we keep the caucus together, the slimmest of majorities can be a powerhouse.

  Also, with a majority you gain control of the Committees, which means you control what goes to the floor.
  Ultra-right judges? Never make it for a vote.
  Outrageous tax cuts for the rich? Forget about it!
  Manipulation of post-war intelligence? Time to investigate!

   

  by paulrobeson on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 11:57:47 PM PDT

•  What?

  Is it better to stay in the minority?

  Hell no.

  If we've learned nothing else, we've learned that a lot of power comes directly from setting the agenda.
  

  by nitpicker on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 11:58:20 PM PDT

•  The power dilemma

  Thus, is it better to stay barely in the minority (where only a few GOP defections would stymie the GOP agenda), or barely in the majority, where they would share the blame for gridlock and be accused of "obstructionism" and blamed for every ill generated by this misbegotten administration?

  Don't live in fear of Republican talkings points. A majority is clearly the better situation for the Dems. to be in. If they are afraid of being called obstructionists from their opposition then they haven't got their values properly aligned. Just consider what would be 'obstructed'...bills like the ones we've seen passed recently like CAFTA, the Bankruptcy bill, the pork-laden Transportation bill, the Energy bill, the Prescription Drug Act, etc. etc. In all of these instances, obstruction was warranted.

  The way to combat the 'obstructionist' talking point is to aptly communicate one's reasons for doing so. I'm sure that the majority of Americans will agree that stopping bills that shaft the regular citizen in favor of benefitting corporations is a good thing. It's principle, not obstructionism-for-obstructionism's sake. If that can be communicated, Americans will respect that.

  Factor in subpoena power and a lot could happen very quickly to restore faith in our government. That would not only be welcome by Democrats but by large, increasingly discontent Independents as well.

  As for the chances of majority's happening in '06. Who knows? No one expected the 1994 results, not even close. I doubt it will be as unexpected as 1994 but it could very well bring about substantial shifts.

  by jorndorff on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 12:00:55 AM PDT

•  Video Games vs Brain Aging

  First, they're not studying naive people they introduced to video gaming. So the video gaming could be selecting bright, multitasking people rather than instilling any abilities.

  About that aging thing--I see they're linking it to multitasking. Here's something you don't see every day:

  I recall seeing a study of professional orchestral musicians' finger dexterity. They were in a class by  themselves until they were asked to move 2 or more fingers in different ways at the same time. Then they became indistinguishable from the average person on the street. Amateur bagpipers however beat the kilts off many or most professional classical musicians at complex combinations of finger movements. They use a multitasking fingering system that's rarely mastered much later than the teen years. But if learned in time, it can be maintained well into old age.

  Certain of the brain's multitasking ability deteriorates significantly in the late teens and early 20's. Especially learning multitasking activities. 14-19 year olds are almost a different species from the rest of us in that way. This could explain the widespread experience in instrumental music that, on many instruments, real virtuosity must be established young.

  From what I've seen of video games I'm very skeptical that they improve "brain" function as opposed to narrowly specific brain function.

  Still, I think this whole area of multitasking is underappreciated. If here in my 50's I had my choice of magic pills to take for memory, general intelligence, speed of thought or teenage-level multitasking enhancement, I'd take the multitasking in a heartbeat.

  by Gooserock on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 12:05:13 AM PDT

  •  It's a brave new world

    this younger generation will be creating. I'm not sure if multitasking or hand-eye coordination will be a skill in demand if folks have to struggle against the fury of mother nature.

    by jalepeno on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 12:11:30 AM PDT

  •  Not only that, but

    I suspect that there might be just a little bit of selection bias involved.

    If the students involved were from UofT or York, I wouldn't be surprised that you'd find a lot of bright and bilingual students.

    Now, if we were talking about Ryerson, that'd be a different ballgame... :)
    

    by yann on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 08:28:19 AM PDT

•  Charlie Cook needs to pay attention.

  Democrats are already blamed for everything the administration, judiciary, or congress does or doesn't do.

  I'd run on obstructionism in '08 if we're in the majority, because that would be the whole freakin' reason the Democrats would win the majority in '06 to begin with.

