Monday, August 04, 2008

Edouard headed right at Houston

The Weekly Wrangle

We're making preparations for Edouard here -- a full tank of gasoline, some batteries and extra water -- but there's still time to read the Texas Progressive Alliance's Blog Round-up (for those who aren't in danger of losing their electricity) ...

Last week on Bluedaze , Big Oil threatened TXsharon. In "Big Oil" Threatens Harm to My "Lovelies" and Me she calls out the abuser and includes a new PR plan that will save Chesapeake Energy millions of dollars and help clean up Big Oil's act.

Mike Thomas of Rhetoric & Rhythm is critical of a campaign to knock off Blue Dog Democrats , even if it means electing Republicans, all in an effort to punish Democrats for failing to hew the line on certain progressive issues.

refinish69 from Doing My Part For The Left has always heard that What happens in Vegas, Stays in Vegas or does it for Pete Sessions?

Burnt Orange Report went on strike last week to raise $1000 for Chris Bell's State Senate campaign. 12 hours later, 15 donors raised $1,075 for Bell and the BOR team is back to blogging.

jobsanger opines about the lack of Democratic leadership from Speaker Nancy Pelosi in Pelosi: Where's The Leadership?, and lets us know the Nanny State is alive and well in The "Nanny State" Strikes Again.

The Texas Cloverleaf is on a strike for change! Help raise money for selected candidates. What do we want? Donations! When do we need them? Now!

Texas Liberal suggests that life is like a harbor where ships come and go.

Off the Kuff calculates how many eligible but unregistered voters there are in Harris County, and compares it to 2004.

Obama came to Houston but only for a few high-dollar fundraisers in River Oaks, a trend sadly that is repetitive of past Democratic presidential nominees. PDiddie at Brains and Eggs had the report, and the total take was $1.5 mill.

Mean Rachel gets a response from Rep. Elliott Naishtat to her modest proposal from last week, and at dinner discovers just how unwired the Yankee in the Texas House really is.

Over at TexasKaos, lightseeker makes the case for a Republican straight ticket ballot, and for the Democratic slate (with video)! It may be the only way to save the Republican party from its present delusional masters!

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme wonders which will come first -- the death of the Republican Party or a full blown police state. CBT, ever the optimist, predicts the former.

Vince at Capitol Annex notes that Railroad Commissioner Elizabeth Ames Jones is going to run for US Senate if and when Kay Bailey Hutchison vacates her seat to run for governor.

Aimlessness at WhosPlayin got one too many email forwards about "Why Men are Republicans", and decided to retort with "Why Men Prefer Democrats".

McBlogger takes a look at the ability of DHS to snoop on you. And you thought the FISA stuff was bad...

BossKitty at TruthHugger wonders "What is Adrenarche and Why Are America’s Services Sexually Immature?"

Sunday, August 03, 2008

Paris Hilton's mother (McCain maximum contributor) objects to ad

Bold is mine:

It is a complete waste of the money John McCain's contributors have donated to his campaign. It is a complete waste of the country's time and attention at the very moment when millions of people are losing their homes and their jobs. And it is a completely frivolous way to choose the next President of the United States.

Oh, there's also this:

Kathy Hilton and her husband donated a total of $4,600 to McCain's campaign earlier this year.

Do you think his campaign will stop the slime now? Nah, I didn't think so either.

Greenwald: Let's give the Blue Dogs the boot

A reminder to all the Republicans who relish the carping of the 9% Congress: they score that low because Democrats are pissed at them. Because Pelosi took impeachment off the table, because they continue to fund Bush's Wars, because they have cheerily joined in the evisceration of constitutional rights, because they refuse to do anything about Karl Rove's sneering contempt, and because too many of their members vote like Republicans. Not because they oppose offshore drilling or undocumented immigration or any of that other conservative bullshit ...

Perhaps most remarkable, some polls -- such as one from Fox News last month -- reveal that the Democratic-led Congress is actually more unpopular among Democrats than among Republicans, with 23 percent of Republicans approving of Congress compared with only 18 percent of Democrats. One would be hard-pressed to find a time in modern American history, if such a time exists at all, when a Congress was more unpopular among the party that controls it than among voters from the opposition party.

This week even Nick Lampson and Barack Obama announced that they would be open to drilling for oil in the nation's most fragile ecosystems, and they did so not to satisfy America's insatiable consumption but to appease the knee-jerk polls that suggest Americans want it.

Just in Texas, we have Lampson and Ciro Rodriguez and Chet Edwards (odiously mentioned again this morning by Pelosi on George Snufflelufagus' This Weak as vice-presidential material) and even Silvestre Reyes, the head of the House Intelligence committee, who barely managed a decent whine about the White House's restructuring of the nation's intelligence apparatus this past week. Of course there's all the Texas House representatives who keep electing Tom Craddick speaker, but even I'm tired of complaining about that.

(T)he only question worth asking among those who are so dissatisfied with congressional Democrats is this: What can be done to change this conduct? As proved by the 2006 midterm elections -- which the Democrats dominated in a historically lopsided manner -- mindlessly electing more Democrats to Congress will not improve anything. Such uncritical support for the party is actually likely to have the opposite effect. It's axiomatic that rewarding politicians -- which is what will happen if congressional Democrats end up with more seats and greater control after 2008 than they had after 2006 -- only ensures that they will continue the same behavior. If, after spending two years accommodating one extremist policy after the next favored by the right, congressional Democrats become further entrenched in their power by winning even more seats, what would one expect them to do other than conclude that this approach works and therefore continue to pursue it?

If simply voting for more Democrats will achieve nothing in the way of meaningful change, what, if anything, will? At minimum, two steps are required to begin to influence Democratic leaders to change course: 1) Impose a real political price that they must pay when they capitulate to -- or actively embrace -- the right's agenda and ignore the political values of their base, and 2) decrease the power and influence of the conservative "Blue Dog" contingent within the Democratic caucus, who have proved excessively willing to accommodate the excesses of the Bush administration, by selecting their members for defeat and removing them from office. And that means running progressive challengers against them in primaries, or targeting them with critical ads, even if doing so, in isolated cases, risks the loss of a Democratic seat in Congress.


I am pretty close to fed up with voting for Democrats who once elected vote like Republicans. And I appear to be far from alone in that regard. I likewise refuse to continue to enable this bad behavior by supporting them simply because of their label.

If they lose, I consider it to be their fault, not mine.