  The Republican Agenda (brace yourselves, because I know it's been awhile since this has happened) would NOT be debated in Congress.  Admittedly, neither Democrats nor Republicans would accomplish much of anything, although I hope a Dem-controlled congress would actually start undoing what's been done.  

  Since there hasn't been a step in the right direction for a long time, maybe stopping for awhile and looking at the map would be best for the country.

  by gavodotcom on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 12:05:25 AM PDT

•  DLC sell out

  Is that the secret of my success? Nah, it probably has to do with me selling out to the DLC. The checks they send me every day make it all worthwhile.

  If kos sold out to the DLC, we'd here a lot more about how electable the moderate stances of Hillary Clinton were. Also, I wouldn't put it past him (the fictional DLC sell-out kos) to rig the straw polls to have her support rise over the next few months, hitting 60% around Nov 2007.

  Lastly, sell-out-kos would endorse long time senator from Conneticut, Joe Lieberman, as exactly the sort of principled effective democrat we should have more of.

  by bolson on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 12:13:37 AM PDT

  •  Really?

    "If kos sold out to the DLC, we'd here a lot more about how electable the moderate stances of Hillary Clinton were."

    I'd be surprised.

    by TheOkie on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 08:10:41 PM PDT

•  Kos Writes....

  ..."barely in the minority (where only a few GOP defections would stymie the GOP agenda), or barely in the majority"

  ...Given the choice I'll take the majority, the chairmanships, the supeona power, and the impeachment...Thank you very much.

  by Blue Shark on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 12:15:18 AM PDT

•  Perhaps the stupidest thing I've ever read here

  Just ahead of the "Let Roe die and the progressives win!" crap so often spewed by some idiot dems:

  Charlie Cook notes that under best circumstances, the best Dems could probably snag in November would be really thin majorities. Enough for subpoena power, but not enough to wield real power. Thus, is it better to stay barely in the minority (where only a few GOP defections would stymie the GOP agenda), or barely in the majority, where they would share the blame for gridlock and be accused of "obstructionism" and blamed for every ill generated by this misbegotten administration?

  Losing is better than winning, up is down, black is white, etc. This sort of bullshit reasoning explains why the Democratic Party is so adept at losing. It expalins all the backstabbing and self-sabotage that passes for Democratic strategy these days. Are any of our so-called leaders even trying? If any of them actually believes shit like this then they all deserve to lose their seats in November. That way they won't have to worry about staying a permanent minority party at all. Wanker bullshit.

  I don't know whether to throw up my hands or just throw up.

  by Xeno of Elia on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 12:16:21 AM PDT

•  being in the minority DOES have its benefits

  I believe that it WOULD be a benefit to be in the majority.

  But look at all the horrific things we can blame on the Republicans now that we would have had to share blame for had Kerry been elected. Certainly many of the things that have happened might have changed had Kerry been elected, but there are LOTS of things that are simply outcomes of the first 4 years of the Bush Administration, and the past 10 years of (mostly) Republican control of Congress.

  I'm glad that if we could NOT have a Democrat win in 2004, at least we get to lay the blame for the previous years of problems with inadequate solutions ALL upon Bush's shoulders.

  Overall, our country is much worse off because Bush won, and worse off because the Republicans have controlled Congress, but we need to take advantage of what we CAN take advantage of - let's make sure we give them full CREDIT where credit is due!

  by slouise217 on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 12:20:37 AM PDT

•  Hartford Courant Reports Missing DHS VTC

  WASHINGTON -- The Department of Homeland Security has not been able to find any recording of a crucial conference call five hours after Hurricane Katrina made landfall - though it has transcripts of other key discussions recorded in the days before and after the storm struck.

  Senate investigators want to know who conferred and what they said on a 40-minute call that began at noon Aug. 29, as levees were being breached in New Orleans and government relief efforts were overwhelmed by the enormity of the storm.

  The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee wants the transcript for its investigation of why the response was bungled. The public phase of that probe is scheduled to end today with the appearance of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, who in recent days has become the critics' favorite target.

  Excerpt from this article.

  http://www.courant.com/...

  If this is true, and I find only one news item on this from the Hartford Courant, this is just a "heckuva" lot more than the missing 18 minutes.
  

  by Southern Mouth on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 12:27:00 AM PDT

•  Billmon Cartoon

  There's a great cartoon up over at Billmon's Whiskey Bar:
  http://billmon.org/

  by lalo456987 on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 12:30:27 AM PDT

•  No-brainer

  Getting a majority would be well worth it. I don't have major confidence that the Dems would do enough with it; they fluffed some real opportunities after the Jeffords switch (for instance, one of my many problems with Lieberman was his utter, deliberate and corrupt failure to press the Enron question when he had committee power to keep that on the front page every day). In general, the time between Jeffords and 9/11 was largely wasted on accommodation of Bush, mostly because the Dems didn't yet understand that his word wasn't worth a damn.

  But control of the legislative calendar and, most particularly, the conference committees would in and of themselves be worth it. The disgraceful conference procedures of the past several years alone would be worth having back in Democratic hands. Control of the Judiciary Committee would help curb one of Bush's two worst long-term effects on American political life (I'm not sure yet whether Dem control could stem the other, the full-scale looting of the treasury). And, played right, a resistant Congress could shape the election agendas at a time when the Repubs aren't that deep after McCain. I understand Markos's tactical and strategic vacillation over this question, but to me, it's an easy call.

  by Commonwealth on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 12:38:22 AM PDT

•  P.S.

  No impeachment, please. It's richly deserved (as is prosecution for international war crimes). But it would be a gift to the Republican base and the pundit idiots. Rather, let's just let them twist in the political winds, which are not blowing in their favor.

  by Commonwealth on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 12:41:03 AM PDT

•  IF Dems Lose in '06, we can save

  ourselves for the really big important fights after '08.

  now, all we need is for The Party to:

  chase away great candidates,
  NOT fillibuster anything,
  blame Rove et al for being mean,
  blame Rove et al for being liars,
  treat regular people like ATMs,
  run lame TV commercials,
  have no 24*7*365 message cuz we don't do message,
  throw together the great "grassroots" thing at the last minute - like August '06,
  not scare the middle so we lose,

  ...

  rmm.

  by rmdSeaBos on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 12:44:48 AM PDT

•  As God is my witness, Kos,

  Charlie Cook is currently fucked in the head, and will be singing a vastly different tune come late August.

  From where I see things, on the ground in a red zone in a purple state (check the area code in my nic), we may be looking at as much as a 40-seat swing in the House this year. And from what I hear from resolute independents in various states...

  Well, I'll just use Arizona as an example. Kyl's in more trouble than anyone outside of the state knows right now. The Arizona Republic -- only marginally to the left of the Manchester Union-Leader -- has been sending out subtle 'throw him to the wolves' signals for a while, and voters on the ground are receptive. And it's not even really election season as far as they're concerned.

  In terms of the 'tier' of candidate... well seriously, now, in '94 did anyone consider George Nethercutt to be anything above a 3rd-tier candidate in opposition to Tom Foley? Seriously?

  The mood in the heartland is ugly. People are pissed. The party in power will pay.

  And frankly, a majority in the Legislative branch is always to be preferred over a minority. Always. Generally speaking (and national elections are always conducted on general terms), people will hold the Executive's party responsible regardless.

  by wilco920 on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 12:46:24 AM PDT

•  Hey, kos?

  Will there be a casting call in the NYC area? What about Philadelphia? Where will this commercial air?
  

  by Blue387 on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 12:48:23 AM PDT

•  Cook's Wrong

  I like Charlie Cook. I've heard him speak.  He's smart and able.  But he's wrong on this.  There is no Congressional check of any kind on this White House.  No oversight hearings on military procurement.  On domestic spying.  On lack of armor for military.  On progress on the war.  On the budget debacle.   On Abu Ghraib.  On lying our way into war.  On fraudulent prescription drug coverage.  On Katrina.  The list is endless.

  Having a majority in at least one house opens up Congressional investigations.  Look at the way the Republicans tied up Clinton the minute Gingrich got his hands on the levers of power in the House.

  So, I'm all for the simplest of majorities in either the House or Senate, or both.  On the other hand, if that doesn't pan out, I'll try to console myself with Cook's view.

  by blaneyboy on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 12:58:33 AM PDT

•  I'll take a beer......

  with my new special edition book.....
  are you coming to Colorado??
  When/where?

  by Akapl on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 01:00:56 AM PDT

•  Take the slim majority

  Being in a slim majority won't be easy.  Mostly because of people like Sen. Lieberman, who should be a Republican.  Also, we may have problems with people like Sen. Clinton if they try the standard DLC MO and triangulate themselves between the rest of the Dems and the President.  

  However, it is better to show the voters what we can do then just talk about it.  Even a slim majority will be able to block Bush's radical agenda, hold the Administration accountable and propose positive legislation.

  Won't it be fun to watch the President have to answer actual questions.  Just think of what the AG's testimony last week would have looked like if Dems controlled the Senate.  

  by David Moore on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 01:04:58 AM PDT

•  LMAO link, go ahead

  Check out this link to freeper land, Clinton style.  The horrible, evil clinton and the FISA courts.  I really like the comment, " any chance of bush rolling this back?"
  http://www.freerepublic.com/...
  Hey, I did my first paste on a blog...lol..

  by akskye on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 01:55:33 AM PDT

•  MAJORITY PLEASE.

  by realheathen on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 02:09:26 AM PDT

•  asdf

  I am in 40's and I have been playing video games since Pong came out! And I still play video games..  I am glad my brain is not aged   Haha!

  by Boult on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 02:24:37 AM PDT

•  Majority is *always* better

  . Thus, is it better to stay barely in the minority (where only a few GOP defections would stymie the GOP agenda), or barely in the majority, where they would share the blame for gridlock and be accused of "obstructionism" and blamed for every ill generated by this misbegotten administration?

  Slim majority is better without a doubt.  Even with a majority of one in the house, we would control all the committees, write all the legislation, control the legislative schedule and have a seat on the conference committees.  

  They were able to do a lot of damage even with a majority of five.

  by JayR on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 03:00:17 AM PDT

  •  Not to mention...

    As soon as we retake the house, there will be a ton of retirements by people who are suddenly frustrated by being in the minority, which means a ton of open seats to pick off in 2008.

    by JayR on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 03:02:26 AM PDT

•  Need some help

  Need recommendations and links to directories of lefty blogs that have a good breakdown by focus, ie., environmental, science, law, plameologists, voting reform, etc.  

  I know that I've seen a couple good ones in the past but now that I want to recommend to someone else, I can't find them anywhere.

  Thanks in advance.
  
  

  by dwahzon on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 04:10:43 AM PDT

•  If it takes up to 24 hours

  for the VP to report a shooting, then wouldn't the pre-emptive question be: Has Dick Cheney shot anyone in the past few hours? /snark
  
  

  by carneasadaburrito on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 04:27:49 AM PDT

•  Another Link Too Important to...

  ...leave out, but too short to diary.

  Sadly, when these are posted to open threads (our only option, at present), they wind up getting flushed down the iLoo.

  Here is a good story on privacy and anonymity.

  by Heronymous Cowherd on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 04:42:37 AM PDT

•  I want a majority.

  Why?

  So I can investigate every goddamn thing these bastards have done to my country over the past 6 years.

  by Basil on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 04:50:05 AM PDT

•  Just to throw my own view on the Cook article

  out there: a majority is a majority, a minority is a minority.

  The Dems will have more clout as a majority and more clout is what they need to derail Shrub's agenda.

  Besides, this isn't like 2002 when Chimpy was exremely popular, riding the 9/11 wave. If the Dems do indeed get a majority in congress, his low popularity will be a big part of the reason for that. Therefore, why not be "obstructionists" if given the oppurtunity? Won't that be why they've been given the majority anyway?

  by Erik the Red on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 04:52:07 AM PDT

•  Cook should know Republicans are ALWAYS the victim

  It doesn't matter if Dems are slight minority or slight majority, the Republicans are always selling the message that they are the victims. So why  not have the majority if your going to be getting blamed for gridlock anyway? The ability to investigate and do meaningful oversight will be worth it.

  We've seen what "party over country" thinking has done to the Republicans. We don't want to start thinking that way. It is our duty to the country to stop the facism taking hold right now. If we don't do it in Congress in 2006, we may have to do it in the streets by 2008.

  by ineedalife on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 04:57:30 AM PDT

•  OHHHHHH!

  How about this.

  Fitzgerald is about to pounce on Cheney, and instead of letting that become his downfall, he shoots someone in their face and claims that he is unhealthy afterwards and has to resign. He then gets pardoned for killing the dude (of course he will die) and still contiunes tp pull the strings with the new VP (I mean prez)...Bill Frist.

  by zleeper on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 05:02:29 AM PDT

•  A Lesson in Old-Fashioned Politics

  http://www.capitolhillblue.com/...

  by SignalSuzie on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 05:18:21 AM PDT

•  Kos

  Would you be able to remove Donna Brazille's name from your webpage.

  Please don't hold her up as someone to emulate or someone who knows.  

  by fightorleave on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 05:18:59 AM PDT

•  Cheney

  The article ends with

  "We have a history replete with evidence to the contrary," she said. "Every time we've had predictions of monumental liability, it never occurred."

  I really do hate these sumg fuckers.

  by MattyDubs on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 05:29:49 AM PDT

  •  oops

    *smug

    by MattyDubs on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 05:31:03 AM PDT

•  Majority, majority, majority

  Wear obstruction as a badge of honor.  If we offer concrete, salable solutions to our problems -- if we devise a coherent platform and run aggressively on it -- then we have the mandate for reform, and the Republicans are obstuctionists.  It's what Gingrich did in 1994.  Then in 2008, when we haven't gotten everything done we wanted to, it's because we need to retake the Presidency.  Majority, however thin, means momentum; it means ascendancy.

  One other reason we need a majority, and I think this trumps all others: Justice John Paul Stevens.

  by mspicata on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 05:40:57 AM PDT

•  DC Olympic Team TV Coverage

  Hey, if you like last place Olympic finishers... what about the teams that didn't get there at all?   ;)

  Happy to report that the DC Olympic Curling Team is now getting TV coverage.  

  I'll diary more about this later, but for now... check out the video at the site...

  

  And thanks much to all the great folks who've been spreading the word!!!

  by Hlinko on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 05:50:47 AM PDT

•  What middle?

  Charlie Cook must be nuts.  Just nuts.  Democrats get blamed for everything by the republicans anyway.  We might as well put ourselves in position to at least slow down the train wreck.

  Just a few points on Charlie cook's delirium.  First, of course, the committee chairmen change.  Second, the power of the extreme right to dictate what can reach the floor ends.  Flat out ends.  Third, with a small majority, the Republ;icans have rammed through just about everything.  Everything.  Why continue that.  With 212 Democratic House seats after the 200 election, we got nothing.  The Republicans ran the place with the power moves Dems hadn't used since the 1964-66 era.  Why try it again?

  Finally, what lttle shreds exist of "moderate" republicans are going to be blown away if dems get even close to controlling the House or senate.  Look at the House.  Shays.  Gone.  Boehlert.  Gone (likely retired).  Simmons.  Gone.  The Progressive Punch scores drop from 42 in the House to 15 in a hurry.  We will be dealing with pretty right wing folks just to get 4 or 5 votes.  In the senate:  Chaffee.  Gone.  DeWine. Gone.  Specter.  Neutered.  What's left?  The Maine Ladies who incredibly manage to stay "moderate" without moderating anything?  Lindsay Graham?  Lindasay Graham!  You get the point.

  by kywddavid on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 06:24:30 AM PDT

•  Thick skins

  I hope Kos has developed a particularly thick skin.  Some of the stuff written here was inexcusably vicious.  Remember who provided this forum, pays the bills for it, and keeps it operating as smoothly as possible.  A bit of respect is due folks.

  by PAprogressive on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 06:36:49 AM PDT

•  Bare minority better than bare majority

  I think the Dems being 1-2 seats short would of a majority would FORCE "moderate" Republicans to vote with the GOP majority EVERYTIME. The white house would be forced to put a ton of pressure on them for every vote this would create major problems for the GOP going into 2008.  Having a DEM majority would mean the GOP would blame the DEMs for the deficit and spending 'out of control' in 2008 (yes it wouldn't be fair but they would do it). It would be better for 2008 to just be close in 2006 an dhave momentum. The GOP broke the house let them fix it!

  by dopper0189 on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 06:46:39 AM PDT

  •  Nope, not sold...

    I get your arguments and they have some merit, but as I've said earlier:

    A majority is a majority and a minority is a minority.

    by Erik the Red on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 07:31:29 AM PDT

•  Not really a dilemna

  I take it for granted that the subpoena power conferred by even a slim majority in one chamber, if wielded firmly, would quickly uncover enough wrong-doing to get the impeachment ball rolling.  Yes, conviction on impeachment would take 2/3 of the Senate, and it may well be unrealistic to think 2006 will give us 2/3 of the Senate, but I assume that enough powerful dirt is close enough to the surface that any Congressional oversight at all would quickly uncover enough to get even Republicans to a position where they have no choice but to vote to convict.  In this case, we should not shy away from having our Speaker assume the Presidency.  The other side can howl "power grab" all they want, and a good thing if the ineffectual howling comes from their side for a change.  If we use this take-over constructively, as in to accomplish real reform, I have no doubt that the voters would reward us handsomely in 2008.

  That the responsibility of being in power makes you hesitate even briefly about whether it is better to be in or out of power, tells me that the tendency you represent deserves to remain in the political wilderness another 40 years.  This country is in the middle of the worst mismanagement in its history, by the first truly national political machine we have ever seen, and you would forego the chance to get started immediately on the cleanup, because the problems created by the mismanagement are so great that you fear being tainted by them?  Then you don't deserve the trust of the electorate to be the one to do the cleanup, and they will never give you that trust.  Even in a democracy, perhaps especially in a democracy, power must be seized.  By constitutional means to be sure, but it still must be seized.

  by gtomkins on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 06:57:46 AM PDT

•  €€ asdf

  kos wrote: Charlie Cook notes that under best circumstances, the best Dems could probably snag in November would be really thin majorities. Enough for subpoena power, but not enough to wield real power. Thus, is it better to stay barely in the minority (where only a few GOP defections would stymie the GOP agenda), or barely in the majority, where they would share the blame for gridlock and be accused of "obstructionism" and blamed for every ill generated by this misbegotten administration?

  It's actually a question I've been pondering a long time, and have meant to blog if I ever figure out where I stand on the issue.

  I am very disappointed with your ambivalence. Demos should be naming committee chairmen, setting the legislative agenda, conducting investigations, and issuing subpeonas. It is not a close question.

  They could be doing minimum wage legislation, national healthcare, repealing republican rich man tax cuts, etc.

  by 2liberal on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 07:15:37 AM PDT

•  There's an old saying down here in Louisiana....

  and, I don't know, it might be everywhere else:

  A LITTLE BIT OF POWER IS BETTER THAN NONE AT ALL

  A majority of ONE seat is better than being shut out of everything.  As far as I'm concerned there's no doubt about this.

  Now, you could probably make a better argument that, in the current times, it would be better for us to have a stupid republican in the WH and democrats in control of congress, especially after W has fucked everything up.  Better that he have to clean it up with dems barking up his ass than have a dem in the WH and repubs running congress.  I don't think there's any doubt that controlling congress is most important at this time.

  by TheRover on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 07:28:10 AM PDT

•  Go For The Majority

  Charlie Cook is a bright guy and asks a good and interesting question.  However, after the last 6 years the answer is clearly the majority is better since we can control committee chairs, set the legislative agenda, hold the admin accountable, etc.  If we are afraid of taking part of the responsibility for governing then we shouldn't be a party.  Two years is an eternity in politics and waiting for the "right moment" to seize everything could result in another decade in the minority.  Who knows what